Wednesday, March 27, 2013
All Things Are Yours!
Let's see, today is Wednesday, (a day named after the Norse god 'Odin',) March, (a month named after the Roman god of war 'Mars',) 27th. And this Sunday, (a day named after the sun, an object of worship for many ancient pagans,) is Easter. Which is no more a celebration of Ishtar than today is a holy day for Odin or that tomorrow is a holy day for Thor. It is a fallacy to claim that the name itself renders Easter observances pagan. BTW, the Babylonian goddess Ishtar, the Syro-Phoenecian Astarte, the Canaanite goddess Athtart and god Athtar, and the Hebrew Ashtoreth all derive their names from an altogether different root than Easter. Also this is A.D. (Anno Domini, Year of Our LORD) 2013, which declares He owns and governs all things, including what meaning the days hold. Having a service on Easter morning that celebrates the resurrection is not pagan at all, for such paschal services were held all throughout Christian lands since the second century AD at least, and which have nothing at all to do with these pagan traditions.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Another Reason to Learn the Bible’s Overarching Story
It’s
a common scenario. Someone objects to the Bible’s teaching on a point
of ethics or morality (often homosexuality, promiscuity, or divorce), so
he cites a couple of Old Testament commandments and says something
like, “Well, the Bible also says not to wear a garment made of wool and
linen mixed together (Deuteronomy 22:11) and not to eat pork products or
shrimp
(Leviticus 11:7-12).” The implication is either that the person
upholding biblical standards of sexuality is a hypocrite because he’s
wearing a linen/wool blend sport coat and ate a hotdog for lunch, or
that the Bible’s commandments are inconsistent and therefore not
credible. And it’s not just a hypothetical scenario. A recent New York Times op-ed article
argued against a biblical position on homosexuality by suggesting that
the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally because it also says to “refrain
from planting multiple kinds of seed in one field” and not to charge
“interest to the poor.”
Such arguments seem convincing at first. But their problem is a failure to recognize the Bible’s overarching storyline. They assume that Scripture is largely a list of doctrines and rules. Since some of the rules seem outdated or impractical, the critics reason, all of them should be taken with a grain of salt. The problem with such reasoning is that the Bible isn’t merely a list of rules and doctrines. It’s a story about how God relates to the world He created. And with a little study it becomes obvious that God gives slightly different instructions to His people in different parts of the story.
In the Old Testament the Jews were God’s chosen people. He gave certain ritual and judicial laws to set them apart from the pagan, Gentile nations around them. The commands mentioned in the Times op-ed are perfect examples. Leviticus 19:19 told the Israelites not to sow a field with two different kinds of seed. The idea was to set Israelite fields apart from Gentile fields, marking the Jews as God’s set-apart people. Similarly, Deuteronomy 23:19-20 forbade Jews from charging interest on loans to their countrymen, particularly the poor, though they were free to charge interest on loans to foreigners. Again, the command was intended to set Israelites apart from all other nations as God’s chosen people—with whom He had made a covenant and on whom He had set His love. Similar explanations apply to the commandments not to mix wool and linen and to refrain from eating certain types of meat.
After the coming of Christ, however, there was no longer a spiritual divide between Jews and Gentiles. All who placed their faith in Jesus could become God’s people, regardless of their nationality (Ephesians 2:11-22). Accordingly, God abolished the ritual and judicial laws that set Jews apart from non-Jews (Acts 10:9-48; Hebrews 8:13-9:28)—laws like those about sowing seed and charging interest. At the same time, God kept in force moral standards that promote holiness and general well-being, as in the Sermon on the Mount and Paul’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. That’s why Christians are neither hypocritical nor inconsistent when, for example, they insist on keeping sex within monogamous, heterosexual marriage but do not keep Old Testament ceremonial laws.
When believers understand this storyline, they gain a powerful weapon in the battle to uphold biblical morality. Most importantly, of course, knowing the overarching story of Scripture helps us to know Christ and see a hint of the gospel in every passage. That alone is reason enough to study the narrative of Scripture. But in addition, knowledge of biblical theology makes us less vulnerable in those all-too-common circumstances when a critic begins, “Well, the Bible also says . . .”
Such arguments seem convincing at first. But their problem is a failure to recognize the Bible’s overarching storyline. They assume that Scripture is largely a list of doctrines and rules. Since some of the rules seem outdated or impractical, the critics reason, all of them should be taken with a grain of salt. The problem with such reasoning is that the Bible isn’t merely a list of rules and doctrines. It’s a story about how God relates to the world He created. And with a little study it becomes obvious that God gives slightly different instructions to His people in different parts of the story.
In the Old Testament the Jews were God’s chosen people. He gave certain ritual and judicial laws to set them apart from the pagan, Gentile nations around them. The commands mentioned in the Times op-ed are perfect examples. Leviticus 19:19 told the Israelites not to sow a field with two different kinds of seed. The idea was to set Israelite fields apart from Gentile fields, marking the Jews as God’s set-apart people. Similarly, Deuteronomy 23:19-20 forbade Jews from charging interest on loans to their countrymen, particularly the poor, though they were free to charge interest on loans to foreigners. Again, the command was intended to set Israelites apart from all other nations as God’s chosen people—with whom He had made a covenant and on whom He had set His love. Similar explanations apply to the commandments not to mix wool and linen and to refrain from eating certain types of meat.
After the coming of Christ, however, there was no longer a spiritual divide between Jews and Gentiles. All who placed their faith in Jesus could become God’s people, regardless of their nationality (Ephesians 2:11-22). Accordingly, God abolished the ritual and judicial laws that set Jews apart from non-Jews (Acts 10:9-48; Hebrews 8:13-9:28)—laws like those about sowing seed and charging interest. At the same time, God kept in force moral standards that promote holiness and general well-being, as in the Sermon on the Mount and Paul’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. That’s why Christians are neither hypocritical nor inconsistent when, for example, they insist on keeping sex within monogamous, heterosexual marriage but do not keep Old Testament ceremonial laws.
When believers understand this storyline, they gain a powerful weapon in the battle to uphold biblical morality. Most importantly, of course, knowing the overarching story of Scripture helps us to know Christ and see a hint of the gospel in every passage. That alone is reason enough to study the narrative of Scripture. But in addition, knowledge of biblical theology makes us less vulnerable in those all-too-common circumstances when a critic begins, “Well, the Bible also says . . .”
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Monday, March 11, 2013
5 Theses on Anti-Intellectualism
by Justin Taylor
1. Anti-Intellectualism is less about aptitude than attitude.
“Anti-intellectualism is a disposition to discount the importance of truth and the life of the mind.”
—Os Guinness
2. Anti-Intellectualism is a problem in the Western world.
“We live in what may be the most anti-intellectual period in the history of Western civilization.”
—R. C. Sproul
“. . . Americans are the best entertained and quite likely the least well-informed people in the Western world.”
—Neil Postman
3. Anti-Intellectualism is a problem within evangelicalism.
“I must be frank with you: the greatest danger confronting American evangelical Christianity is the danger of anti-intellectualism. The mind in its greatest and deepest reaches is not cared for enough.”
—Charles Malik
“The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.”
—Mark Noll
“. . . the Christian Mind has succumbed to the secular drift with a degree of weakness unmatched in Christian History.”
—Harry Blamires
“The contemporary Christian mind is starved, and as a result we have small, impoverished souls.”
—J. P. Moreland
“Our churches are filled with Christians who are idling in intellectual neutral. As Christians, their minds are going to waste. One result of this is an immature, superficial faith. People who simply ride the roller coaster of emotional experience are cheating themselves out of a deeper and richer Christian faith by neglecting the intellectual side of that faith.”
—William Lane Craig
4. Anti-Intellectualism is not virtuous.
“God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than of any other slackers.”
—C. S. Lewis
“Intellectual slothfulness is but a quack remedy for unbelief. . . .”
—J. Gresham Machen
“At root, evangelical anti-intellectualism is both a scandal and a sin. It is a scandal in the sense of being an offense and a stumbling block that needlessly hinders serious people from considering the Christian faith and coming to Christ. It is a sin because it is a refusal, contrary to Jesus’ two great commandments, to love the Lord our God with our minds. Anti-intellectualism is quite simply a sin. Evangelicals must address it as such, beyond all excuses, evasions, or rationalizations of false piety.”
—Os Guinness
5. Anti-Intellectualism should be resisted with Godward passion and intellectual consecration to the Lord.
“We must have passion—indeed hearts on fire for the things of God. But that passion must resist with intensity the anti-intellectual spirit of the world.”
—R. C. Sproul
“The Christian religion flourishes not in the darkness but in the light. . . . [T]he true remedy [of unbelief] is consecration of intellectual power to the service of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
—J. Gresham Machen
“What is today a matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combated; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassioned debate. So as Christians we should try to mold the thought of the world in such a way as to make the acceptance of Christianity something more than a logical absurdity. . . . What more pressing duty than for those who have received the mighty experience of regeneration, who, therefore, do not, like the world, neglect that whole series of vitally relevant facts which is embraced in Christian experience — what more pressing duty than for these men to make themselves masters of the thought of the world in order to make it an instrument of truth instead of error?”
—J. Gresham Machen
Some books to consider reading:
“Anti-intellectualism is a disposition to discount the importance of truth and the life of the mind.”
—Os Guinness
2. Anti-Intellectualism is a problem in the Western world.
“We live in what may be the most anti-intellectual period in the history of Western civilization.”
—R. C. Sproul
“. . . Americans are the best entertained and quite likely the least well-informed people in the Western world.”
—Neil Postman
3. Anti-Intellectualism is a problem within evangelicalism.
“I must be frank with you: the greatest danger confronting American evangelical Christianity is the danger of anti-intellectualism. The mind in its greatest and deepest reaches is not cared for enough.”
—Charles Malik
“The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.”
—Mark Noll
“. . . the Christian Mind has succumbed to the secular drift with a degree of weakness unmatched in Christian History.”
—Harry Blamires
“The contemporary Christian mind is starved, and as a result we have small, impoverished souls.”
—J. P. Moreland
“Our churches are filled with Christians who are idling in intellectual neutral. As Christians, their minds are going to waste. One result of this is an immature, superficial faith. People who simply ride the roller coaster of emotional experience are cheating themselves out of a deeper and richer Christian faith by neglecting the intellectual side of that faith.”
—William Lane Craig
4. Anti-Intellectualism is not virtuous.
“God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than of any other slackers.”
—C. S. Lewis
“Intellectual slothfulness is but a quack remedy for unbelief. . . .”
—J. Gresham Machen
“At root, evangelical anti-intellectualism is both a scandal and a sin. It is a scandal in the sense of being an offense and a stumbling block that needlessly hinders serious people from considering the Christian faith and coming to Christ. It is a sin because it is a refusal, contrary to Jesus’ two great commandments, to love the Lord our God with our minds. Anti-intellectualism is quite simply a sin. Evangelicals must address it as such, beyond all excuses, evasions, or rationalizations of false piety.”
—Os Guinness
5. Anti-Intellectualism should be resisted with Godward passion and intellectual consecration to the Lord.
“We must have passion—indeed hearts on fire for the things of God. But that passion must resist with intensity the anti-intellectual spirit of the world.”
—R. C. Sproul
“The Christian religion flourishes not in the darkness but in the light. . . . [T]he true remedy [of unbelief] is consecration of intellectual power to the service of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
—J. Gresham Machen
“What is today a matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combated; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassioned debate. So as Christians we should try to mold the thought of the world in such a way as to make the acceptance of Christianity something more than a logical absurdity. . . . What more pressing duty than for those who have received the mighty experience of regeneration, who, therefore, do not, like the world, neglect that whole series of vitally relevant facts which is embraced in Christian experience — what more pressing duty than for these men to make themselves masters of the thought of the world in order to make it an instrument of truth instead of error?”
—J. Gresham Machen
Some books to consider reading:
- J. P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul
- John Piper, Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God
- James W. Sire, Habits of the Mind: Intellectual Life as a Christian Calling
- Mark Noll, Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind
- Gene Edward Veith Jr., Loving God with All Your Mind: Thinking as a Christian in the Postmodern World
- John Stott, Your Mind Matters: The Place of the Mind in the Christian Life
- Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind: How Should a Christian Think?
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
YOU are a theologian!
The belief that theology is impractical for Christian living IS a theological belief. You are a theologian, whether you like it or not. The question is, can you give sufficient warrant for your beliefs? No one can live rightly without believing rightly. --Michael Patton
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/03/when-you-are-sick-of-theology/
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/03/when-you-are-sick-of-theology/
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Pastors, Seek Souls not Fame
by Ray Van Neste
“ they who are called to preach the gospel, to teach the flock of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to lead them, cannot do their duty, unless they lay all ambition aside and seek not to please men, not to be seen, nor to be in reputation. They must account all this as vanity, and content themselves to build the Church, to procure the salvation of souls, to magnify the Majesty of our Lord Jesus, and cause all to submit themselves obediently to God. To be short, let it suffice them to put forth the simplicity of the Gospel, to enrich those who desire to be satisfied with God’s blessings. Let them content themselves herein, and not covet as many do to be exalted, to be esteemed for their showy babbling and lofty speech, for their subtleties, for their fine and sharp wits, for their fleeting, pretentious displays. All these things (he says) must be laid underfoot, or else we can never serve God and his Church. And therefore this knowledge that men so much seek for is but a mere vanity, because there is no soundness nor substance in it.”This quote is challenging and helpful in a variety of ways. In spite of mischaracterizations to the contrary, we see here Calvin urging pastors to labor in order to “procure the salvation of souls.” Also, here we are reminded that we cannot pursue God’s glory and our own glory at the same time. We cannot simultaneously build the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of self, though it is so easy to build the kingdom of self and simply rename it, “Kingdom of God.” To be useful to God in the salvation of souls and the building up of his church and thus to hear Him say “Well done,” is of so much more value than winning the applause of our contemporaries- despite the inner clamor of our hearts for the immediate gratification of the praise of man.
(Calvin, preaching on 1 Timothy 6:20)
Friday, December 21, 2012
Redeeming Holy Days from Pagan Lies
Did Christianity Steal the Date of Sol Invictus?
The claim is that Sol Invictus “Invincible Sun” is a more ancient pagan holiday in Rome celebrated on December 25th. The claim assumes that this pagan holiday was so popular and dangerous that the Christian Church sought to suppress it by establishing the celebration of Christ’s Nativity on December 25th. By doing this, the claim continues, the Christians adopted the pagan day and some of the practices of that pagan festival to make the celebration of Christmas more appealing to pagans.
Remember first that the Christian faith is as old as the curse on Satan in Genesis 3:15. And while pagan worship of the sun certainly existed in Rome before the spread of the fulfillment of that promise in Christ came to the city; the celebration of Sol Invictus as a god in Rome actually came as pagans attempted to suppress Christianity. This early attempt as suppressing Christianity by means of the pagan worship of Sol is found in the Historia Augusta, a pagan history of Rome compiled in the fourth century AD.
The Historia Augusta in TheLife of Elagabalus (1.3) relates events from the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, a particularly twisted man, who reigned from 218-222 AD. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus came to be called Elagabalus after the name of the Syrian sun god, and was himself initiated as a priest of that false god. He viewed himself as the personal manifestation of the Syrian sun god. After coming to Rome and being established as emperor at the age of 14, the Historia states:
From that time there is no mention of the celebration of Sol Invictus in Roman history until the rule of Aurelian (A.D. 270-275). Aurelian did try to re-introduce the worship of Sol Invictus by decree in the year 274. But there is no record of this festival being held on December 25th. “The traditional feast days of Sol, as recorded in the early imperial fasti, were August 8th and/or August 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th.”(Hijmans, p. 588 )
Aurelian did declare games to Sol every four years. But there is no record from the period or early historiographers that these games were associated with December 25th in any way. The best evidence suggest that the games were held October 19-22 of their calendar. Anyway, on another coincidence, a year after Aurelian declared these games in honor of Sol Invictus, he was assassinated by his own pagan Roman officers out of fear he would execute them based on false charges.
The earliest calendar to mention that Invictus as a specified date for Roman religious life comes from a text of the Philocalian Calendar, VIII Kal recorded in an illuminated 4th Century manuscript called The Chronography of 354. In this late manuscript the date is listed in Mensis December (The Month of December) as N·INVICTI·CM·XXX.
[The calender can be seen by clicking here ]
Many scholars through the years have assumed that INVICTI in this calendar must mean “Sol Invictus.” This is possible. However, elsewhere the calendar does not hesitate to make explicit mention of festivals to Sol, for example: on SOLIS·ET·LVNAE·CM·XXIIII (August 28th) and LVDI·SOLIS (October 19-22).
Even if INVICTI does refer to Sol Invictus on December 25th of this calendar, all this shows is that the celebration of Sol Invictus was placed on December 25th after Christianity had already widely accepted and celebrated December 25th as the Nativity of Christ.
There are many historians and people following them who will still assert that December 25th is Sol Invictus in ancient Rome. Some will even claim that another religion, Mithraism, has close connection to this December 25th celebration. In actual fact there is no ancient documentation tying Mithraism to December 25th or Sol Invictus. The Christian celebration of the Nativity of Christ as December 25th predates anything in the earliest actual documentation for Sol Invictus on December 25th. That documentation is from the much later Philocalian Calendar Chronography of 354.
[For those interested in a more technical look see T.C. Schmid's article at http://chronicon.net/blog/christmas/sol-invictus-evidently-not-a-precursor-to-christmas/
The claim is that Sol Invictus “Invincible Sun” is a more ancient pagan holiday in Rome celebrated on December 25th. The claim assumes that this pagan holiday was so popular and dangerous that the Christian Church sought to suppress it by establishing the celebration of Christ’s Nativity on December 25th. By doing this, the claim continues, the Christians adopted the pagan day and some of the practices of that pagan festival to make the celebration of Christmas more appealing to pagans.
Remember first that the Christian faith is as old as the curse on Satan in Genesis 3:15. And while pagan worship of the sun certainly existed in Rome before the spread of the fulfillment of that promise in Christ came to the city; the celebration of Sol Invictus as a god in Rome actually came as pagans attempted to suppress Christianity. This early attempt as suppressing Christianity by means of the pagan worship of Sol is found in the Historia Augusta, a pagan history of Rome compiled in the fourth century AD.
The Historia Augusta in TheLife of Elagabalus (1.3) relates events from the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, a particularly twisted man, who reigned from 218-222 AD. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus came to be called Elagabalus after the name of the Syrian sun god, and was himself initiated as a priest of that false god. He viewed himself as the personal manifestation of the Syrian sun god. After coming to Rome and being established as emperor at the age of 14, the Historia states:
4 Elagabalus [established himself] as a god on the Palatine Hill close to the imperial palace; and he built him a temple, to which he desired to transfer the emblem of the Great Mother, the fire of Vesta, the Palladium, the shields of the Salii, and all that the Romans held sacred, purposing that no god might be worshipped at Rome save only Elagabalus. 5 He declared, furthermore, that the religions of the Jews and the Samaritans and the rites of the Christians must also be transferred to this place, in order that the priesthood of Elagabalus might include the mysteries of every form of worship. [Latin]And, coincidentally, very shortly after Elagabalus tried to establish worship of the Syrian sun god, Sol Invictus, he was thought to be too licentious and was assassinated by his own people, pagan Romans, at the age of 18 years old.
From that time there is no mention of the celebration of Sol Invictus in Roman history until the rule of Aurelian (A.D. 270-275). Aurelian did try to re-introduce the worship of Sol Invictus by decree in the year 274. But there is no record of this festival being held on December 25th. “The traditional feast days of Sol, as recorded in the early imperial fasti, were August 8th and/or August 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th.”(Hijmans, p. 588 )
Aurelian did declare games to Sol every four years. But there is no record from the period or early historiographers that these games were associated with December 25th in any way. The best evidence suggest that the games were held October 19-22 of their calendar. Anyway, on another coincidence, a year after Aurelian declared these games in honor of Sol Invictus, he was assassinated by his own pagan Roman officers out of fear he would execute them based on false charges.
The earliest calendar to mention that Invictus as a specified date for Roman religious life comes from a text of the Philocalian Calendar, VIII Kal recorded in an illuminated 4th Century manuscript called The Chronography of 354. In this late manuscript the date is listed in Mensis December (The Month of December) as N·INVICTI·CM·XXX.
[The calender can be seen by clicking here ]
Many scholars through the years have assumed that INVICTI in this calendar must mean “Sol Invictus.” This is possible. However, elsewhere the calendar does not hesitate to make explicit mention of festivals to Sol, for example: on SOLIS·ET·LVNAE·CM·XXIIII (August 28th) and LVDI·SOLIS (October 19-22).
Even if INVICTI does refer to Sol Invictus on December 25th of this calendar, all this shows is that the celebration of Sol Invictus was placed on December 25th after Christianity had already widely accepted and celebrated December 25th as the Nativity of Christ.
There are many historians and people following them who will still assert that December 25th is Sol Invictus in ancient Rome. Some will even claim that another religion, Mithraism, has close connection to this December 25th celebration. In actual fact there is no ancient documentation tying Mithraism to December 25th or Sol Invictus. The Christian celebration of the Nativity of Christ as December 25th predates anything in the earliest actual documentation for Sol Invictus on December 25th. That documentation is from the much later Philocalian Calendar Chronography of 354.
[For those interested in a more technical look see T.C. Schmid's article at http://chronicon.net/blog/christmas/sol-invictus-evidently-not-a-precursor-to-christmas/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)