WHAT’S REAL? And HOLY
SAVIOR
https://youtu.be/1xlAC-2CHPw What’s
real?
I made these videos in Texas. Then didn’t have time to write the
usual teaching. So I stuck them together and did the best I could.
ON VIDEO’S- note- I mentioned on the video the philosopher who
‘doubted everything’. I wasn’t sure if I got it right. I said ‘maybe Blaise
Pascal’- but it was Renee Descartes.
.Kill Muslims?
.Bruce Jenner- 2nd thoughts?
.Little people
.He eats with sinners
.Philosophy/Physics
.Arianism
.Islam and Christianity
.Abrahams kids
.Ishmael too!
God and Allah
.Chaz Bono
.End times war?
.In defense of cops
.Hung jury
.Columbus- Aztecs- Conquistadores
PAST POSTS [verses below]
. REMINDER- This is a commentary
I wrote years ago- the videos are new.
.CHAPTER 8- FEW POINTS;
1-
Did God choose us to believe- or did we choose
him?
2-
When Paul says ‘he makes our bodies alive’ is he
only speaking about resurrection?
3-
Does God use difficulty- or is it to be rebuked?
4-
Was Paul a ‘hyper- Calvinist’?
(839)ROMAN 8:1-4 ‘There is
therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not
after the flesh [sinful nature] but after the Spirit [new nature]’. Now, having
proved the reality of sin and guilt [chapter 7] Paul teaches that those who
‘are in Christ’ are free from condemnation. Why? Because they ‘walk according
to the Spirit’ the ‘righteousness of the law is being fulfilled in them’.
Having no condemnation isn’t simply a ‘legal function’ of declared
righteousness, and Paul didn’t teach it that way! Paul is saying ‘all those who
have believed in Jesus and have been legally justified [earlier arguments in
chapters 3-4] are now walking [actually acting out] this new nature. Therefore
[because you no longer walk according to the flesh] there is no condemnation’!
This argument helps bridge the gap between Catholic and Protestant theology,
part of the reason for the ongoing schism is over this understanding. After the
Reformation the Catholic Church had a Counter Reformation council, the council
of Trent. They dealt with a lot of the abuses of the Catholic Church, things
that many Catholic leaders were complaining about before the Reformation. They
did deal with some issues and reformed somewhat. To the dismay of the more
‘reform minded’ Catholics [with Protestant leanings] they still came down
strong on most pre reform doctrines. This made it next to impossible for the
schism to be healed. But one area of disagreement was over ‘legal’ versus
‘actual/experiential’ justification. The Catholic position was ‘God can’t declare/say
a person is justified until they actually are’ [experientially]. The Protestant
side [Luther] said ‘God does justify [legal declaration] a person by faith
alone’. Like I taught before, both of these are true. The Catholic view of
‘justification’ is looking ahead towards a future reality [The same way James
speaks of justification in a future sense- He uses the example from Genesis 22,
when Abraham does a righteous act] while the Protestant view is focusing on the
initial legal act of justification [Genesis 15]. Here Paul agrees with both
views, he says ‘those who walk after the Spirit [actually living the changed
life] have no condemnation’.
(840)ROMANS 8:5-13 Paul will teach
the impossibility of the ‘carnal minds’ ability to submit to Gods law. Those
who are ‘in the flesh’ [the unregenerate nature- not simply ‘in the body’. We
will get into these distinctions in a minute] can’t submit to God. Society
spends so much time and effort trying to get the ‘lost man’ to do what's right.
The prohibition movement [outlawing liquor], the increase in the severity of
punishment for crimes dealing with drugs. Making the child kidnappers crime
punishable by death. While all these laws are necessary and good [though some
debate the wisdom of the kidnapper one, they think the kidnapper might just go
ahead and kill the victim if the same punishment applies to both crimes] they
have little effect on getting ‘the carnal man to submit’. Paul also says ‘if
the Spirit of him who raised up Christ from the dead dwells in you, then he
that raised up Christ from the dead shall quicken [make alive] your mortal
bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you’. Let’s do a little teaching here. Most
commentators see this as speaking of the promise of the resurrection ‘your
mortal bodies’. I see this more in line with the context of chapter 7. The
discussion of ‘mortal bodies’ [your actual body, the flesh- which is different
than ‘the fleshly nature’ which refers to the sinful nature] speaks of your
actual life now ‘let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies’. Also in
verse 13 of this chapter the same theme is seen ‘if ye thru the Spirit mortify
the deeds of the body ye shall live’. I believe Paul is primarily saying ‘if
you are in the Spirit [born of God] the Spirit of life will make alive your
physical life in such a way that you will glorify God in your body and spirit,
which are Gods’ [Corinthians]. Chapter 12 says your bodies are living
sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God. Now later on in this chapter [8] we do
see the resurrection, which is called ‘the redemption of the body’ [verse 23]
so these two concepts work together. The fact that the believer is ‘training
his mortal body’ for God [thru obedience] is sort of a precursor to the
resurrection! Now, some believers confuse the resurrection of the body and the
work of regeneration in ‘making you alive’ [Ephesians 2]. The work of
regeneration brings your dead spirit back to life [born again] when you believe
[which is a Divine imputation of faith at the moment of conversion, a sovereign
act]. This ‘coming alive’ is purely spiritual. This qualifies you for the
future physical resurrection of the body [Ephesians calls this the ‘down
payment’, the ‘earnest of our inheritance, until the redemption of the
purchased possession’. The word ‘earnest’ here is used in the same way as
‘earnest money’ in a real estate transaction. The fact that we have been
‘sealed’ with the Holy Spirit is our ‘guarantee of future bodily
resurrection’]. Bishop N.T. Wright, the bishop of Durham [the church of England-
Durham is the 3rd most influential post in the Church of England.
Canterbury is at the top] has recently written on the truths of the
resurrection of the body. He is an excellent scholar, way way above my league.
He has been instrumental in ‘re introducing’ the reality of Christ’s
resurrection as well as our future resurrection as a very real Christian belief
[and historic truth as well]. I have read some of Wrights stuff and am a little
surprised at some of the ideas on ‘soul sleep’ and the immortality of the soul.
Bishop Wright seems to side with some of the ideas that certain restorationist
groups [7th day Adventists] espouse, that the Catholic Church kind
of corrupted the ideas of heaven and the soul by being overly influenced by
Greek thought. While it is possible for Bishop Wright to have come to his
understanding entirely thru scripture and history, yet I felt it a little
strange to see him make these arguments. For the most part I like brother
Wright and totally agree with his stance on the future ‘new heavens and new
earth’ as the final place of rest [as opposed to dying and going to heaven now,
which is a temporary place] but there is the biblical reality of a present
‘heaven’ and this doesn’t only come from Greek thought. I have often used the
Christian doctrine of the new heavens and new earth while speaking with the
Jehovah’s witnesses, I always agree on the reality of a future kingdom on
earth. I simply steer the conversation back to ‘who qualifies for it’ and get
straight to the gospel. Well anyway we have a promise of a future resurrection,
and also a ‘quickening of the body now’ [God actually using our physical life
to glorify him]. These are both great truths!
(841)ROMANS 8: 14-18 ‘For as many
as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God’. Many of us are
familiar with this verse [I hope!]. We often see it as saying ‘Gods direction
in our lives is proof that we are Christians’ true enough. But in context
‘being led by Gods Spirit’ means living the new life thru Christ. The putting
to death of the old man and being ‘made alive’ thru Christ is what this is
saying. Paul agrees with John [1st John] ‘those that do what is
right [led by the Spirit] are of God’. Paul says ‘we have received the Spirit
and a natural result of this is crying “Abba, Father”. I don’t want to do too
much here, but Paul sees the ‘confession’ and heart cry of the believer as
proof, a result of being ‘a habitation of the Spirit’. A sign, if you will, of
being born of God is confessing/ praying to the Father. Paul quoted David in
chapter 4 ‘for this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when
thou mayest be found’ [Psalms 32- actually Paul quotes a different section from
the Psalm, but this theme is consistent with Paul’s view]. Paul knew the reality
of ‘the godly calling upon God’ they have an inner cry of ‘Abba, father’. ‘We
are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ’. For many years this has been a
popular verse among many believers, often times it is used to say ‘God owns the
cattle on a thousand hills’ [which he does] therefore if we are heirs ‘give me
some cattle’! [stuff]. Here Paul uses this term in speaking of our
identification with Christ’s sufferings. ‘If we suffer with him, we too shall
share [joint heir!] in his glory’ [future glorification at the resurrection- we
shall see him and be changed in a moment, at the twinkling of an eye. This
mortal shall put on immortality]. It’s a symptom of modern American
Christianity to view all these scriptures thru a materialistic lens, Paul held
to the promise of a future reward [at the resurrection] that enabled him to go
thru great difficulty and suffering in this present life. He counted the
suffering as a privilege that he shared with Christ.
(843)ROMANS 8: 19-25 ‘the
sufferings of this present time [are you ‘presently’ suffering?] are not worthy
to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us’. Paul compares the
difficulty to the reward. The reward here is the future resurrection. Paul did
not see suffering as ‘from the devil’ or the reward as something material
[monetary stuff! The resurrection body will be ‘material’ - real]. Paul teaches
that the whole creation is waiting for this day. Not only will we get a
‘makeover’ but there will be a new heaven and a new earth! The creation itself
longs for this [almost as much as Al Gore!] This resurrection is called ‘the
redemption of our body’. The next verse says ‘we are saved by hope’. John also
says [1st John] that the future reality of the resurrection ‘causes us to be
pure in this life’ [every one that has this hope in him purifies himself, even
as he is pure]. Why? Because we know God has a purpose for our bodies as well
as our spirits! The ‘getting saved by hope’ simply means the future hope of the
resurrection ‘encourages’ us to live clean now. Once again ‘saved’ is a neutral
term. In can apply to all sorts of things. I always found it funny how when you
read certain commentaries, that you see the difficulty Christians have when
coming across these types of verses. There’s a verse that says ‘the woman will
be saved thru childbearing’ geez, you wouldn’t believe the difficulty some
writers have when they come across this stuff. Some teach ‘she will be ‘saved’
thru the birth of a child [Jesus]’ and all sorts of stuff. I think if we simply
changed the word ‘saved’ for ‘delivered’ [which are basically the same thing]
that maybe this would help. But thank God that we have a future resurrection to
look forward to, let this truth ‘deliver’ you from the temptation to think
‘what’s all this suffering worth, why even go thru it?’ Because we have a great
promise at the other end!
(845)ROMANS 8:26-28 ‘Likewise the
Spirit also helpeth our infirmities’ why does Paul say ‘likewise’? He is saying
‘not only does the future hope of the resurrection sustain us, but also Gods
Spirit helps us’! He knows how to make intercession for us in ways that we
cannot. I just finished an hour prayer
[parts]
. [1561] PIETISM/ROMANTICISM- As we already covered,
the Enlightenment thinkers struggled with the idea that religion and
reason/rationalism can go together. The pure Empiricists [David Hume] would
reject the idea that religion could be rational- Descartes claimed it could-
and Kant drew a middle line; he taught that we cannot know God thru the sense
realm, but it was rational to ‘Postulate’ the idea of God [John Locke said
reason can accept Revelation- Divine truths that have no Empirical evidence to
back them up- Kant simply taught that it was rational for the mind to accept
the idea that a first cause must exist, even if we can’t ‘prove’ him thru sense
evidence]. Okay- as you can see much of Enlightenment thinking was infused with
religion, reason, rationality- etc. Did all thinkers ‘think’ that these ways of
approaching religion and reason were profitable? No- many thinkers/philosophers
saw too much ‘head knowledge’ in the whole endeavor to make faith reasonable.
Many religious leaders rejected the over emphasis on rational religion.
Romanticism was a cultural/religious movement that primarily affected the Arts and
Literature- but also had strains of religious thinking within it. The Romantics
said we do and should experience life and God thru a real-felt type of living.
There is much more to life than the rational proofs of things- in fact they
felt the very essence of life was about experiencing the beauty of things thru
the Arts and the creativity of man- some felt that God himself was revealing
who he was thru the artistic creativity of man- the great Christian pieces of
music [Bach- etc.] were not these beautiful works of music that transcended the
‘rationality’ of man and caused him to experience the beauty of God/religion
thru this form of Art? The same for great literature. Pietism had her roots in
the early modern period- and in the 19th century also pushed back
against the sterile rationality of the Enlightenment thinkers. Pietism- much
like Romanticism- said there was much more to religion than simply knowledge-
Pietism challenged the ‘dead faith’ of Orthodoxy and focused on the religious
experience of Regeneration- they spent much time answering the question ‘how do
we know we are saved’. Romanticism had strains of religious thinkers within
her- Pietism was mainly focused on the religious question. Pietism had a major
impact on 19-20th century Protestant Christianity- and most
Evangelicals today can trace their roots to Pietism’s influence on religious
thought. In the 18th century revivals that took place in the
American colonies- men like Jonathan Edwards would play a major role in shaping
the religious thought of early Protestantism in America. John Wesley- the great
Methodist preacher- would also challenge the ‘dead religion’ of the Church of
England and eventually launch the Methodist church [though Wesley originally
never meant to separate from the Anglican Communion]. So the 19th
century saw a strong reaction against the reason/rationalism of Enlightenment
thinking- they felt like much true religious experience was indeed meant to be
‘an experience’ that is something much
more than simple knowledge. In Romanticism this challenge was primarily based
in the cultural landscape of the day- in Pietism it was religious in nature.
You had both Romantic atheists and Pietistic preachers agree on one thing-
there is much more to life than the sterile rationality of the Enlightenment
period.
[1560] BUT THOU BETHLEHEM, THOUGH THOU BE LITTLE AMONG THE
THOUSANDS OF JUDAH- YET OUT OF THEE
SHALL HE COME FORTH UNTO ME THAT IS TO BE RULER IN ISRAEL. Micah 5:2. In the gospel of Luke we read the story of
Jesus being born in a real place- at a real time. Chapter 2 says that Caesar
put out a decree that ‘all the world should be taxed’ that is they did a kind
of census where you had to go to your native town and register. It just so
happned that Mary, Jesus mother, was living in Nazareth [Galilee] at the time
and Joseph- Jesus’ step dad- was from the lineage of Judah [King David’s
tribe]. So at this very inconvenient time- at the hour of child birth- they
make the trek to Bethlehem of Judea- just in time for the census- and for the
baby! Hundreds of years before this event there was this obscure Jewish prophet
named Micah- he blurted out one day ‘out of you Bethlehem- the least of all
places- shall one come forth- a great ruler of all men’ [my paraphrase]. The
Jewish nation was waiting for centuries for this ‘sent one’ this messiah who
would come to them in the midst of their oppression- and he would fulfill the
promise that God made to father Abraham millennia before ‘we will serve him
without fear and in holiness all the days of our lives’. As a matter of fact-
jump back to Luke chapter 1 and you can read this promise being uttered from
the lips of John the Baptist’s father when he praises God over the pregnancy of
his wife Elisabeth- you see John the Baptist was also spoken about centuries
before his birth- he would come on the scene as a forerunner- a precursor to
the messiah. Yes, John’s father had reason to rejoice. And when the angel
Gabriel appeared to Mary- he told how that she was chosen for this great task-
possibly the greatest task that any human was ever given- she would give birth
to this promised messiah. She asks the angel ‘how can this be- I know not a
man’ he tells her the Holy Spirit will come upon her and she will conceive a
child from God- none before could claim the title ‘the only begotten of God’.
Read Mary’s prayer in chapter 1- it too is a cry for social justice ‘the high
and mighty will be brought low- the poor will be lifted up’ we call her prayer
‘The Magnificat’. Both Zacharias and Mary spoke/prophesied of social justice-
that thru these seemingly strange miracles- God put in place a plan that would
bring justice to all those who were being oppressed. So the day came for Mary
to bear the child- but he was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem- so God
preordained that the great Caesar Augustus would make a decree that ‘all the
world would be taxed’. Caesar came from the beginning line of Rome’s great
Caesars. Octavian- Rome’s first- would be a devastating military leader who
would strike fear into the hearts of Rome’s enemies- the kingdom [Roman Empire]
would take her initial form under his rule. Of course most of us our familiar
with Julius Caesar- he’s made it into the Hollywood hall of fame- and Augustus-
he would be the third in a line of 12 Caesars who would rule Rome. He ruled at
a time when Rome was the center of the world- all roads truly did lead to Rome-
the great eternal city. Rome had her religious adherents- Rome practiced a type
of pluralism- when they conquered an enemy- they would allow the people to
continue to have some form of self rule- believe in whatever religion suits
you- but you were still under Roman rule. The Pantheon [a sort of pedestal for
the various god’s of the day] represented this religious openness of Rome. Yet
the Jews had a different type of belief- they held to what we describe as
Monotheism- a belief that there was only one true God. Her prophets spoke the
words ‘hear O Israel the Lord our God is one’ and they held to their peculiar
belief while Rome overlooked it. In the midst of all these developments, Caesar
makes the decree ‘everyone go back to your towns for the census’ and Mary and
Joseph hit the road. Sure enough the time came for her to deliver the child- he
was born in a stable- laid in a manger and the world would receive her king. 2
Thousand years have passed- where are the great Caesars? Have you ever even
heard of the name Octavian before today? Yet all over the world- in every
nation- on the radio- over the internet-
being shouted from the speakers at the mall- yes, all over the world we sing
that Jesus Christ is king- the one born in Bethlehem of Judea- the one for whom
the whole world was a stage- even the mighty Caesars of the day bowed the knee
unto this eternal purpose of God- they would be puppets in the hand of God-
used of God to make decrees that would fulfill the obscure prophecy of some
Jewish prophet named Micah- yes- the
Virgin had it right ‘God brought down the mighty- used them for his purposes-
and exalted those who were struggling’. Rejoice- for in this day- 2 thousand
years ago- was born a great ruler- a ruler of all men- his hometown is now
famous because of this birth.
[1559] RATIONALISTS- EMPIRICISTS
[Western intellectual tradition] - Okay- for those of you who are following my sporadic
teaching on modernity [philosophical period between the 17th 20th
centuries] let me overview a little of what we have covered so far. We
discussed the Christian thinker- Rene Descartes’- and how in the 17th
century he challenged the faculty at the university of Paris [the leading
university of the day] to argue for the reasonableness of Christianity thru
rational means- he said we can prove the existence of God without having to
appeal to church tradition or the bible. The Empiricists [those who challenged
the ‘rationalists’] argued that all knowledge comes to us from the senses- so
we can never prove God’s existence from reasonable/natural means. In fact they
argued that religion in itself is irrational and any attempts to make it
rational/reasonable were futile. David Hume and Denis Diderot [one of the
[parts]
. [1486] ARIUS- a priest from Egypt who would challenge the
deity of Jesus in the 4th century. Arius taught that Jesus was the
Son of God, but not eternally the Son. He said Jesus was a created being whom
the father ‘bestowed’ son ship upon. He taught that Jesus was ‘like God’ but
not God. The emperor Constantine would call the famous council of Nicaea in 325
a.d. and the council would agree with Athanasius and say that the Son and the
Father were of ‘the same substance’ [homoousios] and Arius’s belief would be
rejected. The debate would still rage on thru out the century as Constantine
would die and the new emperor from the east would hold to ‘Arian’ views.
Eventually Orthodoxy would win out and Arianism would be rejected by the
majority of believers. I should note that many of the oriental churches would
go the way of Arianism till this day; some of these churches are not like the
modern cults that we would automatically reject, but they do hold to beliefs
that Orthodox Christianity has rejected. As I have written about before, it’s
easy to see how various believers have struggled with these issues over the
years, some of the ways people express things can be deemed heresy a little too
quickly in my view. There are believers who express the deity of Jesus in ways
that some Arians express it, and they are not full Arians! The point being,
yes- Arian went too far in his belief that Jesus was a created being, Johns
gospel refutes this belief strongly [as well as many other portions of
scripture] but too say that Jesus was/is the full expression of the father,
because he ‘came out from God’ is also in keeping with scripture. Today we
should be familiar with the issues and also use much grace when labeling
different groups of believers; and we should strive for a unity in the Spirit
as much as possible. As believers we accept the full deity of Christ, one who
is of the ‘same substance’ of the father- true God from true God. He who has
seen the Son has seen the father- Jesus said to Phillip ‘I have been with you a
long time, if you see and know me, you have seen and known my father’ Jesus is
God come down in the flesh to dwell among men, the true Immanuel, God with us.
[1484] ‘This is why I Paul am in jail for Christ, having
taken up the cause of you outsiders, so called. I take it that you are familiar
with the part I was given in God’s plan for including everybody… none of our
ancestors understood this, only in our time has it been made clear thru God’s
Spirit… this is my life work, helping people understand and respond to God’s
message. It came as a sheer gift to me, a real surprise, God handling all the
details’ Ephesians 3, message bible. As I said earlier in this study, the
‘mystery’ that God revealed to Paul was the reality that thru Christ all ethnic
groups would be on the same footing with God. This specifically related to the
religious belief of the day that the ethnic nation of Israel were the only ones
with special access to God. For Paul to have been preaching this message in his
day would be like us teaching that God’s plan for all people today- Jews,
Arabs, Palestinians, Iranians, etc., it would be like saying Gods purpose for
our day is to accept all of these ethnic groups as one group thru Christ. To be
frank about it, I believe many evangelicals today are not fully seeing the
reality of the Cross when they exalt the natural heritage of Israel as Gods
special people. Though I realize many of these teachings mean well [end time
scenarios and stuff] yet in practice they deny the equal footing that all
people have in Christ. Paul was preaching the great news that your
ethnic/cultural background no longer made any difference- thru Christ we are
all Gods special people. This does not mean that we are all accepted whether or
not we believe in Christ, a sort of religious syncretism, but it does mean that
the offer of Jesus is available to all.
[parts]
(1332) Been doing some reading on
church history/philosophy, it’s interesting to see the role that
theology/Christianity played in the universities. Theology is referred to as
‘the queen of the sciences’ and philosophy was her ‘handmaid’. They saw the root
of all learning as originating with the study ‘of God’. Many modern
universities have dropped the term ‘theology’ and call it ‘the study of
religion’. The study of religion is really the study of how man relates to God,
his view of God; this would fit under anthropology/sociology, not under
theology. Modern learning has lost the importance of the study of God and the
role it plays in all the other sciences. The classic work of Homer [8th
century BC] called the Iliad, has Achilles debating whether or not he should
‘stay and
[parts]
VERSES-
. I didn’t have time to add the verses- but as I reviewed the
videos- most of the pertinent ones I have posted on the last few weeks posts
already.
facebook.com/john.chiarello.5
Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post
them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John.*
No comments:
Post a Comment