He Has Made Us Able

Only 5 days since my last post this time. Getting better!

I want to share with you a passage from an early Christian writer that changed my life. I don't have space here to tell you how it changed my life, but I can give you the heart of the passage.

"As long, then, as the former time (i.e., the Old Covenant) endured, he
permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the
desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that he at all delighted in
our sins, but that he simply endured them...He sought to form a mind conscious
of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of
attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of
God, be vouchsafed to us."

If the quote were left here, we American evangelicals would be confirmed in our belief that Jesus' death caused God to overlook sin and changed the way God would judge us. It doesn't end there, however.

"...and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter
into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able"
(Anonymous, Letter to Diognetus 9, c. AD 100-130).

This one sentence resolved years of confusion over the issue of faith and works. It is not that this sentence carries authority in itself. It is that these few words handed me the key to unlock the seeming contradictions in the verses about faith and the verses about works in the Bible.

Many years ago, I used to keep a list of verses in the back of my Bible. It was a list of verses on works that I couldn't explain. It had passages like Rom. 2:5-8, where Paul says that God will not only judge us by our works, but that he would also give eternal life to those who pursued immortality by doing good. It had verses like James 2:24, which says that we are not justified by faith alone. It had statements like 2 Cor. 5:10, which says that we will be judged by our works, both good and bad.

Somewhere along the line, I realized that the answer to issues like these would be found in the writings of the early church, because they wrote the same way Paul did. On one page, they would say that works have nothing to do with our salvation, but on the very next they would tie salvation to obeying God's commandments. Paul does this throughout the end of Galatians, saying that we won't inherit the kingdom of heaven if we practice the works of the flesh (5:19-21) and that we'll get eternal life by sowing to the Spirit and not growing weary in doing good (6:8,9). Ephesians, however, has a very clear example of the contradiction. In chapter 2, he tells us--in the passage we all know--that we are saved by grace through faith apart from works, but in chapter 5, he tells us that if we are immoral, unclean, or covetous, then we'll have no inheritance in the kingdom of God, but instead we'll be judged like the disobedient! Ouch!

As a result of noticing these things, I was rather excited when I found the same seeming contradiction in Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John as a young man, in his letter to the Philippian church. Polycarp was head elder of the church in Smyrna, and in the first chapter of his letter, he quotes Paul and says we are saved by grace, not by works. In the second chapter, however, he says that God will raise us up with Christ if we keep his commandments and do his will! (All these writings, by the way, are available on the web at http://www.ccel.org.)

Okay, now back to our passage from the Letter to Diognetus (one of the earliest, most readable, and most enjoyable of the early Christian writings). First, the anonymous author tells us that God was showing us throughout Old Testament times that we could never attain to heaven by our works. We all know and believe this. That doctrine of justification by faith apart from works has been hammered home to us since the Reformation, 500 years ago. In the meantime, we've all wondered why in the world James, the Lord's brother and leader of the church at Jerusalem, whom Paul called a pillar of the church, would say that justification is by works and not faith only. (That's a direct quote of Jam. 2:24, by the way.) Martin Luther had an answer. His answer was that the letter of James was a "right strawy epistle" that has "nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it." That's really not a very satisfying answer for me.

But the Letter to Diognetus doesn't leave us hanging. He gives an interesting answer to the dilemma we are in. We are incapable of attaining to life by our works. What's the answer? We Reformation-descended Christians would say that God killed Jesus in our place, and so now he can ignore our works and give us life no matter what we do. The problem is, that's not a very Biblical answer, since the Bible says that if we live according to the flesh, we will die, and that we will only live if we walk according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:13).

Our anonymous author's answer is that God would make us able to enter life by his power.

I don't know what that does for you, but for me it answered all my questions. Further, I was absolutely astonished how Biblical this was.

We are saved by grace through faith apart from works, says Ephesians 2. What does this produce? Going to heaven without works? No, not at all! It produces works! "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works" (Eph 2:10). Titus 2 speaks of "the grace of God that brings salvation" as well. What salvation does it bring? "[Jesus] gave himself for us, so that he might redeem us from all inquity and purify for himself his own special people, zealous for good works" (Tit 2:14).

Oh, what we couldn't do on our own, God did for us. We could not attain to life by our works, but we could not do on our own, God did! Paul writes, "For what the Law could not do, because it was weak because of our flesh, God did!" (Rom 8:3). It is still nothing we can do on our own, but "the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit" (Rom. 8:4).

Oh! No wonder Paul says that we must walk according to the Spirit to live (Rom. 8:13). No wonder that Paul says we must sow to the Spirit to reap eternal life (Gal. 6:8). No wonder Paul says the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9). No wonder John says that those who don't keep Christ's commandments don't know him (1 Jn. 2:3,4).

And..no wonder that Peter says the righteous will be saved only with difficulty (1 Pet. 4:18). The KJV puts it as the righteous "scarcely" being saved. In his next letter, he tells us that if we want to "make our calling and election sure," "never fall," and have an abundant entrance into Jesus' kingdom, then we had better "add to our faith virtue" and a lot of other qualities which must be increasing, or else we have "forgotten that we were purged from our sins" (2 Pet. 1:5-11).

I hate to tell you this, but Jesus didn't die to change the judgment. The judgment was always just. The slander about God that he ever intended to burn people in hell forever for one little white lie has never been true. It is true that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. However, that's in Romans chapter three, and that chapter says the problem is that we have poison of asps under our tongues and our lips are full of deceit. We haven't done one little sin. We are bad people. We need serious redemption. Paul has a much more decent view of God than we do. God will justify those who have lived according to their conscience (Rom 2:15). Ezekiel, long before Christ died, told us that God, who is merciful and kind, would give life even to sinners who turned from their evil ways and began to do righteousness (Ezek. 33:15).

God didn't need Jesus to die for him in order to make him merciful. God was already merciful. That passage in Ezekiel,--as well as others like Psalm 51, where David testifies that God doesn't need sacrifices to forgive David's adultery and murder--says that God was always "faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" if we would confess our sins.

It was us who needed Jesus to die for us. We were wicked and full of sin. In coming to Christ, we are made new creatures. Old things pass away, and all things become new. We can walk in the Spirit and not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. We become his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works.

If this is not the salvation you have experienced, then you've experienced something short of Christ's salvation. Perhaps that's because you've heard the wrong Gospel. You can only become a disciple of Christ if you forsake everything, including your own life (Luke 14:26-33). This is what belief in Christ means. What good does it do to say you've believed in Christ if you don't believe him when he says you can't be his disciple without forsaking everything?

Just as likely, however, is that you've heard another form of corrupted Gospel. You've been told that "there's no salvation outside the church" is a doctrine of St. Augustine and other early church fathers caught up in the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. It is not. It is a doctrine of the apostles found in Hebrews, where the writer says, "Exhort one another every day, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin" (3:13). It is a doctrine of Paul, who said, "The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I do not need you.' (1 Cor. 12:21).

We were never meant to make it on our own. You have need of your brothers and sisters. You need them to encourage you every day. You need to confess your faults to them and have them pray for you so that you may be healed. You need the great grace that is poured out in the place where the family of God shares their lives together (Acts 4:32-33). It is grace that breaks sin's power over you (Rom. 6:14), and great grace is found where brothers dwell together in unity. Psalm 133 calls it the blessing of eternal life (v. 3).

This is awful long for a blog post. Awful important, too, though.

What's on Your Face?

It's been over a week since I wrote on here. That's hard to believe. I guess it's been more hectic than I realized the last few days.

I dropped into WalMart this morning on the way to work and found out I can read minds!

Wait, wait! Don't go anywhere! I don't mean telepathy.

What I mean is the place a mind is supposed to be read, on someone's face. We can write our thoughts there for all to read.

I've found that as I've gotten older and picked up some gray hair, I've also picked up a bit of respect. In fact, a better word would be intimidation. When I was younger, if I got impatient waiting in line at a store, and my irritation showed on my face, the cashier would scowl at me. Now, though, if I want to look irritated, I generally get an apology that it took so long. It makes me feel bad, though, because "I'm irritated with you because of something you have no control over" is hardly the message I want to communicate to a stranger. Yet my face can actually say that to them.

This morning, I was walking out an automatic sliding glass door at the same time a lady was coming in it. Through the door, I could see she was writing thoughts on her face. There was awkwardness there, and a little fear, too, because it was still dark outside and there was no one else visible in the area. As the door slid open, I could tell she was going to look down and nervously slip past me.

It seemed a crummy way to start the day to me, so before she could do that, I fixed some thoughts in my mind. "This isn't an awkward situation, it's a funny one. Here are two strangers standing there, waiting for a glass door to open, and the whole scene seems surreal, like we're on Captain Kirk's enterprise or something." Then I smiled at her, and I know she could read the "Isn't this situation funny?" on my face. I watched her whole face brighten, her awkwardness disappear, and she smiled broadly and stepped past me.

Not telepathic, but definitely mind-reading. Absolutely silent communication, but remarkably full.

That happens to all of us every day. We don't think about it much, so we just communicate thoughtlessly with people on a regular basis. The fact that it's silent communication gives us "plausible deniability." How can we be held responsible for what we're thinking?

Sociologists say that some 60% or more of our communication is non-verbal. As Christians, that seems like an awful lot of talking to waste when we've been told that we will give account for every word that proceeds from our mouth. Maybe we should start thinking about it.

What's on your face today?

Necessities for Unity

"Walk worthy of the calling with which you were called...endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace...till we all come to the unity of the faith"

Eph. 4:1,3,13

I skipped a lot of verses there between the part about the unity of the Spirit and the unity of the faith. However, the point I'm trying to make stands. We are supposed to be working hard to preserve the unity of the Spirit, but unity of the faith comes from working hard on something other than the unity of the faith.

American churches specialize in trying to have unity of faith. They have statements of faith, classes for new people, Sunday school for children, Bible studies for adults, and systematic theologies for their pastors. Despite their incredible efforts, it is hard to imagine that anyone could be any more unsuccessful at something than American churches are at having unity of faith.

The problem's not a mystery. Unity of faith is the result of doing something else. American churches fail miserably at that something else. Thus, no unity. It would be foolish to expect any other result.

What is that something else? Well, let's look at the part of Ephesians 4 that I skipped:

And he gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and somepastors and teachers for the complete furnishing of the saints for the work of ministry and for the building up of the body of Christ, until we all come to the
unity of the faith...

If you've ever heard anyone teach on this passage, then surely you've heard that the Greek of this verse makes it clear that these gifts—apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor/teachers—are to equip the saints to do the work of ministry, not for the aforementioned gifted ones to do the work of ministry. I first heard that in an Evangelism Explosion course, and I've heard it dozens of times since. Everyone knows that. Everyone teaches that. Hardly anyone does it.

Of course, how are they supposed to do it? What does a pastor know about the work of ministry and the edifying of the body of Christ? All he's done is go to a Bible school and study hermeneutics, which will provide you no equipping whatsoever for the work of ministry and the edifying of the body of Christ. Shoot, it doesn't even equip you to pay any attention to the Bible, which could be taught in a school, so how is it going to teach you something like building the body of Christ, which could never be learned in any school anywhere.

That was rather a brash statement, so let me back it up. It is obvious from the Bible that pastors were not selected from some distant Bible school. Shoot, it is obvious from the Bible that they weren't called pastors, but elders or overseers. But, since that's not on too many denominations statement of faith, they neglect it in Bible school. I didn't go to Bible school, however, so I'm allowed to pay attention to the Bible, rather than ignoring it for my denomination's statement of faith.

I know I'm being sarcastic enough here to seem very rude. I don't mean to be rude. Please take these words as friendly jibes. However, let me show you how badly our American churches have this whole pastor thing wrong, and you'll probably want to take up the sarcasm yourself!

According to Acts, Paul and Barnabas appointed elders right out of the churches they started (14:23). They didn't mail order a graduate from the apostles' school of the Bible in Jerusalem to come to Greece and Asia Minor and preach sermons every week. This was a lifelong pattern for Paul, and it continued for centuries afterward, until under Constantine the emperor of Rome decided he could appoint elders. They were brought in from outside a lot after that.

So catch this, okay. Paul wrote letters to Timothy and Titus. These letters are known as the "pastoral epistles," because supposedly they're written to pastors (Timothy and Titus). Unbelievable! Do we send people to Bible school for four years so that they can believe such utter nonsense! Did anyone try actually reading those "pastoral epistles"???

Those "pastoral epistles" command those "pastors" to appoint pastors and leave!

In Titus, it's specifically said. Paul says, "For this reason I left you in Crete, so that you should...ordain elders in every city" (Tit. 1:5). Then he tells him in 3:12, "Be diligent to come to me in Nicopolis, for I have decided to winter there."

In Timothy, you have to think a little (a very little) to see it. In Titus 1, Paul follows his exhortation to appoint elders with a list of qualifications for the office. In 1 Timothy 3, he doesn't specifically say that Timothy is to appoint elders (he uses the word overseer there), but he does give Timothy the same list of qualifications that he gave to Titus. What should that tell you? It should tell you that Timothy was not left in Ephesus to pastor, but to appoint elders to pastor, then to move on and see Paul, just like Titus. He follows these qualifications by telling Timothy that he'll be along as soon as possible (1 Tim 3:14). We already know from 1 Thessalonians that Timothy was an apostle (1:1 with 2:6), not a pastor, and apostles appointed elders and moved on. That's what they did. Timothy traveled with Paul, he didn't stick around in Ephesus and pastor. This would be why Paul ends 2 Timothy, where Paul wasn't coming to Timothy as he was in 1 Timothy, by telling him, "Be diligent to come to me before winter."

We're still on the subject of unity. Why is all this important? It is important, because elders should be people who have proven, in the church, that they are able to watch over others and build up the body of Christ. This way, they can do what Ephesians says they are to do, which is train the saints to do the work of ministry and build the body of Christ. This will result in the unity of the faith, says Eph. 4:13. Bible studies will not result in unity of the faith, which we prove every day in America. As usual, the Bible's way is better than our way. Amazing. You'd think we go to Bible school just so that we can get smart enough to figure out ways to make the Bible actually defend our vain traditions, rather than opposing them, as it clearly does if you just read it.

If you read on there in Ephesians, you'll also find that the unity of the faith is completely tied to our growth together. There's no comments in there about us growing as individuals. No, the body of Christ is to be built, and we are to grow up "together" in the knowledge of God into the stature of Christ. This can happen, says 4:16, only "as every part does its share."

So why do our American churches lack unity? We don't have trained pastors (properly "elders") who can equip the saints to do the work of ministry and build the body, and we make no arrangements for every part to do its share. I'll bet, if you're an American Christian, that you think church services build the body of Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth! Do you really see "every part doing its share" on Sunday morning? How about Sunday night? Wednesday night?

No, the body is built on a day to day basis as the saints "encourage one another every day, while it is called today." Ephesians calls it speaking the truth to one another in love. That is only going to happen when our lives become intertwined and we are together daily.

How is that going to happen? It's not like it's common for church members to see each other every day. Well, let's go back to the verse we started with:

"...endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit..."

The Holy Spirit really does shed the love of God abroad in the hearts of his disciples. However, the enemy has created a system designed to shut down that love. A constant diet of meetings and Bible teachings designed to justify a statement of faith and demonize heretics is really quite effective at destroying any unity of the Spirit there might be among the few disciples that find themselves in our American churches.

Let me give you a small statement of faith that flies in the face of most statements of faith in evangelical churches. I'm going to go ahead and go out on a limb, since this statement of faith is only one sentence long, and it's a Bible quote.

Jesus became the author of eternal salvation to all that obey him.

It's a mess, isn't it? Let me see if I can sum all this up. Here's the way it works. We become his disciples by giving our life to him. We forsake everything, take up our cross, and go after him. He saves us and gives us his Holy Spirit. We, filled with love that comes from that Holy Spirit, can't help but be around one another as much as we can. Jesus, the giver of good gifts, provides us with gifted elders who can teach us how to build up the body of Christ, and we all do that together. We all grow together, carefully preserving the unity that the Spirit gives us, never allowing our stupid and ridiculous doctrines, formed by our warped minds that we're supposed to hate, to get in the way of that unity, and encouraging one another on to follow Christ by his Spirit.

What a delightful picture that would be!

However, there's a line in there that might make it seem not delightful to you. I called your mind warped and said you're supposed to hate it. I said our doctrines are stupid and ridiculous. Let me quickly justify that.

First, your mind is part of your soul, and Jesus said only those who hate their souls will keep them to life everlasting (Jn 12:25, where the word for "life" is psuche, soul). Second, sound doctrine includes things like being sober, patient, loving, avoiding much wine, teaching good things, loving your spouse, keeping the house, being a good employee at work, etc. (Tit. 2:1-10).

Sorry, but when I read Tit. 2:1-10, I find it stupid and ridiculous to ask church member to study verses and put them together to in some exact "faith only" doctrine when the Bible says, "You see then that a man is justified by works and not faith only," and to ask church members to explain the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that has been a source of argument among theologians for nigh on 2,000 years! I don't believe in modalism, dear reader, which is the "Jesus only" doctrine, but I do know that Tertullian, "the father of the Trinity," whom I do agree with, said that the majority of the church would always be simple people, and in his day, AD 200 or so, most of those simple people held to modalism (Against Praxeas 3).

Fortunately for Tertullian, who was not an elder, and for the other Christians of his day, they still had elders, appointed by the previous elders, who knew how to equip saints for the work of ministry and who still knew what sound doctrine was. Therefore, those churches enjoyed great unity and proclaimed the Gospel around the whole known world "as if they had but one soul and one and the same heart" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies I:10:2).

I hope my sarcasm hasn't offended you so badly that you can't hear any of this. The things I've written above are drastically important. I hope you will be able to open up your heart and hear them.

Oh, the things written above work. You ought to see the grace, power, and life that God, in his mercy and kindness, has showered on us on Christ's behalf as we have practiced what I have written above. http://www.rosecreekvillage.com/. We really love Ephesians 4.

Unity and the Life of the Early Churches

"As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth."

Irenaeus, Against Heresies I:10:2, c. AD 185

It's commonly believed that the church fell away and grew cold after the time of the apostles. Often, Jesus' letters to the churches, found in the Revelation of John, chapters two and three, are cited as evidence of this, as well as some of the problems found in Paul's and John's letters. For example, 3 John speaks of a church leader who had rejected the apostle John and the brothers with him.

It is true that the gnostic heresy--which taught that the earth was created by an ignorant god, called the Demiurge, and that Christ was a spirit who descended temporarily on Jesus of Nazareth in an attempt to turn people from material interests to spiritual ones--gained a large foothold in the early churches. However, history testifies that the churches responded well to the letters of John and to Jesus' admonishment through John. Letters from Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the late first and early second centuries, show the battle he was fighting against gnosticism in the churches. In fact, the work quoted above, Against Heresies, gained its name from the battle that still raged with gnosticism.

However, Ignatius' battle was not a futile one. Sometime in the early 2nd century, the gnostics were driven out of the churches, and Irenaeus' late 2nd century work was directed against gnostic influence that came from outside. Inside the church, however, we see that the churches had settled into a time of unity and peace. This was not a lazy peace. Athenagoras, writing just a decade before Irenaeus, boasted that the testimony of Christians of his day was much better than that of the philosophers:

"[The philosophers] never cease with evil intent to search out skilfully the secrets of their art, and are ever bent on working some ill, making the art of words and not the exhibition of deeds their business and profession. But among us you will find uneducated persons, and artisans, and old women, who, if they are unable in words to prove the benefit of our doctrine, yet by their deeds exhibit the benefit arising from their persuasion of its truth"

Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians 11, AD 177

Their testimony was not marred by the efforts of the Roman empire to turn them away from the faith. Minucius Felix, a Christian of the second or early third century, wrote:

"Do I compare men with [your Roman heroes]? Yet boys and young women among us treat with contempt crosses and tortures, wild beasts, and all the bugbears of punishments, with the inspired patience of suffering."

M. Felix, The Octavius 37, AD 130-230

There are many who have heard how the early Christians endured persecution. Less realize the kind of patience, peace, holiness, and honesty with which they lived among their neighbors. The first century is noted for apostles like Paul and Barnabas and evangelists like Philip and Stephen, but there are no famous evangelists of the second century. Instead, Justin describes the way Romans were converted in his day:

"Many...were of your way of thinking, but have changed their violent and tyrannical disposition, being overcome either by the constancy which they have witnessed in their neighbours lives, or by the extraordinary forbearance they have observed in their fellow-travellers when defrauded, or by the honesty of those with whom they have transacted business."

Justin Martyr, First Apology 16, c. AD 150

If it is not many who realize the sort of unity, love, and good works practiced by the early church, almost none realize that the intimacy of life that extended even to the sharing of possessions seen in Jerusalem continued throughout the second century churches. It was already the beginning of the third century, when Tertullian, a lawyer from North Africa, wrote:

"'See,' they [i.e., the Romans] say, 'how they love one another,' for they themselves are animated by mutual hatred; 'how they are ready even to die for one another,' for they themselves will sooner put to death....the family possessions, which generally destroy brotherhood among you, create fraternal bonds among us. One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives."

Tertullian, Apology 39, c. AD 200

This is what the churches of the second century were like. Should this surprise us? These are the churches of the apostles, who gave them the Gospel that is "the power of God unto salvation." They had received the grace of God, bringing salvation and "teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age" (Tit. 2:11,12). Being possessors of that grace, this is exactly what they did.

My prayer is that their words create in you the same deep longing that they create in me. Dear Father in heaven, how may I live as they lived? The answer lies in a rich source of grace: the church. When the church of Acts was 'one in heart and soul' and 'did not hesitate to share their earthly goods with one another,' it was then that "great grace was upon them all" and the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus with great power (Acts 4:32,33).

Again, this should not surprise us. Even King David, a thousand years before the New Testament was put into effect, knew this truth. "Behold," he said, "how good and pleasant it is for brothers to dwell in unity." But his words do not stop there. "For there," he says, "the Lord has commanded the blessing--life forevermore." The blessing of life is commanded "there," in the place where brothers dwell together in unity.

It is high time for those of us who long for that life to experience unity. In the next post, I will deviate a bit from historical posts to talk about what is necessary to have that unity.

Atheist Attacks

Today I heard a Christian radio station say that a movie should not be watched by Christians because it was written by an atheist bent on attacking the church. I read the books that led to the movie, and I have to say that the author, Philip Pullman, was notably unsuccessful at presenting an atheist message. I'd like to talk about the God presented in his book, as well as the one presented in another popular teen novel that produced a movie, Eragon, but first an introduction is necessary.

In Unspoken Sermons: Series I, II, III (Johannesen, 2004) George MacDonald mentions an attack on Christianity by a person who claimed it was impossible to know anything about God. The man wrote:

The visiting on Adam’s descendants through hundreds of generations dreadful penalties for a small transgression which they did not commit; the damning of all men who do not avail themselves of an alleged mode of obtaining forgiveness, which most men have never heard of...are modes of action which, ascribed to a human ruler, would call forth expressions of abhorrence; and the ascription of them to the Ultimate Cause of all things...must become impossible (p. 385).

This agnostic is horrified that God would be accused of "visiting dreadful penalties" on Adam's descendants for his "small transgression." He thinks it abhorrent that men would be condemned for not obtaining forgiveness in a way that most of them have never heard of.

George MacDonald is a famous Christian author. He was a licensed minister. C.S. Lewis, the great apologist and author of Mere Christianity, credits him with being his mentor. How will George answer these awful accusations?

He wrote, "I entirely agree...almost it feels an absurdity to say so." Then he adds, "I never yet heard a word from one of their way of thinking, which even touched anything I hold" (ibid., p. 385).

When I heard the comment about "The Golden Compass" on the radio today, I could identify with George MacDonald. I read the trilogy that begins with The Golden Compass. It is most definitely an attack on a church and an attack on a god. Which church, I suppose I could guess, and which god, I know for certain. However, I must say with George MacDonald, "There's not a word in her way of thinking when even touches anything I hold."

I do not recommend the trilogy. The first two books are relatively clean, but the third is slimy, and the conclusion extremely unsatisfying, perhaps even stupid. That was disappointing, because the second book especially was a delight to read. However, the books are far from being atheistic.

Eragon is similar. It was written by an atheist home-schooled teenager, Christopher Paolini. It's sequel, whose name I've forgotten, contains a two or three page argument in defense of atheism given by one of the elves, a race respected for their wisdom in the book. However, the elf's words are strangely hollow, because the whole book proclaims an all-powerful, all-wise, and benevolent God on every page.

So does The Golden Compass trilogy. It is almost a requirement of modern fantasy that there be some purpose, some destiny, behind everything that happens in the novel. Things happen by chance, but the books make it clear that these things are not really chance. They are meant to be. There is a "destiny" in all modern fantasy novels, and The Golden Compass and Eragon are no exceptions.

So let Philip Pullman take potshots at the little god that must be defended by his narrow-minded followers. It is we religious people, with our vain attempts to defend, not God, but our own inbred superstitions, that deserve the attacks such movies throw upon us. Let us learn to be like George MacDonald. Such attacks should never touch anything that we hold. The church of The Golden Compass trilogy is one we should all despise. We, too, should be able to say, "I entirely agree. In fact, it seems absurd to have to say so."

My God will be found, not between the lines of those books, but above them. He controls all things, including destiny. Those things that seem to happen by chance, but which are not really chance--those things are the product of my God's attention and care.

Richard Dawkins is one of the most famous and aggressive atheists in the world. Yet in a debate with the great thinker Francis Collins, a Christian and the head of the Human Genome Project, he was forced to admit the possibility of the existence of God. To gain such an admission from a man like Dawkins is a rousing victory in the intellectual defense of theism. But the much greater victory, if we will but take it up, is the common atheist explanation for Dawkins' embarrassing admission.

Atheists were quick to qualify Dawkins' admission. "Dawkins...does not rule out science's discovering something that might be called God. But it is extremely unlikely that this being will be the God of the Jewish or Christian Scriptures."

Is it? Is it so unlikely? The God of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures exactly fits the description Dawkins gave of what God would be like if he were found. Dawkins said, "There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding." Collins replied, "That's God."

Dawkins argues, vainly, that this God could be any god, and the chance that he's Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is "vanishingly small." Why is this? If you were to ask Dawkins that question, I can, having read several of his books, give you his reply. He will list all sorts of stories, teachings, and ideas he doesn't agree with that some Christians somewhere believe or have interpreted from the Bible. All of that is meaningless. God is who God is, and there is nothing in the idea that God is "incredibly grand, incomprehensible, and beyond our present understanding," that makes it impossible for God to be Yahweh, the God of Jesus. In fact, that completely agrees with Jesus's description of God, because he said, "No man has ever seen God at any time." He made it clear than no one could ever comprehend or understand God without the Son revealing him. The God of Jesus is indeed "incredibly grand, incomprehensible, and beyond our present understanding."

What Dawkins misses, or dismisses, is the tremendous every day evidence that God--the only God there is--does indeed exist and invades the world of men. The very fact that the name Jesus is on the lips of billions of people around the world--despite the fact that by secular standards he was nothing but a crucified criminal and a leader of a tiny, insignificant cult of Judaism--stands as proof that he possesses the power of the "incredibly grand and incomprehensible" God.

Dawkins would argue that the atrocities committed in the name of Christ throughout history stand as proof that he is not who he said he was. Au contraire! That Jesus' name has survived the horrors perpetrated in his name by ill-meaning men stands as proof that he is who he said he was. Why do people continue to name the name of Christ despite these crimes against mankind? Why do people continue to name the name of Christ despite the boring, lifeless churches that are the majority of Christendom?

Why? Because to this day, the name of Jesus brings intervention from the "incredibly grand and incomprehensible" God into the lives of men. Acknowledging Jesus transformed my whole world 25 years ago. Perhaps that was a mental delusion. If so, it is a mental delusion shared by enough people to have kept the name of Jesus alive for two millennia no matter what adversity thrown against it.

The problem, Mr. Dawkins, with your argument is that the name of Jesus continues to be the source of a real and powerful salvation, and as long as this is so, the chance that the "incredibly grand and incomprehensible" God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not vanishingly small, but undeniably large.

One last thought to tie this all together. Sorry, I know this isn't a poetic conclusion. The Golden Compass and Eragon's sequel do not attack God. They attack the sons of the devil who have dragged Jesus' name through the mud for centuries. Don't miss the "incredibly grand and incomprehensible" God that they acknowledge, seemingly by oversight or chance, but really not by chance at all.

Augustine of Hippo

Well, I promised to write this "tomorrow," and I didn't get to it. I thought I'd said I'd write this "next time," knowing that probably wouldn't be "tomorrow." However, since no one could possibly be reading this yet, I suppose it doesn't matter much.

Augustine of Hippo. One of the most famous of Catholic saints. He is both loved and vilified. Quoted by Protestants and Catholics alike, he is also charged with teaching the church that it is okay to convert by the sword (true, see http://ctlibrary.com/4360). There are plenty of web sites on Augustine, so I won't bother with references or a deep foray into his life. I just want to talk about a couple things I know about him.

Augustine is famous for his saying, "There is no salvation outside the church." This was really not a new doctrine, but was basically the belief of the whole church from the beginning. Cyprian, for example, 150 years before Augustine said, "For it is the church alone which, conjoined and united with Christ, spiritually bears sons" (Epistles 73, par. 6). Irenaeus, another 70 years earlier than Cyprian, said of the church, "For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers" (Against Heresies III:4:1).

We Protestants balk at such statements, but in the first few centuries after Christ, there was but one church of God. There were not competing denominations. Such statements were not a defense of papal doctrine or a testimony to apostolic succession. They were the product of a unity among those churches will held to "the faith once for all delivered to the saints." Those saints were one, bound to one another, and they treasured the truth and the life of Christ that had been delivered to them by the apostles.

But Augustine was also the founder of a very Protestant idea, that of predestination. In reaction to a heretic named Pelagius, Augustine developed a doctrine of the complete soverereignty of God, even over the choice of men to believe, that was adopted by both John Calvin and Martin Luther, who had been an Augustinian monk (see http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/luther.htm) when he was Catholic.

What I really want to tell you about, though, is Augustine's era, which was radically different than that of Cyprian (died AD 258) or Irenaeus (died c. AD 200). Augustine was baptized in 387, became a presbyter in 391 and bishop in 396, then finally died in 430. The church, however, had experienced a drastic change in the early 4th century. After the Great Persecution under Diocletian (AD 303-311), the emperor Constantine had a vision and made Christianity an official legal religion for the first time (AD 313). An AD 325, he presided over a council of just over 300 bishops in an attempt to stop a massive division in the church over Arianism, a dispute over the nature of the divinity of Christ. At this point, the church was not only tolerated, but supported. Bishops were paid by the state, opening the door for political battles for the position. Constantine and his successors began to depose and appoint bishops based on their theological positions.

This, combined with a massive influx of the unregenerate into the church, created massive chaos. Nowhere is it seen better than in two volumes of church history, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume I and Volume II. The first of those volumes contains The Church History of Eusebius and the second contains The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus. Surely no two histories of the same people, written merely 50 years apart, could read more differently. Eusebius' history is a history of faith and martyrdom, a delight to any Christian to read. It was written in AD 323, just two years before the Council of Nicea, over which Constantine presided. Socrates' history, produced in AD 375, however, is one of political intrigue, violence, and court battles, well worthy of a Hollywood film (though none has been done yet).

Eusebius' history, though it contains stories of the church's battle against heresies that arose, testifies of a united church, peaceful and holy, who would take up the sword neither for themselves or Rome. Socrates' history testifies of bloody battles between Christians in the same city and bishops pitted against bishops with the backing of local authorities and even the emperor's legions. The Christians of Constantinople, meeting in two competing congregations, once fought each other "until the blood ran into the streets" over the body of a dead bishop. Another time they beat a general to death with their bare hands, because he had been sent by Constantius to depose their beloved bishop.

Councils met throughout the 50 year period that Socrates' history covers. Athanasius, a key figure in the battle over Arianism, was banished by the emperor no less than five times. Arius, too, banished at the Council of Nicea, was repeatedly recalled and restored to the emperor's favor.

This was the world that Augustine was converted into. While in Cyprian's world, perhaps 10% of the empire was Christian, in Augustine's world, some 90% were. Augustine was converted only a decade after Socrates' history was produced. Much had been lost. Where the Council of Nicea had suggested a 13-year ban from the communion table for those Christians who joined the military "like a dog returning to his own vomit" (Canon 12), most of the military in Augustine's day were Christian.

It's my experience that neither Protestants nor Catholics that I meet know these things. Everyone knows of "the church fathers," but it is rare that anyone really knows who they are. Augustine and Cyprian cannot really be lumped into the same category. It is safer to lump Cyprian and Ignatius together, who are at least both Pre-Nicene--that is, prior to the massive changes that happened around the Council of Nicea--but it is still not accurate. Ignatius, a bishop said to be appointed by the apostles over Paul's home church of Antioch, belongs to the apostolic age, not even a generation removed from the apostles. Cyprian, a century and a half later, presided as bishop in an era of much greater tradition and authority.

Their stories are fascinating, but mostly unrelated. Ignatius led the church at a time when the gnostics, with their bizarre teachings about an ignorant Demiurge who created the world and a non-material Christ who sought to redeem it, were still in the church. He battled for the purity of the church, and he was successful! His life ended in a glorious martyrdom, killed by beasts in the Roman Coliseum. His famous line, "I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ," ought not to be forgotten by any of us who seek to serve Christ today.

Cyprian's devotion and leadership, too, ought not to be forgotten. Remembered by Catholics for his strong words about the authority of the bishops as having received the keys of the kingdom from Peter, he was perhaps the first Protestant as well. His level-headed leadership, peaceful spirit, and fervent love for truth helped him check the aspirations and errors of Stephen, bishop of Rome, with whom he battled throughout his time as bishop. There is preserved for us the decisions of a council of 82 bishops that he called in North Africa to correct Stephen's caving in to heretics.

History is a wonderful thing, giving us insight into the Gospel that was handed down to us by the apostles. It was a powerful thing. The glory it produced ought to inspire us. Athenagoras, a 2nd century apologist, described the result of the Gospel in these words:

But among us you will find uneducated persons, and artisans, and old women, who, if they are unable in words to prove the benefit of our doctrine, yet by their deeds exhibit the benefit arising from their persuasion of its truth: they do not rehearse speeches, but exhibit good works; when struck, they do not strike again; when robbed, they do not go to law; they give to those that ask of them, and love their neighbours as themselves (A Plea for the Christians, ch. 11).

This power was lost, not just during the time of Constantine, but it was being eroded even before. It is said that those who do not know history will be condemned to repeat it. It is not just the sayings of God, but his actions as well, that teach us. Jesus said he did only what he saw his Father doing. Peter calmed the Jewish believers in Jerusalem over the introduction of Gentiles to the church by describing what God had done (Acts 11:1ff).

There is much to see in history of what God has done, and there is much to learn. What caused the church to wander from the power that caused "uneducated persons, artisans, and old women" to so gloriously display the life of Christ. Paul's preaching, he said, was in "demonstration of the Spirit and power" (1 Cor. 2:4). As we see from the quote above, not unique in second century literature, so was Athenagoras' preaching. Origen, writing in AD 225, was still able to answer the accusations of Celsus the Roman by appealing to the irreproachable lives of Christians in the Roman cities (Against Celsus III:29).

Who that names the name of Christ does not long to live as they did, in the holiness and power of God? It is not unattainable. Jesus Christ has not grown old, but the faith once for all delivered to the saints has been mostly forgotten. Let us not fear to look and to return.

This is going to sound like an altar call or something, but I would be remiss if I did not encourage you to see the only proof we can offer that the Gospel is indeed as powerful as it ever was: the people of God.

Getting Some Direction

Despite the fact that I always have something to say about some issue, it's been hard to find something worth writing on the internet about. Today it dawned on me that I could discuss one of my favorite issues: early church history.

I've devoted a lot of time to studying the churches that the apostles started. There are a surprising number of writings from those churches. Just the writings from the late first and second centuries fill over 1,000 pages of small print (available in _The Ante-Nicene Fathers_, 10-volume set published by Hendrickson's and Eerdmans or free at http://www.ccel.org). Reading those writings can be a real eye opener. Imagine getting an idea of what was important in the churches the apostles started themselves!

I want to begin by passing on a quote I just found today. The 2nd century churches, as you may or may not know, had no set "canon" (the list of books that make up the Bible). They also quoted a lot of books as Scripture that you may never have heard of. One interesting one that's commonly quoted is 1 Enoch, which is also quoted in the letter of Jude in the Bible.

This is from Augustine of Hippo:

Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he [i.e. "the skillful interpreter of the sacred writings"] must follow the judgment ofthe greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be givento such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly,among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer thosethat are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those,again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater numberand those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority.If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and othersby the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.

~On Christian Doctrine II:8:12, AD 397

This was fascinating to me. Note that it's almost AD 400, and Augustine, one of the most famous Christians of all time, is saying that there is no agreed canon!

Now I knew that the formation of the canon did not occur until almost that time, but I would never have dreamed that Augustine would leave the subject so open. Surely he, like Athanasius a generation before him, would have a list of books that he was sure were best. Au contraire! Fascinating.

I do need to point out that there was NOT widespread disagreement on what was Scripture. Athanasius was not the first to produce a list of which books constitute the Scriptures, and those lists are relatively similar. They don't start appearing until the late 2nd century, but quotes in the earlier writings prove they accepted the same basic books.

On the other hand, nailing the Bible down to exact books was obviously not important to the church, because they waited four centuries to do so!

I need to add here that we ourselves miss much by our strict adherence to a closed canon. I mentioned 1 Enoch above, for example, which is not only quoted by Jude, but also provides the earliest description of a hell (ch. 21) that matches what Jesus describes in Luke. The Martyrdom of Isaiah, a book no longer extant, is the source for the comment about a person "sawn in two" in Hebrews 11. The story of Tobit, part of the Roman Catholic Apocrypha, was familiar to all those in the early church, as was the angel Raphael, a key figure in the story. We evangelicals may complain that the Catholics added Bel and the Dragon and Susanna to the book of Daniel as chapters 13 and 14, but you'd have to be spiritually dead not to enjoy the stories and recognize them as typically Hebrew.

I'll tell you more about Augustine, his relationship to both Protestants and Roman Catholics, and a little about the time he lived in, but tomorrow. Good night!