Is your cat evil?

Better check out your cat... http://www.heyquiz.com/quiz/cat_kill

Aspect of Verbs in Koine Greek

Professor James Voelz was my teacher and author of Fundamental Greek Grammar (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1993). Professor Voelz developed an innovative way of understanding aspect in Biblical Greek. This is particularly demonstrated with the imperfect tense. Most textbooks just say that imperfects are ongoing action and leave it at that. Dr. Voelz recognized through his Ph.D. work in Luke that this understanding does not fit all imperfects. He developed the additional term aspect to sort of supplement tense in categorizing verbs.

What is often called present tense he refers to as focus-on-connection, (FoC) that is, it conveys a meaning that emphasizes the link between the subject and the action that is referred to by the verb. Statements like, "I leave the check" are conveying a sense that I is connected to the action (leaving). Focus-on-connection is one type of aspect.

Another major type of aspect is focus-on-action (FoA). This aspect is more worried about the fact that the action is/was done than who did it. An example sentence would be "I see you."

As present tense is FoC, so aorist is FoA. Aorist is past time so it is focusing on the action that has been completed. It is the action that is important. Now, imperfect is FoC and is sort of a past time correspondent to present.

Professor Voelz lists 6 different connections conveyed by an imperfect. Context must help you resolve between these:

1. Continuous, e.g. "I was loosing."
2. Habitual, e.g. "I used to loose."
3. Inceptive (beginning), e.g. "I began to loose."
4. Conatative (attempting), e.g. "I tried to loose."
5. Repetitive, e.g. "I repeatedly loosed."
6. Emphatic, e.g. "I did loose."
   

I have found this understanding of the imperfect has been very helpful. Since I got no Google hits on this topic, I decided it was time for me to do something. For further information, see Prof. Voelz' textbook and other books and papers by him. You may also find some discussion of this by Professor Jeffrey Gibbs; he refers to it as syntactical sugar.

Another prime example of Lutheranism being misunderstood

This St. Paul Pioneer Press article covers a Minneapolis congregation voting to split with the ELCA over their gay resolution recently passed. Here is my email to the writer:

David,

I am writing about your recent Pioneer Press article entitled "Minneapolis church splits with ELCA over gays". It appears from the article that you are not fully understanding Lutheranism in contrast to the popular ideas dominant in American Christianity.

You wrote: "...Wells and other opponents...place an emphasis on the law part, saying that their interpretation of Scripture holds that God views homosexuality as a sin. The resolution's proponents believe the emphasis should be on the gospel aspect. They generally believe that all humans have sinned and that 'self-righteousness is no longer possible,' said Johnson. That's a basic idea in theology -- God saves us; we do not." This has created a few false dichotomies. What Lutherans are committed to is the teaching that the things that we do and fail to do in our lives do not determine whether we are saved or not. We are and never were able to make ourselves righteous. The law of God shows us that we fail at that and therefore do not deserve to be saved. On the other hand, the gospel tells us what God has done for us, namely that Jesus died to take away our sins. Surely all people are sinners and for those who do not reject it, they have the free gift of salvation. These issues are not at dispute here. There is another question of how God would like us to live our lives. We know we are saved even though we sin. How can we live our lives in thankfulness for being saved? That is what God also tells us in the law. We cannot ever make ourselves good enough" by trying to live according to God's law and so we still depend on Christ's sacrifice. The law has these two roles of showing us our sins and guiding us in life. The gospel is always there telling us we are saved by Jesus sacrifice on the cross. These things are really not at dispute in this issue over gay acceptance. The primary issue is whether God's Word says that homosexual behavior is sinful. The variation is in which parts of the Bible are considered God's Word. God's Word is unchangable as God is, so, put very simply, one must deny that certain portions of the Bible are God's Word. The proponents of the resolution take the position that there is content of the Bible that consist of human statements that are limited to ancient cultures and do not apply today. They would not consider that to be God's Word.

I hopefully have explained myself well here. I would be happy to clarify further or otherwise reply if you wish. In the best of worlds, I would hope for an article to correct some of these misunderstandings of Lutheranism.

- Kevin Buchs; Pastor, Rochester, MN

What are the teachings of Real Lutheran Fellowship?

I had someone who is a member or former member of Ascension Lutheran Church ask me about the teachings of Real Lutheran Fellowship, the congregation I have been called to serve. Here is my reply:

I'm sure you are aware that I ended my membership at Ascension a couple of years ago. The most important reason for doing so is that I felt that the teaching and preaching on Law and Gospel, their distinction and application, were impure and harmful. In our congregation, we would have teachings that are very familiar to WELS and Missouri Synod members of decades ago (but may be strange today). As indicated above, we would make these points clear in teaching and preaching:

1) God's law shows that we are sinners who cannot make ourselves better or overcome our sins. We deserve hell.

2) Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is able to save us from all sins and that is the only way to eternal life. Generally our teaching and preaching should end at this point, leaving us in the Gospel.

3) God wants us to live according to His law, but we will always fall short. Our works are as useless as filthy rags without the blood of Christ to cleanse them. Therefore, we, as Christians, do no do "good" works in and of ourselves but Christ must cleanse all we do.

Do feel free to shoot me back other questions you have. I'm happy to talk in person too. I'd also recommend our website, http://real-lutheran.info, but you probably already found that.

Letter to a relative with thoughts from their church newsletter

I was reading your church newsletter this morning. Your minister's letter I usually pay attention to and this one gave me cause to write to you. He said Christianity ("the faith") has two "words" to speak. One is a moral message, what I would call a Law message. The other message, he said, was one of unintended judgment. This he labels as "Good News" and says it is about the future of eternal life which he indicates is not for "the self-interested rich", but "the simple, hungry folks who want goodness and faithfulness to be the norm of life."

It is at that point that I would disagree. It actually sounds like the second word, the one of judgment is another word of Law. It is a message that you need to live your life in a certain way or you will not attain eternal life. I believe it is totally wrong to call that Good News. To me, the Good News is only good if it says that eternal life does not depend upon our works, how we life our lives. The Good News is never law or judgment. If it were, then it would not be good. Instead it is Gospel, that tells us all about Jesus and what He has done for us. Jesus died on the cross so that we might reach eternal life. Without Him doing that as your substitute all hope would be lost. All the works we might offer in order to obtain eternal life are not really good works. The way we live our life, being simple, hunger, wanting goodness and faithfulness, does nothing to help us gain eternal life. It all depends on Jesus. You will notice that your minister's letter never mentions Jesus, except incidentally, at the start, in the names of the books he is reading.

I hope that you keep your focus on Jesus and not depend on how you live life.

This subject made me think of a newspaper column I just submitted this week. I included it below.

Love, Kevin
--------------------------------------
Suggested Title: "What is the purpose of Christianity?"

What view of Christianity do you have? How do you answer these simple questions: Why does Christianity exist? What purpose does Christianity serve for you?

I regularly hear people say they believe the purpose of Christianity is to teach us how to live a good life. We can learn the rules for proper behavior, to make God happy. I would call this a "moral" purpose. With such a view, some people might read the Bible and see "blessed are the poor in spirit" and think that they should be poor so they can be blessed. Some critics of Christianity hold the view that Christianity should have a moral purpose, but it does poorly at that. They see the Bible is full of accounts of people who did not live good lives. So, if we were to read the Bible for a good moral example, these critics would say it is not a good example.

My view is different. I think that the purpose of Christianity is not to teach good behavior but to deal with the problem of my misbehaviors. I, like all those characters in the Bible, regularly have trouble following God's rules. It is a big problem called sin and it goes so far as to corrupt our very natures, so we have sinful natures. The solution to that problem comes from the one whose name is placed upon the religion, Jesus Christ. He comes not to condemn us but to free us from the burden of our constant failures. He comes to be our substitute, paying the price for our failures that we owe and thereby dying on the cross. Then He rose from death and lives on and that is that. He did what I could not do.

to a friend uncertain about the afterlife

I've done some thinking about your statements about the afterlife. I'd like to share some thoughts. I'll try not to spew forth great volumes here, but please ask me if you want me to go into anything deeper. I'll number my thoughts because that is what I like to do when I'm creating a list that doesn't fit into a nice paragraph.

1) Our world/culture has programmed us to think in terms of science being the ultimate determinate of certainty. All a journalist has to say these days is write "scientists say ..." and people will ascent to what follows. With this programming, it is natural for us to feel doubt about things that can't be proven to us through "science". (I put science in quotes because I differentiate it from the Scientific Method, but that is another matter.)

2) Pushed on the point above, I would have to say that Satan is working to lead people to doubt eternal life and judgment. We should expect that we will be tempted to doubt. Certainly doubt is not that uncommon, but I would point out that we can be certain.

3) In a theistic orientation, not specifically Christian, it is apparent that nearly all people feel a sense of moral responsibility. This points us to the fact that there is someone outside of us to whom we are responsible for our actions. Yet, it is clear that judgment or justice for those actions does not occur in this life. It is this conflict between a sense of transcendent responsibility and a failure to see the justice effected in this life that leads us toward a future judgment to come beyond this life. We express our frequent sense of injustice when bad people triumph.

4) The Christian message is in its essence that we are morally responsible to the creator of the universe and we are utter failures in keeping our responsibilities toward Him. Our failures and even our orientation in opposition to the creator are wonderfully removed, not by anything we have done, but by the coming of Christ Jesus to suffer our punishment and rise again. He opens the door to eternal life for us. Our problem with our God is solved by our God. This is the gospel.

5) The gospel is communicated to us by the Bible, therefore I believe that the Bible in its entirety is God's word. It is the only source of such wonderful news. The Bible must be taken as a whole. To subtract a portion from being God's word only attempts to elevate ourselves into a position of being the selectors of what is divine and opens the door for Satan to provoke us to continue to subtract. This is where I ended up going starting in college years and was left with total atheism by 1985.

6) The promise of eternal life is an essential element of Christianity. Specific verses such as 1 Corthintians 15:12-19 focus in on this pointing out that without the resurrection we have nothing. In general, however, the teaching of eternal life stretches throughout scripture. We cannot omit it.

7) The very fact that you want to believe eternal life is true is an indication that you have a longing for something beyond this life. You were made for more than just this (Hebrew 13:14).

8) The Bible is the objective word of God that is our source for certainty. It does not depend upon us. The world might be teaching us to trust only in the world's ways but we have a divine way that grounds our confidence.

Overuse of the adjective "spiritual"

I'm taking an online course titled Dealing With Overload. In reading Lesson 1, this statement made me stop hard:

"These current developments are historically, experientially, mathematically, and spiritually unprecedented on a scale that staggers our thinking."

This may be applying the "spiritual" adjective to strictly an internal world. I suppose one of the things I'm disturbed with in the modern culture is the excessive use of an inward point of reference. So, does the above sentence use spiritual in that sense? The pace of the world is an unprecedented event for my inside spiritual world? Surely we get into personal world views here, but I would wish to state that the spiritual events of importance are all outside of us. Inside our spirituality is corrupt, because it keeps us focused on ourselves and how we feel and what is for me, etc. I'm holding the position that the greatest spritual event occurred about 2000 years ago and nothing can surpass that.

Shame, shame on you

Are you familar with this gesture: it involves pointing one index finger roughly palm-down and then using the other index finger to rub across it at a right angle, moving down the finger and repeating? Well that gesture was always accompanied by the words "Shame, shame". It was/is often applied from an adult to a young child when they do something wrong. This gesture has an interesting background, e.g. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=373564 .

Well, we all deserve to have this gesture applied to us, because we all fall short of God's standards. Shame and guilt are what we should receive. Think of how you felt if you were the recipient of this gesture. I remember that awful feeling. It is a good thing that God has chosen to give us something other than what we deserve. He sent Jesus Christ to take on our shame and guilt. He took those to the cross and died for us. Praise God that our guilt and shame are truly taken away.

Now, if you take that shame gesture and stop the stroking down the finger half-way you get a cross shape as your two index fingers overlay each other. We can let that cross remind us that we are free due to what Jesus has done for us.

They are already gone!

I wrote an email response to an individual recently who expressed the thought that we must pray to God to have a sin forgiven. Jesus will then take that sin upon Himself. This person then said that if we accept Jesus we will be forgiven. I had the following to say in response:

I would comment that some of the statements in your second paragraph would be better expressed differently. No doubt, the Lord wants us to pray seeking forgiveness from Him for all prayer is effectively acknowledging the one who is the source of that which we seek. God provides our forgiveness. We seek it from Him. However, the conditional statement: "But if we pray to God in Jesus' name, Jesus will take that sin upon himself and will plead to God on our behalf" is going down a path that can lead to problems. That suggests that Jesus keeps getting new sins piled on Him as time goes on. In fact, when Jesus died on the cross, He took on all sins of all people for all time. His work is already complete. The sins are gone - those in the past and those to come in the future. Jesus doesn't need to do anything further for us in regard to taking our sins away.

I'll take this even further, even though I might light off another firestorm on this list by doing so. Since Jesus has already taken our sins away, then praying for forgiveness is not a requirement for those sins to be forgiven. It is not that praying for such is bad, but we need to come to realization that we cannot do it perfectly. If you think you can pray for the forgiveness of each of your sins, then you deceive yourself and the truth is not in you. We cannot know all of our sins and we will never perfectly confess all our sins. Thus, the fact that Jesus already took care of them is a great comfort to us. It means that forgiveness does not depend upon what we do. That forgiveness is a free gift already given to all people. Many will reject that gift. Then they will be sentenced to eternal punishment for their rejection. Of our own free will we can never "accept" the gift but we are very capable of rejecting it. Only the Holy Spirit can bring us to a position of recognizing the gift we already have. Through the channel of faith, the Holy Spirit brings us to the full knowledge that Jesus has already taken our sins away and we are free! May you be blessed with a certainty of knowing your sins have been removed already nearly 2000 years ago!

Concerns for a friend

Following is a correspondence to a friend describing some of my concerns about her local congregation while documenting the true Christian faith. I though you might find this helpful.

Specific to the Trinity Sunday sermon was the explanation of the last part of the Athanasian Creed which talks about being judged for our works. Apparently the explanation was given that being Christians our works are good works because we have been changed and so God judges our works as good because they are good. This is false, because in this life we are both saint and sinner. We have current possession of the forgiveness of sins which means all our sinful works are seen or declared by God to be good. We also still retain our sinful nature that leads all our works to be evil. So, our works are evil but God declares them to be good. The sermon was suggesting that as Christians we are saints in the sense that we do works which are good apart from God's declaration. So, the false idea is: God changes us as Christians so that what we do are good works that do not need to be forgiven or cleansed. The true idea is: We are sinners in this life who keep on sinning by doing evil works but at Judgment Day God will declare that our works are good as a result of Jesus Christ's sacrifice.

The false idea above is called Semi-Pelagianism and that is exactly where the Roman Catholic church has been for a long time. That false idea is one small step away from another false idea that those good works we do qualify us for heaven. It is the thinking that God gets us started and then we do the rest in order to save ourselves. In fact, these ideas are so close, that I think that many might naturally jump to the second one when presented the first. Our sinful nature is always looking for ways we can contribute to our salvation so it is natural to make the jump.

This is all a part of a wider problem of confusion of justification and sanctification. Justification is the action by which we are granted life in heaven and how we are brought to be in a right relationship with God. Sanctification (in this context) refers to the matter of how we should live our lives, that is, in how we might seek to follow God's directions in this life. When justification and sanctification are confused, the idea of how we live our lives crosses over into being granted life in heaven. This confusion I have seen happen in explicit teaching but it is also a problem when members express this sort confusion in what they say and the spiritual leaders do not correct it. It also happens as a consequence of a second situation of concern: the overemphasis on sanctification. People see where the attention is directed in teaching, preaching, publications, etc. and they naturally assume that the subject upon which most of the time is spent is the most important.

The overemphasis on sanctification means constantly speaking about the works we should be doing, and speaking in such a way as to lead people to believe that they can do what they should in a perfect fashion. The primary message of your congregation and all Christian churches ought to be the law and gospel. The law showing us how we are sinful and the gospel show us how Christ saves us. I've heard more than a hundred sermons at your congregation which highly diminished the law and gospel and instead focused on sanctification. It is deadly to faith. Our faith needs to be built up by seeing that we do fail to keep God's law and thereby deserve punishment but then also seeing that Christ paid the price to take away our punishment. If there is one member or visitor who leaves your congregation without being reminded of that and understanding that on a Sunday morning, then the work of your congregation is a failure. If the teaching and preaching leads people to reach some of the false ideas above, then your congregation is not just a failure but it is a source of spiritual damage.

When sanctification is taught, God's law is being taught in a way that encourages us to go out and try harder to follow that law. However, whenever the law is preached it always shows us our sin. If I am encouraged to stop telling lies, then at the same time I am being told that I am guilty of lying. This fact about the preaching of sanctification was summarized by Martin Luther by saying "the law always accuses." In the numerous sermons I heard in which sanctification dominated, I also noted that the sermon ended with the sanctification part. It never came back to the gospel part. So, the law with sanctification always accuses me of sin but the gospel as the solution to that situation was not then presented. I actually found myself preaching gospel to myself after each sermon because the burden of the law is heavy. I wondered how many other folks did this for themselves. I wonder how many leave with the idea that Christianity is mainly about how I live my life and that I better just focus all my efforts to try to be good enough to be saved. In fact, the idea that Christianity is mainly about sanctification is very widespread among Christians, in media and in many other ways by which people are regularly influenced outside of your congregation. The overemphasis on sanctification at your congregation does nothing to combat this false idea that people get from the outside and in fact, it tends to confirm that false idea. It is really bad. In fact, your pastor believes that the Bible is mainly teaching us about sanctificiation. He thinks you can find sanctification on every page (in a strange twist of Martin Luther's statement that you can find Christ on every page). So, your pastor is doing something that he acknowledges and it is something he believes is right because it "follows the Bible." The consequence is that the message of Jesus Christ and the Gospel is being surpressed at your congregation.

Thought for Ascension Day

Today is the celebration of the day Jesus ascended into the sky and disappeared from his disciples sight. Here is a question for you to ponder:

If Jesus primarily came to be an example to us,
why didn't he stay with us and continue to be an example?

The answer is that Jesus did not come primarily to be our example, but instead to be our substitute. He took our place on the cross. He then promised that the Holy Spirit would come to guide His followers "into all truth".

"However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide
you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority,
but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you
things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is
Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are
Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it
to you. A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a
little while, and you will see Me, because I go to the Father."
-- John 16:13-16

The Holy Spirit guides us into the truth that Jesus was our substitute. He confirms in us a faith that trusts that Jesus has done all that was needed to pay for our transgressions.

Even the disciples of Jesus needed to be guided into truth. Just prior to Jesus' ascension, they asked Him:
"Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" -- Acts 1:6. They were still quite confused. However, the Holy Spirit came to them, inspired them to write down the books of the New Testament and now the Holy Spirit works through the written word of the Bible to bring us into all truth.

This is It! A Sermon on Isaiah 45:20-25

Audio mp3

My translation (ok it is rough! that is the point):
20)
Gather and come together
Approach together, refugees of the nations.
They did not know, the ones lifting up wood of idols and praying,
this god will not deliver.
21)
Tell and approach.
They will counsel together: Who has heard from the beginning:
He told him what ever exists is nothing without me.
22)
Turn toward Me and be saved
all the ends of the earth.
For I - God and not another.
(this is an imperative: You be saved)
23)
With myself I took an oath -
it came out of my mouth - righteousness - a word
and not it will return
for to Me every knee will bend; every tongue will confess.
(He speaks righteousness. It is not an adverb, but the noun that came out of His mouth. His
authority is signaled. The deal is done.)
24)
Only in Yahweh, (to me He said), righteousness and strength forever -
it will come to pass,
and they will be ashamed, all the ones being angry at Him.
25)
In Yahweh they will be righteous (justified)
and they will make their boast (glory)
all the seed of Israel.

A mind map of the sermon follows:

Did Walther really say this?

I need some help. I could be entirely wrong in what follows, so please direct me to my errors.

I've been using the book God Grant It (Gerhard Grabenhofer, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 2006) for a my devotions for a few months. These devotions are based on sermons by the prominent theologian C. F. W. Walther, translated from the German by Grabenhofer and compiled by August Crull. Many of the devotions have been great, but I have to admit that I have felt that there are statements here and there that disagreed with Christian teachings. However, they were all superceded by what I read this morning. On page 259, I read this:

The Spirit of God continually drives the converted children of God forward to pursue sanctification, without which no one will see the Lord.

As I read this statement, it seems to be saying that sanctification is a requirement for salvation (i.e. seeing the Lord). In other words, unless one improves himself, lives a better life, he will not be saved. This understanding would be opposed to the teaching that we are saved by Christ's sacrifice on the cross alone. It dramatically opposes it!

Note, you will get a better feel of the context by reading this devotion as a whole. This sentence is not an erratic one by itself but fits into the whole.

Now I am left wondering if Walther really made such a statement in his original? These devotions were translations from his sermons. Is the translation accurate? Did it start from Walther's manuscripts or from notes taken by a parishioner listening to the sermon being preached?

So, the question is: Did Walther really say this?

Psalm 32 - A Sermon from the Poetical Approach

Psalm 32 A Poetical/Literal/Wooden Translation

Here is an Audio Sermon based on this text. Sermon notes follow each verse in Courier font.

Pay attention to who the speaker is and who is being addressed. These switch several times without warning. Initially it begins with no clear speaker or hearer, but rather two verses of proverbial statements.

1. For David--a poem.
Happiness: transgression being forgiven,
sin being covered.

The definition of happiness. Parallel constructs. Not having this is a curse.

2. Happiness: a man whose guilt is not counted to him by Yahweh,
and not in his spirit slack.

Also defines happiness. Imputed guilt - not; imputed righteousness - yes: Romans 4:21-24. Note the three terms: transgression, sins and guilt are repeated in verse 5. The spirit not being slack is perhaps a reference to confident trust in Yahweh.

Now we will switch from the state of happiness to the opposite. The Psalmist begins talking about himself to no one in particular.

3. When I was silent
they wore out my bones (body)
because of my distressed cry all the day

Consequences of not having that forgiveness and (per verse 5) confessing one's sins (and hence need for a savior. Perhaps deals with earthly life, but more strongly applies to the eternal punishment of hell.

4. For by day and night your hand will be heavy on me
my juice changed to droughts of Summer.

More description of hell. My essence, described as a fluid (“my juice”) will be dried up. The just will be nothing.

Next, strong punctuation mark (selah) and we switch back to describing what it is that defines happiness. Now the Psalmist addresses Yahweh.

SELAH.

5. My sin I made known to you,
my guilt I did not cover
I spoke: I will confess according to my transgressions to Yahweh
and therefore, you lifted the guilt of my sin.

The Psalmist only states his intentions to confess his sins and the sins are instantly forgiven. No work is done. It does not require confessing all your sins, trying harder, doing better, paying the penalty. No, this is not as the commentaries say. There is no description of the path to righteousness here. Rather, it is the declaration of righteousness with forgiveness.

With the punctuation mark, we switch to Yahweh being the speaker and the prototypical person being addressed, though it switches to the category of the saved individual in the same verse.

SELAH.

6. Upon this, all-kind (all-grace) will intercede toward you
in the specific time for finding
great flood waters will not reach him.

A new name for God! Rather a title: all-kind. You've heard the title “all-knowing” and “all-powerful.” The new one is “all-kind” or “all-grace”. The middle phrase is hard to translate, but I don't think it is what many translations state. Instead it is talking about the time when Yahweh intercedes for us. To particular times are special: when Jesus is on the cross and the Judgement Day. The threated punishment for sins will not touch the one who has grace from Christ.

Next the speaker switches back to the Psalmist who is again addressing God.

7. You a covering to me from a { tight place | an oppressor }
You will keep me
Shouts of “deliver!” You will change me.

Emphasis on the You = Yahweh. He saves us, where being covered is equal to being forgiven. All we do is shout: (you) deliver (us Lord)! and we are changed. See 1 Corinthians 15:52. Next God speaks to the one who is saved.

SELAH.

8. I will look upon you and I will show you in the way which you will go,
My eye {mental faculties} will advise you

Note carefully the tenses. God will show us the way we will go, not the way we should/ought to go. No, that would be the law. This instead is the promise, the Gospel. He is going to show us the eternal life in heaven that awaits us. He will take us there. He will guide us.

9. You will not be as a horse, as a mule, not understanding,
in bridle and jaw-restraint his trappings
to restrain not to approach to you

With God's guidance, we will understand. Now the speaker changes back to the way it began, with no specific speaker but more of proverbial statements directed at both saved and unsaved sinners.

10. Many sorrows to the wicked
but the one trusting in Yahweh
kindness {grace} will transform him.

Same grace as above. All-grace, God is the definition of “grace”. When Grace transforms us, it is just a synonym for God. Lastly the Psalmist speaks to those who are saved.

11. Rejoice in Yahweh and be glad righteous ones.
and sing out all the upright people.

Rejoice over the happiness! Sing about it.

Sermon Oct. 28, 2007

John 4:46-54 Jesus remotely heals the nobleman's son in Cana.

Cana

• Water into wine in John 2 - first of the miracles He did there (2:11)
• Nathanael was from Cana

Between the wedding and the nobleman's son Jesus travels to Jerusalem for the Passover. He cleanses the temple and speaks with Nicodemus. He returns to Galilee from Jerusalem, Judah. Along the way, he stops to teach the woman at the Samaritan well. Verse 44 curiously reviews Jesus' statement, not otherwise cited in John, that a prophet is not honored in his home town. He used that in Nazareth. This is tied to the statement that Jesus left Samaria after two days. This must have been an indication that Jesus needed to move on to eventually reach Nazareth, so that He might be rejected there.

The nobleman was from Capernaum, at least that was where his son was sick. Capernaum was Jesus' home base after being rejected in Nazareth.

In v 54, is the first sign after coming back to Galilee unreported or is something different meant? Probably the best way to understand this is that Jesus returned from Jerusalem before He went to Cana and turned water into wine. Then He returned from Jerusalem (Judah) to Cana a second time and this is the time where He healed the nobleman's son.

Two main points to be observed are:

1- Instant remote miracle - proves Jesus is God.

2- Jesus statement that you won't believe unless you see signs.

Jesus performed a miraculous healing at at distance in an instant by just speaking the word.

What else about signs?

John 2:11 This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him.

John 2:23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did.

John 3:2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

Then in our text: John 4:48 Then Jesus said to him, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe."

Note the theme that is developed here. Signs do prove that Jesus is God. Yet, the statement in our text is addressed to the nobleman. "Jesus said to HIM, unlesss YOU people..." Was he commenting on the people from His home town? Was He speaking of the stubbornness of the Galileans in general? Was it a comment on the way the nobleman asked? Was there some doubt in his voice. Example Mark 9:22-23.

Note 4:50 - the nobleman believed "the word" that Jesus spoke, that is, that his son lives. Note the present tense, that the NIV distorts to a future. He now lives. It is done, with a word. Later, 4:53, it says the nobleman believed and his whole household. Thus, the first occurrence of belief was probably limited just to the word that the son lives. The later occurrence is then left for believing the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ. In the end, the signs did cause him to believe.

Towards the end of John, at the end of Chapter 20, he says: John 30-31 "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."

Sermon - Sept 9, 2007

Sermon: Galatians 5:16-24, Trinity 14 September 9, 2007

Title: Is This Really a Sanctification Text?

We have all heard the statement made by some that the Bible is mostly about sanctification, that is, it's main subject is teaching us how we should live our life in this world. That is also called the Third Use of the Law, serving as a guide for our lives. The First use of God's Law is to restrain the unbelievers, as a curb, through the application of government laws, such as one forbidding murder. The Second use is to show us our sins. As Christians who are in need of forgiveness and tend to wander from the truth, this use of the law is most important. It prepares us to hear the Good News of Jesus Christ, who died to take away all our trespasses against the law.

Certainly the Bible contains passages that involve the third use of the law. God does desire us to seek to live lives more and more in line with His will and He expresses His Will in His Word. However, some folks believe this third use is the main topic of the Bible. Some have even said that every page of the Bible is about sanctification, twisting Martin Luther's statement that you can find Jesus Christ on every page of Scripture. Often the epistles written by Paul are held up as primary examples of passages that have a Sanctification focus. Galatians may be one pointed to by some. Here, in our text, it may appear we have a selection that is primarily about sanctification. However, lets take a closer look.

First, lets set our standards for a sanctification text. What should it look like? It should be primarily communicating how we should live life in an encouraging, non-critical fashion. It should not be pointing out that perfection is required in following God's law and that any failure is enough to condemn us to hell. A sanctification text will not set up abolute, rigid boundaries. The purpose of a sanctification text should be to inform us, not persaude. Recall that only the Gospel can modivate us to live our lives more and more according to God's will. The law cannot motivate us; it can only set our goals. In contrast, a text that is primarily second use of the law will drive us to despair of our own efforts to keep the law. It will point out an absolute standard that we cannot satisfy the law's requirements. It will point to our repeated failures.

Now let's work through the text, beginning with verse 17 (cite). It tells us that the spirit, that is God's spirit, is opposed to our sin corrupted flesh and vice versa. The result is we do not do the things we desire. Doesn't this leave you feeling discouraged? This points out our constant failures. It points to the futility of our sanctification efforts. How can we succeed if our flesh keeps opposing the spirit? This verse doesn't sound like sanctification but more like second use of the law.

Moving on to verse 18, we read that being led by the spirit we are not under the law (cite). We are told that being “led by the spirit” is something different than trying to keep the law. This doesn't seem to be discussing the third use of the law either, since in this special state of being led by the spirit we are no longer under the law. The process of sanctification is necessarily being under the law.

Considering next verses 19-21 we see a list of works of the flesh (cite). We are told that if we do these we will not inherit kingdom of God. That's no problem, because these only apply to other people, right? It is a good thing we are not a sinner like them. But, wait a minute! Consider these more closely. They are listed using some extreme words, but you really see on that list common behaviors like anger, envy, jealousy, hatred and impurity. Have any trouble with those? Well, if we are honest with ourselves we would say we all all all have trouble with them. In fact, remember how Jesus expanded adultery to include even lustful looking at another? And hating another is the same as murder. So too with these extreme sounding sins here. We cannot escape finding ourselves as one of those that does these works of the flesh. The necessary conclusion is then that we will not inherit the kingdom of God. This has to be 2nd use of law. It is condemning, exhaustive, conclusive. It pummels us to a worthless heap. Our works count for nothing. We fail at keeping this law.

When we continue on to verses 22-23 we see a list of the fruits of the spirit (cite). Notice these are not works but fruits. They are not really parallel to the list of the works of the flesh. Fruits are more of something that comes naturally as opposed to works that involve expending some effort. Perhaps these “fruits of the spirit” are something special like being “led by the spirit” back in verse 18. Notice further how verse 23 comments that there is no law against such fruits. What an odd way to put it. It doesn't say there is a law commanding such fruits, only that there is none forbidding them. When looking at the list of these fruits you also see something different that the works of the flesh. The works of the flesh are personal offenses, often directed toward another person or they are emotional extremes. The fruits have a different characteristic and even include faithfulness, joy and peace.

Perhaps you can see something completely different in these fruits of the spirit as I can. Faith is something that is a gift to us from the Holy Spirit. The faith we have causes us to trust in Jesus Christ as our savior from sin. He sacrificed His life on the cross to pay for our sins. He did that out of love and in essence gives us that salvation He earned as a gift of love. We have joy because are works of the flesh are erased. We have peace with God, who has been gracious with us by not judging us according to our sins, but in His longsuffering He bore our sins. He showed us His kindness and goodness. He was gentle and self-controlled with us, not enacting His wrath which we deserve. Against this Gospel there can be no law, for God's actions are necessarily just.

Hopefully you agree with me at this point that our text is not a sanctification text. Instead of the third use of the law, this is primarily a second use of the law showing us our sins and, indeed, providing us the Gospel relief to our conviction under that law.

Lastly, we can look at verse 24 (cite). Notice that this is citing a completed thing for those who are Christ's. That is, if you belong to Christ, then you have already crucified the flesh. It isn't a thing in progress like our sanctification. We are not being told here that we should go and crucify our flesh more and more in our lives. It is a done deal. The Holy Spirit creates faith in us and our flesh is crucified because our sins are erased. The works of the flesh that we perform are elimated from the perspective of God's eyes. When God no longer sees them, they do not count against us.

From our perspective we still see our works of the flesh. We still struggle because we do not do the things we want to do. We look forward to the day of Christ's revealing, however. Then we will see God face-to-face and observe from His eternal perspective. Then it will all be clear what a wonderful blessing we have in Jesus Christ. Amen.

Parable of the Good Samaritan

I'm sick of the constant derision the Gospel message undergoes. I went to the Wikipedia tonight to see what it said about the Parable of the Good Samaritan. It was as I expected. I added the Minority View to the page. I didn't think my editing would survive the editorial staff at Wikipedia if I gutted the page and claimed I was presenting the majority view. The Gospel really is the minority view - the narrow way that leads to life.

For now my edits stand on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan

but in case they delete them, here is what I said:

Minority View

According to the minority view, understanding this parable requires recognizing the importance of the Lawyer's perspective. He began to test Jesus in Luke 10:25. His particular goal of questioning was to determine what he might do himself to obtain eternal life. Jesus answers with the tall, unreachable standard of loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind as well as loving your neighbor as yourself. He says do this and you will live, that is, you will have eternal life. Now the key comes in Luke 10:29 where it is revealed that the lawyer wanted to justify himself. In other words, he wanted to be able to claim he had accomplished what was required by the standard Jesus cited. He wanted to feel like he was good enough to qualify for eternal life. In order to do this, this man wanted a definition of neighbor that was not too challenging for him to say that he loved that person. Now, in presenting the Parable, Jesus provides an answer that is intended to set the standard high. The one you should consider your neighbor is the person you believe is the most undesirable. You have to love that person as yourself if you want to qualify yourself for eternal life. The point of Jesus' statements was to drive this lawyer to despair of his own efforts to qualify for eternal life. This conclusion is applied to all people. None can be that good or meet God's standard. Instead, the good news points us to another source for our righteousness and goodness that qualifies us for eternal life once we give up on finding it in ourselves. See also: Divine grace.

Is it really up to you?

I was reading the webpages from Zumbro Community Church http://www.zumbrocc.com/salvation.html on the subject of salvation. The front-page banner link to this page was labeled Directions to Heaven. Here is what it says:

Eternal life in heaven is a free gift... You must trust Christ alone as your only way to heaven. The moment you do, He extends eternal life as a free gift and you are His forever.

Does that really sound like a free gift? It sounds like I must do something for it. Now, for sure there is no waiting for the delivery. I can be assured in satisfaction of Microwave Generation needs that I have instant delivery but that is after I do my part.

My part is further developed later in the article where it says:

You can settle the matter right now. You don't have to get on your knees or pray out loud. You probably won't have a so called religious experience or feel anything at all. But if you earnestly in faith say the following prayer, God will save you for eternity.

That certainly settles it. It is about me and what I do. What should I do if I am not sure if my prayer was earnest enough? How earnest must it be? What if I think I was earnest but I was actually deceiving myself? Wow, it seems like a lot depends upon me.

This congregation, which simply points to the Bible as their doctrine, won't find the answers to these questions there. Nor will they find the prayer they cite in the Bible.

What you do find in the Bible is an account of what Christ did. You find His living of a perfect life and a perfectly innocent sacrifice of Himself on the cross. You find Him rising again. These are all works accomplished for you. In reality, your sins are already forgiven and you have the gift of eternal life. You don't need to DO anything for it. It is yours.

Men of Integrity - most important thing about Christianity?

Consider the following congregational announcement:

Dear Men of Congregation X:

Have you considered what following Jesus would have been like, being around him and hearing him talk about men and their money, their careers, their families. Thankfully we have God’s Word so we can hear these things in our generation.

On date we will hold a seminar for men at Congregation X, an inspiring study called “A man of His Word: Calling Men to Integrity and Leadership.” We will be studying principles concerning eight aspects of most men’s lives: your relationship to Christ, your wife, children, church, career, money, the marketplace and your mission.

How sad for the men of this congregation. The do not understand the Gospel any more because they are constantly served such sanctification teaching. The purpose of this study is to teach you to behave and give you 8 rules for happy living. That sort of analysis was so typical of the sermons of the Rationalistic period (1800s). There is no focus on Christ here. It is all a focus on self. How can you be like Jesus? Well, do we have to ask whether Jesus, if present in the same way now, would be teaching us about money, careers and families? No, instead, it would be focused on salvation. Most of the Biblical examples that might be cited to support teaching on these subjects is really teaching us about salvation. Someone once told me that teaching about sanctification is on every page in the Bible so we have to be constantly teaching that (and consequently not teaching justification) but I don't buy it. Salvation and Jesus Christ is on every page. What are we doing, however, when we take those weak in the faith (whoever is not perfect) and teach them as above instead of about their sin and the salvation that Christ delivers? It is a very, very bad thing.

----

For more on this organization, see http://www.menofintegrity.org/articles.html

What is needed instead of sanctification preaching...

A quote from J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith?, pp. 141-142, 1925

A new and more powerful proclamation of law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law. As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway; they are turning to the village of Morality, and to the house of Mr. Legality, who is reported to be very skillful in relieving men of their burdens.
... 'Making Christ Master' in the life, putting into practice 'the principles of Christ' by one's own efforts...these are merely new ways of earning salvation by one's obedience to God's commands. And they are undertaken because of a lack view of what those commands actually are. So it always is: a low view of the law always brings legalism; a high view of the law makes a man a seeker after grace. Pray God that the high view may again prevail.

----
As heard on an old recording of the White Horse Inn radio show I was listening to today on the way to the Free Lutheran Conference.