sins of the minister

During one of my classes, a discussion developed concerning the Protestant position on the uniformity of sin. In contrast to the Roman Catholic position, where sins are identified as either “venial” or “mortal,” the Protestant tradition tends to place all sins on a level playing field. [Personal Note: I love the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on sin, as it very representative of traditional Roman Catholic apologetic method. You will read several paragraphs of historical sources (primarily after the 5th century), and then eventually run across one paragraph with the heading "Protestant Errors." Even the casually knowledgeable reader will easily identify the false assertions made in the paragraph, with such classic caricatures as, "Sin in Luther's doctrine cannot be a deliberate transgression of the Divine law." or "Faith alone saves, there is no necessity for good works."] The discussion in my “Introduction to Pastoral Ministry” class began with a question that was a little something like, “If you consider all sins equal, what about a pastor or someone in authority who, say, commits adultery and is stripped of his position. Shouldn’t we do the same thing if a pastor lies or covets?”

The Protestant position originates from the nature of God’s law as described in Scripture. Paul’s letter to the Church in Rome stands to this day as the most complete explanation of Christian position on sin, the law, and righteousness. Paul begins by describing, in detail, the nature of the natural man. His less-than-flattering description climaxes in a smattering of quotes from the Old Testament, designed to leave no room for misunderstanding or compromise of his explanation. Romans 3:10-18 hits the nail right on the head, as Paul writes:

As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
“Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Now I realize that can be pretty depressing, but hold tight. This summary of the nature of humans is foundational to everything that Paul writes. Any discussions he has on salvation, the nature of grace, the nature of mercy, the nature of Christ’s atonement, all are founded firmly on the concept that a natural human has neither the desire, nor the capacity to seek righteousness. That’s the toughest part of Paul’s arguments to get one’s head around, because we don’t like that reality. No one seeks God? Waitaminute, wait just one cottin’ pickin’ minute here. If no one seeks God, then how does anybody find Him?! Well, that’s a whole other discussion for another time. For now, let’s take a look at what Paul goes on to say concerning the Law of God.

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:19-20)

“Those who are under the Law” is referring to the Jews to whom the Law of God was given. What Paul’s doing is ensuring that his readers know that everyone is on a level playing field when it comes to living up to God’s standards. Paul, a Pharisaical Jew, wanted to be perfectly clear that the Jew cannot claim to have some kind of righteousness over and above the Gentile. It’s not as if the Jewish Christian, who has faithfully kept the Sabbath his entire life, has merited some bonus brownie-points over the Gentile Christian. Both stand under the same condemnation, but both also stand under the same banner of hope, as Paul continues…

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26)

Those verses aren’t light reading, but read them carefully. Paul’s saying that the righteousness that God demands in the Law has been made available outside of the Law. If you really want your brain to explode, consider this: The righteousness that God demands is the righteousness of God Himself! Chew on that a while, and you’ll likely give yourself a headache. In light of this, verse 20 makes a lot more sense. Of course no flesh could be justified by the Law, no matter how detailed the law was. The Law definitely serves its purpose, however, in giving us a knowledge and understanding of sin. Originally that knowledge was only given to the Jew, but now even an ignorant Gentile like me can read the Law of Moses and have some understanding of depth of my sinful nature.

So what does any of this have to do with an equality of sins? Consider the fact that Paul clearly states that no one can be justified by adherence to the law, because there’s no way to acquire the righteousness of God through adherence to the Law of Moses. We tend to think of Law as a baseline, and you can act either above that baseline, or below it. Take, for example, a speed limit on a highway. Most 100-series highways in Nova Scotia have a posted speed-limit of “Maximum 100 km/h,” and you can either obey that limit, or break the law and exceed that limit. If you break the law, you risk getting a speeding ticket and having a penalty exacted for your transgression. The problem with that way of thinking is, there’s no real positive symmetry to human law. It’s not as if I can obey the speed limit my whole life to gain honourable mention in the “Speed Limit Keepers Hall Of Fame.” God, however, has no middle ground to offer. How could He? The holy and perfect creator of all things did not create in order to bring about and maintain a status quo. If our only purpose in existing is to exist, then that is existence without purpose, and God does nothing without purpose. We have two options. We can either have our fellowship with God, the same fellowship our ancient parents had, restored, or we can stay in our wickedness, and await the penalty that accompanies our transgressions. There’s no middle ground. This is why Jesus could say, “He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me, scatters.” (Luke 11:23)

If the purpose of the Law were to restore that fellowship with God, then we would be forever without hope. As James writes, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” (James 2:10) I may have kept the ten commandments perfectly (which I haven’t), but then allowed a sorceress to live (Exodus 22:18). Guess what? I’m now guilty of transgressing the entire law! Thankfully, the penalty due my transgressions has been exacted, not in me, but in God Himself through to atoning sacrifice of Jesus, who laid down his life willingly, but also had authority to take his life up again. Faith in Him, and confession of his Lordship is why He mediates on our behalf, and the means by which the most miraculous transaction takes place. Not only are my transgressions laid on Christ for him to pay the price, but His righteousness is laid upon me. Therefore, the righteousness that God requires is now mine – the very righteousness of God. I didn’t produce it, earn it, or otherwise generate it. This is why Paul could go on to say, “Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (Romans 3:27-28)

Okay, okay, so what does any of this have to do with the discussion in class? Well, I believe the question was based on a false assumption, that when a person is dismissed from ordained ministry, it is an act of justice or discipline. That is just simply not true. If a deacon, for example, struggled with alcoholism which resulted in the destruction of his marriage, there are a few possible positions his fellowship might take, neither of which has any bearing on “justice.” Often depending on what kind of struggle the individual is fighting (Is he really trying to deal with it, or is he knowingly rejecting any wrongdoing?) a church may or may not ask for his resignation. A lot of things are up for examination in that case. How is his struggle affecting those he desires to serve? Is his ministry interfering or contributing to his struggle? Is his ministry actually helping him in his struggle? None of these have anything to do with “punishment” or “justice.” Ministry is not a “reward” that you can be given and then stripped of for transgressions. Ministry is the occupation of every single Christian. The only question is, are you able to do the job or not? Perhaps you’re not able to be a pastor, or a teacher, but you are able to be a good host. Perhaps someone who is dealing with issues of adultery would not be the best equipped to be a marriage counselor, but very knowledgeable on confession and prayer. Perhaps someone who struggles with anger isn’t the best person to work in conflict resolution, but is a great person to talk to about how to study scripture. I used to smoke, and struggled with the sin of addiction. I was therefore asked not to teach the younger Sunday School kids, since that would have a negative effect on them. My being restricted from that ministry was not a punishment, it was just common sense. How could I speak to children about the sin of drug or alcohol addiction one Sunday morning, and then run into one of them outside the mall on Monday, puffing desperately on cigarette to feed my nicotine addiction?! However, my not killing sorceresses doesn’t seem to cause them any difficulties at all, so that’s not one that gets in the way of my ministry.

So, in summary, yes all sins are on a level playing field as far as God’s concerned, but that does not in any way speak to how the church handles the ministries of it’s members. Being a pastor is not a reward for being “less sinful.” Let’s face it: There are sins that most people understand, and sins that most people don’t. If a pastor were to lose his temper and sin in anger, most of us would probably understand that, forgive him, and still listen to him as a leader in the church. If a pastor was caught in adultery, however, how many people who be listening to his sermons with an ear of obedience? If we’re honest, we’d have to admit many wouldn’t. Is the pastor capable of doing his job when nobody’s listening to him? No. Removing him from that position is not a punishment for his sin. In fact, I find that the people who are most influential on matters of sin are those who have struggled the most with them, and can testify to the strength of God in overcoming them, so that pastor might someday become a brilliant speaker on how to prevent falling into the sin of adultery of overcoming it. Therefore, the assignment or revoking of ministerial positions within the visible Church should not be paralleled to God’s view on sin and righteousness. Every single Christian has a job to do in the Church. The only question is, do you have the skills to do the job, and is there anything that would impede you from doing your job?

love prerequisites

When Christ began his public ministry in Campernaum, his did not preach “I love you, you love me, we’re a happy family.” People often mistake the love of God as some sort of mushy Halmark-card sentiment that makes you feel all warm n’ tingly inside. The love of God is amazing and unfathomable, of that there can be no doubt. When the Scriptures say “God is love” they are not telling us that God is conforming to some standard that is “loving.” They are stating that this concept that we vaguely understand, called “love,” finds it’s origins in, and it very nature in God. We cannot understand what love is, unless we understand who God is, because God IS love.

Spend a few minutes thinking about that. If your brain doesn’t do a few situps, they you haven’t thought about it enough. This concept establishes a prerequisite for love. Step 1, know God. John confirms this in his first epistle:

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:7-8)

Now don’t get confused by the word “love” that the world tosses about here and there like it was tinsel on a forest. The phrase “true love” is more than a little cliché, so perhaps the phrase “Love in Truth” would be better. I love spaghetti, but I don’t Love spaghetti in Truth. I love Bruce Willis movies, but not a Love in Truth. I love my daughter… ah… now her I do Love it Truth. I Love my wife in Truth. The love that I have for my wife and daughter do not find their origin in me. In fact, if I were to be perfectly honest with the darkness in my heart, there have been times when I have thought my life would be simpler if I didn’t love them as I do. That darkness is likely either the Enemy, or some sin crouching at my door, but niether rule me in that matter. I love my wife and daughter unconditionally. I can say with the utmost honesty that I cannot fathom a situation where they could do anything to make me stop loving them. Thus, I know the love I have for them does not find it’s origins in this fragile human mind. Did I love them in that way before I knew Christ? Honestly? I don’t think I did. I can try to convince myself that I did, but it simply could not be Love in Truth.

There is, I believe, another prerequisite to love as taught by Christ in his public ministry. Actually, it’s a prerequisite to knowing God, who is the source of love. When Christ initiated his ministry and public preaching following his baptism by John, and his time in the desert with the Enemy, he did not declare to the people, “Please, just let me love you and forgive you!” No, how could he? How could we know love? Forgiveness? Who neeeds it? I’m a pretty good guy. So, Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary, what would you say to me, the listening public?

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near!” (Matthew 4:17b)

How can you hope to know God, or love, or anything at all when all you really know is your own selfish desires. How many people stood before Jesus in that time scoffing, or even just sticking their fingers in their ears, and screaming “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” How many of us today to that? What about me? What about you? The kingdom of heaven is nearer today than it was those 2000 years ago. God help us all.

heos who?

While I find the whole “heos hou” debate very facinating, I really don’t see the point. Don’t get me wrong, I think Eric Svensen has done a great job in researching the issue and made some excellent observations. However, folks like Robert Sungenis continue to flame Svendsen with claims that they’ve found an example of “heos hou” used in the first century which does not terminate the action of the preceeding clause – as if that proved absolutely anything other than the simple fact that every Greek rule has exceptions.

Folks like Sungenis quickly whip around and say stuff like, “It is Svendsen’s claim that, since heos hou, by all accounting of the use of the phrase in the time period between 100BC and 100AD, does not serve to continue the celibate relationship of Joseph and Mary, then, ipso facto, Mary gave birth to other children besides Jesus.” Please note that Svendsen does not make his arguement against the perpetual virginity of Mary based on the use of “heos hou” – he simply uses that as another supporting evidence. Sungenis makes this statement as if the entire issue rested on “heos hou” and it doesn’t. Not at all. The fact remains that it is the Roman Catholic who has to apply the most foreign meaning to words throughout the New Testament in order to maintain that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a perpetual virgin. I believe Sungenis’s desperate plea to 4 Maccabees 7:3 merely makes this fact that much more apperant.

The facts are these:

1. The Roman Catholic Church has defined the perpetual virginity of Mary as a dogma which you must believe. Gerry Matatics goes so far as to say it is as much a historical fact as the ressurection of Christ.
2. The POSITIVE evidence for the perpetual virginity of Mary is an appeal to a symbolic interpretation of Ezekiel 44:2 where a gate of the sanctuary that the Lord has passed through must remain shut. That, and some late church fathers.
3. The NEGATIVE evidence AGAINST the perpetual virginity of Mary is simply the application of the plain meaning of the Greek words used throughout the New Testamant refering to Joseph knowing Mary (eginosken – singular 3rd person imperfect indicitive active verb form of ginosko), as well as the repeated references to the brothers & sisters of Jesus (adelphos & adelphe). THIS INCLUDES the plain, normal application of heos hou in Matthew 1:25 (Joseph kept her a virgin until (heos hou) she gave birth to a Son)
4. Note that Protestants don’t say that you must believe Mary had other children – Rome, however, states that you must believe she didn’t.

Given these facts, who is taking the more rational position? I think it’s pretty simple, myself.

he ain’t a heretic – he’s my brother

The recent discussion on Calvinism featured on the Bible Answer Man broadcast has got me to thinking about a great many things. Firstly, I echo what was said in the broadcast in that I believe this is an “in house” debate that can be carried out among brothers & sisters in Christ. I recognize fully that the Spirit gifts His people in many different ways, and I know there are many folks who have never been convicted to really look into these issues. I think of a deacon in my church who I know has never investigated these issues, but I also know he is a great man of God, and he’s also the man who taught me how to pray. A very close relative of mine occasionally enjoys engaging in debate on these issues, and he’s also been honest and admitted that he really hasn’t looked into the scriptures we’ve discussed – but that doesn’t make him any less of a Christian.

I am a Calvinist, but let me tell you honestly, sometimes I wish I wasn’t. Sometimes, I’d like to just go with the flow, and just fade into the crowd with the largest chunk of modern-day ecumenical evangelicalism. It would be so much easier! However, when Martin Luther was asked for a straight-up response at the Diet of Worms in 1521 – dude, do you recant of your radical theology or not – he responded, “Unless I am convicted of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.”

Luther had no real choice, because the Bible teaches what it teaches, with no apologies to man. That’s the real issue – what does the Bible teach? All through the discussion with George Bryson, James White kept bringing up passage after passage for discussion, but Mr. Bryson didn’t respond exegetically to a single one of them. He simply dismissed them on the basis of his interpretation of other scriptures, and his own philosophy. Over and over again, he made the claim that “Calvinists believe this or that” and, speaking as a Calvinist, I can assure you that in each and every case Mr. Bryson was simply wrong. Calvinists do not believe God forces anybody to do anything. We do not believe God is the author of sin. We do not believe man has no obligations. We do not believe man does not have the ability to choose.

Some of the things he claimed were identical to me claiming that he believes people should be able to boast before God for their salvation. Of course he doesn’t believe that, and it would be rude of me to cast that accusation on him. You see, the majority of arguments against Calvinism originate from a misunderstanding of Calvinism, or jumping to illogical conclusions based on those misunderstandings. One could argue, quite easily, that if I did something (exercise faith in and of myself) that John Doe did not do which resulted in my salvation and John Doe’s damnation, then yes – I have a reason to boast over and above John Doe. To turn that around, however and say “George Bryson and those who believe like him teach people to boast of their own salvation” would be absolutely wrong, and a blatant slander against Mr. Bryson and what he believes.

If you want to know what a Calvinist believes, then please, ask a Calvinist. We’re not some psychotic fringe-element of Christianity. If you believe that the Bible is the only infallible guide to God’s will today, then it’s only because of people like Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin who protested (that’s why we’re called “protestants”) against the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to be the ultimate authority of faith and morals. God, through these men liberated, us from oppression, and it’s because of them we now have the civic freedom to follow the example of the Bereans and search the Scriptures daily to see if these things are so. (Acts 17:11) I’m not a Calvinist because of John Calvin – “Calvinist” is just a nickname for a particular viewpoint, kind of like “Baptist” – I’m a Calvinist because I have been convicted by Scripture that these things are so. So if you ever want to debate the issues with me, I’d love to! I think it’s great when brothers and sisters in Christ can get together over coffee and talk about this stuff without fear of offending each other. But make sure that we’re discussing on the common ground of Scripture. Philosophical arguments can be made to prove almost anything because the mind of man can come up with all sorts of fascinating ideas – but Scripture alone is truth, because it is the breath of God. So, if you want to rebuke me, make sure you rebuke me with Scripture.

And just to stir the pot a little bit, I’m going to leave you with a passage that you should feel free to examine on your own, and come to your own conclusions. I think this passage clearly teaches that ONE ACTION can have two intents – one from God, and one from man – thus even in an action that, from the human perspective is sinful, the divine intent is holy. Thus Joseph could say to his brothers, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” (Genesis 50:20) And just to stir the pot even more, I’m going to use “The Message” so that it’s easy for everyone to read. Let’s look at Isaiah 10:5-19:

“Doom to Assyria, weapon of my anger. My wrath is a cudgel in his hands! I send him against a godless nation, against the people I’m angry with. I command him to strip them clean, rob them blind, and then push their faces in the mud and leave them.

Note what God is saying here. God sent Assyria against Israel – It’s God’s wrath that Assyria is manifesting…

But Assyria has another agenda; he has something else in mind. He’s out to destroy utterly, to stamp out as many nations as he can. Assyria says, “Aren’t my commanders all kings? Can’t they do whatever they like? Didn’t I destroy Calno as well as Carchemish? Hamath as well as Arpad? Level Samaria as I did Damascus? I’ve eliminated kingdoms full of gods far more impressive than anything in Jerusalem and Samaria. So what’s to keep me from destroying Jerusalem in the same way I destroyed Samaria and all her god-idols?”

Despite that fact that the only reason Assyria was moved to conquer Israel, and was successful, was because God sent them – those arrogant Assyrians have their own agenda. They think they’re the greatest, and that they can do anything they want. They could care less about giving the glory to God! So, what does God do?

When the Master has finished dealing with Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he’ll say, “Now it’s Assyria’s turn. I’ll punish the bragging arrogance of the king of Assyria, his high and mighty posturing, the way he goes around saying, “I’ve done all this by myself. I know more than anyone. I’ve wiped out the boundaries of whole countries. I’ve walked in and taken anything I wanted. I charged in like a bull and toppled their kings from their thrones. I reached out my hand and took all that they treasured as easily as a boy taking a bird’s eggs from a nest. Like a farmer gathering eggs from the henhouse, I gathered the world in my basket, and no one so much as fluttered a wing or squawked or even chirped.’

What?! He’s going to punish Assyria for doing exactly what he commanded they should do? Why??

Does an ax take over from the one who swings it? Does a saw act more important than the sawyer? As if a shovel did its shoveling by using a ditch digger! As if a hammer used the carpenter to pound nails! Therefore the Master, GOD-of-the-Angel-Armies, will send a debilitating disease on his robust Assyrian fighters. Under the canopy of God’s bright glory a fierce fire will break out. Israel’s Light will burst into a conflagration. The Holy will explode into a firestorm, And in one day burn to cinders every last Assyrian thornbush. GOD will destroy the splendid trees and lush gardens. The Assyrian body and soul will waste away to nothing like a disease-ridden invalid. A child could count what’s left of the trees on the fingers of his two hands.

So, let’s break it down simply:

What happened? Assyria defeated Israel

Why? Because God commanded them to do so

What did God intend? To justly punish His people for rebellion

What did Assyria intend? To loot, pillage & brag about it.

The Result? Assyria defeats Israel as God commanded, and then God punishes Assyria for what they did because of their selfish intent

I think everyone should take some time to examine this passage in whatever translation they use. “The Message” isn’t a translation, it’s an interpretation (and a non-reformed one, at that) and I use it here only to demonstrate that even in “The Message”, the meaning of this passage comes through loud and clear. This passage does not stand alone, however, and I encourage everyone to dig into God’s word daily and test our own traditions, and what we’ve traditionally been taught against Scripture.

epiphanius on virginity

Finally found the Epiphanius quote that Mr. Matatics was referring to. Funny… his source is a 4th century author writing ABOUT the virtues of virginity. Of course, that’s completely unbiased. Here’s the quote…

Epiphanius, Panarion, 78.14.1-6

1. James also wore a plate on his head. And once during a drought he lifted his hands to heaven and prayed, and at once heaven sent rain. He never wore woolen clothing. His knees grew hard as a camel’s from his continued kneeling before the Lord out of excessive piety. 2. Thus they no longer called him by his name; his name was “The Just.” He never washed in a bath, did not partake in animal flesh, as I explained above, and did not wear sandals. And there is much else one could say about the man and his virtuous way of life.

3. You see then that this house was in every respect most noteworthy. For if Joseph’s sons revered virginity and the Nazarite life, how much more did that elderly honorable man guard with reverence the holy Virgin and honor the vessel in which the salvation of the human race dwelt! 4. “Does not nature itself teach you” that the man was elderly, greatly advanced in age, grown great among men, faithful in his ways, and reverent in appearance? For the gospel says that “the God-fearing man sought to divorce her secretly.” 5. But James brother of the Lord and son of Joseph, died in Jerusalem, having lived twenty-four years, more or less, after the Savior’s Ascension. He was ninety-six years old when he was struck on the head by a fuller with his club, flung from the pinnacle of the temple and cast down, he who had done no wrong 6. knelt and prayed for those who had thrown him down, saying: Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing. Thus even Simeon, his cousin, the son Clopas, who was standing at a distance, said, “Stop, why are you stoning the just one? Behold, he is uttering the most wonderful prayers for you.” And thus he was martyred…

Given this spurious citation, a conflate reading of two earlier mentions on the subject, I find it difficult to understand how Gerry could confidently issue the challenge that he did last night. Here’s what he said:

Gerry: “Do you agree that if, and I realize this is an “if” that you need to check out, but do you agree that if James, the brother of our Lord, was 96 when he died, and if he died in 62BC, that it is proof-positive that someone born in 32BC and referred to by all these ancient writers as a “brother of the Lord” – therefor, clearly indicate that the phrase “brother of our Lord” can be used by people in the first century A.D., like Josephus, to indicate someone who’s not a child of the Virgin Mary?”

dance, pilgrim, dance

Well, the show went… um… and that’s all I have to say about that. I don’t think there were any suprises anywhere. The man is a dancing-machine.

Listen to The Dividing Line of Nov 18, 2003

…and if you don’t know what it’s all about, maybe you should go back and listen to the Dividing Line of Oct 14, 2003 where James reviewed the debate with Gerry and some of the issues that were brought up.

And in case you’re really interested, I grabbed the Eusebius citation Gerry gave. Click here to read it.

showdown at the marian corral

Don’t forget tonight on the Dividing Line. Gerry Matatics and Eric Svendsen join James White to discuss some of the issues brought up in the recent debates on the perpetual virginity of Mary. This includes such enjoyable tidbits as determining where, precisely, Josephus mentioned that James was 89 years old, and whether or not the “Odes Of Solomon” are simply the writings of a Jewish Christian – or a gnostic heretic?

Need a refresher? Listen to these…
Mr. Matatics brings up the alleged Josephus quote against Dr. White back in 1996
Mr. Matatics uses the supposed Josephus quote AGAIN in his debate with Dr. Svendsen in 1999…
Dr. White questions him on the alleged quote in his debate in 2003…
Mr. Matatics questions Dr. White on the Odes of Solomon…

Odes Of Solomon Ode 19

1. A cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord’s kindness.
2. The Son is the cup, and the Father is He who was milked; and the Holy Spirit is She who milked Him;
3. Because His breasts were full, and it was undesirable that His milk should be ineffectually released.
4. The Holy Spirit opened Her bosom, and mixed the milk of the two breasts of the Father.
5. Then She gave the mixture to the generation without their knowing, and those who have received it are in the perfection of the right hand.
6. The womb of the Virgin took it, and she received conception and gave birth.
7. So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies.
8. And she labored and bore the Son but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose.
9. And she did not require a midwife, because He caused her to give life.
10. She brought forth like a strong man with desire, and she bore according to the manifestation, and she acquired according to the Great Power.

11. And she loved with redemption, and guarded with kindness, and declared with grandeur.
    Hallelujah.

    Complete text available at The Gnostic Society Library

What Josephus actually wrote about James…
(Antiquities Book 20, Ch. 9, Section 1)

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

…and that’s it. Wow. Not much.

So what’s this about getting tossed off a temple?
It was actually Hegesippus, from Book V:

The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the temple, and cried aloud to him, and said: “O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people is in error, and follows Jesus the crucified, do thou tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified.” And he answered with a loud voice: “Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven.”

And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, “Hosanna to the son of David,” then again the said Pharisees and scribes said to one another, “We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him.” And they cried aloud, and said: “Oh! oh! the just man himself is in error.” Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: “Let us away with the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings.” So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to one another: “Let us stone James the Just.” And they began to stone him: for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said: “I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

And, while they were thus stoning him to death, one of the priests, the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, to whom testimony is borne by Jeremiah the prophet, began to cry aloud, saying: “Cease, what do ye? The just man is praying for us.” But one among them, one of the fullers, took the staff with which he was accustomed to wring out the garments he dyed, and hurled it at the head of the just man.

Complete text at earlychristianwritings.com

Still looking for ANY source that indicates that James was in his eighties – but even if we find that somewhere, it would require a remarkable stew of multiple citations from multiple sources to come up with what Mr. Matatics claims Josephus said. Wowzers.

The Dividing Line line aires live tonight at 5PM MST. That’s 7pm EST, and 8pm for us here in Nova Scotia. Click here to tune in, and feel free to join us on the chat-channel!

what’s the deal with double-predestination?

In my discussions with various folks on the subject of predestination, I’ve found that most people have no problem with the idea of a God who chooses people to go to heaven. Their problem is with the idea of a God who either chooses people to send to hell, or simply doesn’t choose them to go to heaven. A friend mentioned an e-mail she recently received from someone mentioning that topic, and it got me to thinking.

Basically, they have issues with the idea of “double-predestination.” Before we get into it, let’s define our terms. Webster’s defines predestine as “to destine, decree, determine, appoint, or settle beforehand.” When I speak of “predestination,” I am speaking of God’s sovereign choice of certain people to whom He will show mercy. I emphasize “sovereign” because I want t make it clear that He’s doing it all on His own… not based on anything we’ve done, thought or said. He doesn’t predestine based on our accepting Christ… we accept Christ because he predestined us.

Now, you may disagree with that definition, in which case we have a whole other discussion to undertake sometime. But, for now, let’s not even talk about a positive decree on the part of God as to who’s going to be saved. What I want to talk about is the flip-side.

The reason most people get the jibblies at the idea of predestination to damnation is because they have a really unbiblical concept of the human condition. We’re not morally-neutral, here, folks. It’s not like we’re just sitting around, being generally good people, and Jesus is just one available option of many. Nope. The Bible spends more than a little time on the subject of sin. I just did a quick search of the NASB with BibleWorks5, and it comes up with some 430 occurrences of the word “sin.” That would tend to indicate, it’s a pretty big issue. The bible describes those without Christ as dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1), and hostile toward God (Rom 8:7). Romans 3:9-18 describes us like this…

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” “Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.” “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Yep, we stink pretty bad. What folks don’t seem to understand is this: From the moment Adam & Eve sinned, and corrupted our human nature, God justly and righteously determined that every person who will ever exists is going to suffer His wrath for all eternity. Yep, that’s what I’m saying: God has predestined everyone to hell.

You don’t go to hell because you “didn’t accept Jesus”. You go to hell because you’re a sinful human who is in rebellion against God. So, whether you believe a person can choose Jesus all on his own (which, by the way, is pleasing to God – which the Godless cannot do according to Romans 8:8), or you believe in God’s sovereign choice – it doesn’t matter. Either way, God predestines people to damnation.

I’ve heard some colorful explanations even from people who believe in unconditional election, like, “God doesn’t predestine people to hell – he simply passes them over.” Well, if that is what makes you feel better, fine. But you think of this:

God in omnipotent, omniscient, and is the creator of time itself. Even those who deny God’s sovereign choice, with the idea that he “predestines” based on his absolute knowledge of future events – He knows who will accept the gospel – admit God’s omniscience. That given, conversations I have often go down like this:

Me: So, God knows everything that’s going to happen, right?

Them: Yes.

Me: He knows who’s going to accept Christ and who’s going to reject Him.

Them: Yes.

Me: He always knew this, right?

Them: Yep.

Me: Even before he created the universe?

Them: I suppose so.

Me: So, he also knew exactly who was going to hell?

Them: Yeah, I guess.

Me: Do you believe God gives life? That without him, say, giving life to me, my mother would have never conceived.

Them: Absolutely. That’s why I’m against abortion.

Me: So, God knew that all kinds of people would be going to hell – and he created them, or gave them life anyway.

Them: Yes but… hey. Wait a minute!

Anyway, so that’s my brief rambling on this matter. I just don’t get why people have such a big problem with this idea of “predestination to damnation.” If it we weren’t already under the judgment of a holy and just God, why would we need things like grace & mercy?