davidould.net

The first from Mark Meynell, minister at All Souls Langham Place in London

...if one of the purposes of such visits is to raise the profile of Catholicism, then it is perfectly fair game to re-examine the reasons why many of us count ourselves Christian but notCatholic.

Some believers constantly relive past battles of spiritual ancestors as if little or nothing has changed for decades or even centuries; while others reject the need to get involved those such debates altogether (perhaps in the mistaken assumption that this makes them more contemporary). Neither path makes sense. The past is not irrelevant but nor is it a straightjacket. As I previously quoted on Q a few weeks back, Tom Wright helpfully sums it up like this:

the trick is to recover the first-century questions and try to give twenty-first century answers, rather than taking sixteenth-century questions and giving nineteenth-century answers…

Still, some past battles continue to have relevance when they concern first-century questions – and that is in large (though not entire) part what the Reformation was concerned with in its determination to get back to the sources (‘ad fontes‘) of Scripture and the early church. We might not answer the questions in exactly the same way that the likes of Luther or Calvin answered them (not least because the presenting issues are different) After all, 21st Century Catholicism is by no means identical to its 16th Century forebear. But we would be unwise to ignore what they said and why they said it, especially if there are aspects of Catholic belief that have not in fact changed that much.

This then was the thinking behind a recent, but all too brief, series preached by the boss, Hugh Palmer last month. It was a corker on the 4 ‘sola’s of the reformation, under the title TRUTHS WORTH DYING FOR. Definitely worth checking out:

• GRACE ALONE (Ephesians 2 : 1-10) – 8/8/10
• FAITH ALONE (John 3 : 16-18) – 15/8/10
• BIBLE ALONE (2 Timothy 3 : 14-17) – 22/8/10
• CHRIST ALONE (1 Timothy 2 : 5-6, Hebrews 9 : 24-28) – 29/8/10

Well said Mark. To which I would only want to add:

Article XIX

Of the Church

...

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

---

 

Article XXII

Of Purgatory

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

---

Article XXVIII

Of the Lord’s Supper

...

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

---

Article XXXI

Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross

The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

All of which is, of course, still the official position of the Anglican Church both here in Australia and back home in England.

Which is why its such a surprise to read this from an English bishop...

Enforcer becomes caretaker
To take care of Europe;

...

A conservative caretaker,
Astounded the sixties:
May Benedict the sixteenth
Surprise us with blessing.

Of course, it may be that Benedict surprises us with a blessing, ie that he repents of the Romish errors that as both enforcer and caretaker he, more than any man on earth, is responsible for upholding. A blessing that would be indeed. But not, I suspect, what Kings had in mind. Oh well.

As Mark notes. Some things are worth dying for. Shame that our bishops don' t quite see it the same way.

I've spent a fair bit of the first half of this week pushing through Jude, the penultimate book in the New Testament in preparation for Sunday's sermon. It's a slightly obscure little letter dealing with a fairly simple subject (God's wrath against false teachers) but using a number of challenging and confusing images. For example, there is the enigmatic v9,

Jude 1:9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

What's going on there?! Nowhere else do the Scriptures speak of such an event and yet Jude uses it as an illustration of "straight talking" ie not speaking wrongly of someone, even if they are evil. Some suggest that it alludes to an episode recounted in the inter-testamental apocryphal work "Testament of Moses" (also known as "Ascension of Moses" or "Assumption of Moses") but there's no real evidence of it when you work through that text. Similar claims of a source in the Midrash Rabboth don't yield anything firm either.

There is, however, a more reasonable solution to this problem and its provided for us by Peter Leithart,

Perhaps some progress might be made toward a solution to this puzzle by tracing the origin of the quotation at the end of Jude 9: “The Lord rebuke you.” It is a quotation from Zechariah 3:1-2:

Then he [the man with the measuring line, 2:1] showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?”

At first glance this hint does not look very promising. It seems that the only parallel between Zechariah 3:2 and Jude 9 is the quotation. But a closer look will reveal other parallels as well. First, apart from Jude 9, Michael, whose name means “who is like God?” (cf. Ex. 15:11) is mentioned only in Daniel (10:13, 21; 12:1) and Revelation (12:7). Daniel characterizes Michael as “one of the chief princes” (10:13), “your prince” (10:21), and “the great prince” (12:1). Michael is the only one who stands firmly against the princes of Persia and Greece (10:20-21). He is the one who stands as protector over the Lord’s people (12:1). Elsewhere, Daniel refers to a “Prince” that is identified with the Messiah (9:25). In Revelation 12:7, Michael leads the angels in the war against the dragon. All of these passages suggest the probability that Michael is Christ.

Moreover, as David Chilton points out in his commentary on Revelation 12:7, the word “archangel” means simply the “chief angel” (cf. 1 Thess.4:16), a title that applies abundantly well to the “angel of the Lord” or the “Captain of the Lord of Hosts” (cf. Joshua 5:13-15; Ex. 23:20-23). Most commentators agree that the Angel of the Lord often is a pre-incarnate appearance of the Son. Thus, we may conclude that the archangel Michael is the Angel of the Lord is Christ.

And, of course, he goes on to exegete further.

It's interesting, at least to me, that once again we see the New Testament affirming or alluding to the divine character, the Angel of the Lord. I'm planning on writing more on Him in the weeks to come (as motivation carries me along) but, for now, I'll quote Martin Downes at Against Heresies,

Is the Angel of the LORD a mere siphon, the conveyer of a tape recorded message, or is he what he appears to be, the covenant promise-maker as well as the sacrifice-receiver?  It would be very easy to approach these texts in a wooden way that, in effect, flattens out the contours of God's revelation of himself.

Lest you think that this is some quirky theory that I have dreamed up consider the words of the great Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) on Exodus 3:

 

This redemption was by Jesus Christ, as is evident from this, that it was wrought by him that appeared to Moses in the bush; for that was the person that sent Moses to redeem the people.  But that was Christ, as is evident, because he is called 'the angel of the LORD' (Exodus 3:2).

Jonathan Edwards, A History of the Work of Redemption, (Banner of Truth, 2003), p. 72

The one who appears and speaks to Moses, whose presence makes the ground holy, is the Angel of the LORD.  When he speaks he says that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the covenant promise-maker and sacrifice-receiver. 

Exodus 3:2 reads, "And the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush."  In Deuteronomy 33:13 ff. Moses invokes the blessing of the LORD upon Joseph and "the favour of him who dwells in the bush." 

Often, when this theory gets broached some will push back. I'll let Downes answer them,

It is somewhat ironic that the championing of progressive revelation has gone hand in hand with a diminished confidence in the revelation of Christ in the Old Testament.  Historically it is as if the church has regressed and not progressed in her confidence that it was "Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt" (Jude 5, ESV).

Indeed. And so we arrive back at Jude. According to Jude it is He who is our "only sovereign and Lord" (v4) and He who rescued a people from Egypt, punished angels, poured out destruction upon Sodom and, in Zechariah 3, stood in front of Satan and rebuked him. He is Lord of both Old and New Testaments, Jude reminds us and He will protect His church.

see Recursion

hope that got your attention.

Thing is, it's right. Well, almost. Anyway, Tim Adeney posts this little missive:

That’s because creation itself is saved.

We’ll be here, the world will be here.

Sure it will have been renewed, sure it will be (largely) unrecognizeable, but it will still be this world, and it will be here – not there.

Like when you get a ‘new’ kitchen. There may be almost no trace of the old, but the new still inhabits the same space, and still has some continuity to the old.

He is, of course, entirely correct.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. ¹¹ Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives ¹² as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. ¹³ But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

The future promise is one of a renewed Creation and heaven come down to earth. So we may very well speak of "going to heaven" but it is far more accurate to speak of heaven coming to us.

Discuss

an oldy but a goody. First, a segment from "Bullhorn" by Rob Bell.

far far cheaper than a Playstation 3...

from here, some excellent work by John Dickson of CPX pointing out some pretty big errors in several well-known New Atheist presentations. John has a point, if such horrendous errors are being made on simple issues, how much can you trust them on the detail?

yes, Tatsuya is at it again