Sermon Video: "Who do you say I am?" - Luke 9:18-22

The most important and contentious question faced by the Early Church was this: “Who is Jesus?”  There were those who questioned the humanity of Jesus, primarily those from a Gnostic viewpoint, and there were those who doubted the full divinity of Jesus, led by Arius.  At the Council of Nicea in AD 325, these issue were brought to the forefront by the Emperor Constantine who had no tolerance for division within the Church.  The resulting creed solidified the Orthodox position on the person of Jesus, and even though it didn’t eliminate for good those who would occasional challenge the Church’s teachings on the full humanity and full divinity of Jesus, it did set the boundary as to what those teaching would be.

            This same question about who Jesus really is was actually asked, by Jesus, of his disciples.  The disciples had a much closer and prolonged experience with Jesus than the crowds, and thus were able to see beyond the possibility that Jesus might be John the Baptist defying death, or Elijah back to fulfill Malachi’s prophecy, to the truth behind all of the miracles.  Peter spoke up for the disciples to declare of Jesus, “the Christ of God”.  This declaration by Peter reflects the belief by the disciples that Jesus had been chosen by God to fulfill the long-awaited role of Messiah.  “Christ” is the Greek equivalent of “Anointed One”, a term that in Israelite history could refer to both the kings who were anointed by before assuming the throne, and the priests who were anointed before they began to serve in the temple.  Jesus, as the Messiah, would go on to fulfill both leadership roles, as the priest-king, descended of David with the right to sight upon the throne, but also performing the priestly duty of offering a sacrifice on the behalf of the people.

            Rather than basking in the glow of their acknowledgment, Jesus immediately informs his disciples that his role as Messiah will be far different than anyone anticipates.  Instead of glory and victory on the battlefield, the Son of Man “must suffer many things”, be betrayed by his own people, and killed.  This shocking revelation must have made the disciples stagger, how could God’s Messiah suffer like the prophets of old, how could his own people possibly reject him, and how could he fail to overcome their attempt to kill him?  Before they can even process this wholly unexpected prediction, Jesus finishes it off with the finale to his mission, “and on the third day be raised to life.” 

            Was Peter right to declare that Jesus was the Messiah?  Absolutely, but he had no idea what God’s Messiah was really here to do.  The incarnation of Jesus, God made flesh, has far loftier goals than mere political solutions, far more lasting than simply being a good role model.  The Christ will change everything between God and mankind, not through his miraculous power, but through his willingness to accept an unjust death.  Who is Jesus?  He is the Christ, the Son of Man and the Son of God, sent to live, die, and be raised to life to save us from our sins.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video 

Why the Bible skeptics and KJV only fanatics have something in common.

As I continue to prepare for my upcoming History of the Bible series, I’ve been watching some of the Youtube videos of James White’s debates with both Biblical skeptics and KJV fanatics.  In doing so I’ve come to a realization, although I’m sure someone else has noticed this already, to me it was still worth noting.  The skeptics and the KJV fanatics are two sides of the same coin.  Now, they certainly won’t say that, and would likely have a hard time having a civil conversation, but that doesn’t change the fact that both groups are over-reacting to the same historical fact that we don’t have a perfectly preserved New Testament text, a fact which has been known since at least Erasmus first published his Greek NT over 500 years ago, but one that both groups never tire of using as some sort of “secret” that the Church doesn’t want you to know.

            The skeptics, like Bart Ehrman and John Shelby Spong, look at the textual history of the NT, see that there are certainly uncertainties, (which any rational Bible believing scholar readily admits without fear) and erroneously and over-zealously concludes that the entire NT is therefore untrustworthy, that Jesus never claimed to be God, that the resurrection and the virgin birth are myths, and that the Church has been part of some Dan Brown-like conspiracy to hide the truth from the rubes that still believe such things.

            The KJV only fanatics, like Peter Ruckman and Sam Gipp, look at the textual history of the NT, see that there are certainly uncertainties, and erroneously and over-zealously conclude that the only solution is to posit a perfect re-inspiration of the Bible in the form of the KJV, thus concluding that whatever mistakes the KJV contains don’t actually exists, that all further scholarship and all modern translations are perversions of the devil, and that the only option for the Church is blind faith in the KJV to the extent that even foreign missionaries should teach illiterate tribes English so that they can read the KJV instead of doing new translation work.

            That both of these positions are clearly unnecessary and exceedingly dangerous is clear.  If either group had their way, the Church as we know it would be destroyed and be replaced by something that either has no soul, because it has lost its faith to doubt, or no mind, because it has had to silence its intellect to exist. 

            The history of the Bible isn’t a fairy tale full of perfect people, but it also isn’t something to be afraid of.  For those who wish to maintain both their faith and their intellect, the study of the history of how the Bibles we have today came to exist is both enlightening and enriching.  Don’t let the skeptics or the fanatics scare you away, the truth is not our enemy.

* On a personal note.  This observation of the connection between these two groups occurred to me as I lay in bed, rather than hoping I remembered it the next day, I got up to post it to my blog.  I assumed that somebody else had noticed this before be, and of course they had.  Two days later I was watching a debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace, during which Wallace drew the comparison between skeptics like Bart and KJV Only advocates.  Thus my "original" observation lasted only two days before I found out it had already been made by a NT expert, oh well.

Thoughts about the history of the Bible & KJV Onlyism

As I prepare to teach my series on the history of the English Bible for the third time, beginning on August 10th, I've been reminded of the zeal with which advocates of KJV Only positions have often disparaged the faith of fellow Christians in the name of defending God's Word.  That the Word of God should not be used to tear asunder the Church of God seems like an obvious truth, but sadly it is not.  That historic facts should be the basis of our faith, and our faith in the accuracy of the Scriptures also seems like an obvious truth, but it is routinely tossed aside when passion replaces reason and personal attacks replaces evidence.
As I was continuing to refine my presentation I came across several resources that might be helpful to those confused about the KJV Only debate that I would like to share here.

This first one is a web page by a man named Derek Oulette who created it in response to a "historic" chart that he was given by a KJV Only advocate.  It answers the fundamental questions of text types, copies, and reliability in an accessible manner.  To look at the web page, click here: KJV Debate web page

The second is series of TV shows recorded about twenty years ago that feature James White, one of the best authors on this subject, The King James Only Controversy, as well as representatives from the translation teams of the NKJV, NIV, and NASB, along with three KJV Only advocates, among them the notorious "Dr." Samuel Gipp.  As you watch, notice the use of evidence and facts on the side of those representing the modern texts, and the complete disdain for them on the other side along with circular arguments and personal attacks.  To begin watching the videos, click here: John Ankerberg TV show videos
** There are 39 videos in this series, but they average about 5 minutes each.  Also, the KJV Only advocates in these videos are fond of accusing those representing the modern translations of being on the side of their arch-villain, the Roman Catholic Church.  This attitude of acting toward the Catholic Church like the year is 1611 instead of 2014 is beyond sad; We're 500 years out from the Reformation, isn't it time to start building on our common love of Christ and stop acting as if the next Pope is likely to be the Anti-Christ?  Fear of the Catholic Church runs right alongside anti-intellectualism in the KJV Only circles.**

The whole issue of NT textual criticism can frighten lay Christians without cause (which is one of the reasons for my desire to teach the history of the Bible), this webpage does a good job of explaining some of those historical issues in a brief format. To visit the webpage, click here: NT Textual Criticism

The last is a portion of a video from a physics teacher in England who regularly posts video that explain complicated things like the European Union or the American Electoral College.  This particular video is a Q&A that delves into the subject of opinions and why people hate to change them.  Skip ahead on the video to 1:15 to start the question about opinions.  To watch the video, click here: CGP Grey video

** I know that some will say, "the Bible isn't an opinion to be dropped when I learn something new!!"  Of course not, and if you think that you've missed the point.  The authority of the Bible is foundational to who we are as Christians, the history and exact text of the Bible is different, however, because it involves evidence and ongoing research.  When Nesle-Aland and UBS (the two primary Gk. texts for modern Bibles) issue an updated version of their text they're doing so because ongoing study in the fields of Biblical archaeology and textual criticism continue to help us move closer to the original text; the accuracy is already 98%+, but why shouldn't we be willing to continue working on that last 2%?  To fix the errors of the past is not to denigrate God's Word at all, rather it shows our reverence for it, thus when the text can be corrected we must do so instead of clinging to it like an out-dated or erroneous opinion.  That is the fundamental error of the KJV Only advocates, and the reason for referencing Grey's video.**

Lastly, let me make it clear that I appreciate the KJV Bible, it was a remarkable Bible in its day made by men who loved God and served his Church.  It has stood the test of time far better than many other translations, but it isn't perfect.  It has errors, these can be corrected, it has archaic language, this can be updated.  I have no problem with those who love the KJV, or with those who only use the KJV, but those who insist on KJV Only, and attack anyone who uses any other translation (even the NKJV), are wolves in sheep's clothing, they can only destroy the Church through their work.

Thankfully, I have encountered only reasonable ministers here in West PA, men and women eager to serve the Church of God, more interested in saving the lost and shepherding their flock than fighting their brothers and sisters in Christ.  This sort of environment doesn't exist in a vacuum, however, it continues to need education and ecumenical cooperation to feed it and keep it strong.  In my own way, I'm happy to be contributing to that effort.

Sermon Video: An Unexpected Hunger and an Unexpected Feast - Luke 9:10-17

What is faith?  Is it believing the unknown, the improbable, the impossible, the absurd, or something else?  In Luke 9:10-17 Jesus is once again confronted by large crowds which he ministers to by teaching them about the kingdom of God and healing the sick.  On this occasion, that ministry template is put to the test ironically by the success of the ministry itself.  Because of the enthusiasm of the crowds for what Jesus could do for them, this large crowd had followed him into a remote place where there was neither food nor lodging available.

            At this point in the narrative, the question becomes: What do we do about this new need of the people?  Is it our responsibility because we’re involved with them already, or do we need to keep our focus on our original mission?  Such questions routinely confront churches and charities because problems such as poverty are certainly multi-faceted.  Along with the deciding if a new problem should be addressed by an organization is the connected question of whether or not the resources exist to take on a new responsibility.  For the disciples, both questions seemed to be easily answered as a “no”.  The focus of their ministry thus far has clearly been teaching and healing, why change now?  Likewise, this massive crowd’s need is so far beyond their available resources that no logical solution to the problem can even be attempted. 

            Jesus, in response to their conclusion, tells the disciples that they should solve the problem.  What?  How is that possible?  As the disciples contemplate the seemingly impossible, Jesus takes the five loaves and two fishes that they do have, gives thanks to his Father for them, and begins to pass them out to the crowd.  At some point, early on in this process, the disciples would have been aware that a miracle was taking place.  When everyone has eaten, the disciples gather up a basket-full of leftovers each, a physical reminder of the over-abundance of God’s power.

            So, what is faith?  Is this episode an example of God asking you to trust in the impossible or the absurd?  Only if you don’t recognize the power of God at work in our world each and every moment of each and every day.  When God demonstrates his power through a miracle it isn’t a moment where God decides to take action, God is always acting.  If we truly saw the world as it is, our list of things which we think to be impossible would be far shorter.

            The lesson for the Church today is one of trusting in God for the results.  We must take what resources we have, even if they seem far too meager, and put them to work for the kingdom of God to try to solve whichever problems confront our communities.  To believe that God can do the improbable is far from crazy, it is looking at our world, seeing the history of God’s actions in it, and trusting in his love.  We must do our part, we must trust, let God worry about multiplying our effort for his kingdom.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video 

The Dangers of Assumptions about the Future.

One of the things that most people don’t realize is just how much the underlying assumptions in their thought processes affect the way that they look at the world around them.  From this point I could illustrate what I mean using any number of fields, from politics, to philosophy, from current events to pop culture.  The area that I’m going to focus upon is the affect that a pre-millennial and pre-tribulation interpretation of the portions of Scripture that refer to the End Times can have upon Christians who subscribe to them.  A term that encapsulates these beliefs and others related to the relationship between Israel and the Church, Dispensationalism, likewise carries with it implications for how those who hold to it look at the world around them and how they interpret Scripture.

            This is not intended as a critique of Dispensationalism, although the notion often associated with it that the Church (or even America) has replaced Israel in God’s Covenant deserves to be critiqued, rather I am simply pointing out the affect that such a viewpoint can have upon one’s outlook even without the person who thinks these things being aware of where those notions originate.  Nor is this a refutation of pre-millennial or pre-tribulation interpretations of the End Times, I myself hold to both of them, though certainly not with dogmatic fervor due to the very strong warnings in Scripture that the End Times will come like a “thief”.  I have always maintained that anyone who claims to know anything about when the Second Coming of Jesus is going to happen is either trying to sell something or woefully misinformed about Scripture.

            So, what is this viewpoint altering phenomenon that happens to those who hold to pre-millennial, pre-tribulation, and/or Dispensational beliefs?  Pessimism, pure and simple.  Anyone who believes that human history MUST greatly decline BEFORE the return of Jesus Christ while not be surprised by news of tragedy in our world, will not have much hope for the future, and may even welcome news of woe as a sign that the end is nigh.  I have witnessed this twisted welcoming of tragedy, be it wars, pestilence, natural disasters, or the Church supposedly slipping toward Apostasy, on the part of people whose belief that the future can only be a downward curve precisely because they are convinced that Scripture predicts just such a trajectory to history.

            Forget for a moment that history moves in vast swings, from good to bad, from prosperity to want, and from liberalism to conservatism, such that storms could be on the horizon now, and yet sunshine could be just around the corner.  I say that because Christians continue to convince themselves that Jesus Christ will return in their own lifetimes, despite the warnings from Scripture, because we can’t help but think of our own generation as the pivotal one in history.  Even if the next hundred years are a mitigated disaster, as anyone looking at 1914-1945 would have to conclude, who is to say that the decades to follow wouldn’t be one of peace and progress?

            The point that I’m hoping you will see is that those who look to the future and see only woe before Christ will return can’t help themselves when they read the news, they see signs of decline, skip signs of good things, and confirm their own assumption that the future must be bleak.  Of course this attitude has vast implications as those who don’t believe that the future holds any hope won’t be very keen to invest themselves in project or efforts designed to alleviate things such as world hunger or disease and are likely to care little about the environment, just to name a few. 

            In regards to the Church itself, a similar pattern of pessimism unfolds.  Those who believe that the Church MUST be in a state of Apostasy BEFORE Christ can return are forever looking for signs that the Church is failing in its mission.  How can this not have a negative effect upon missions, church unity, and ecumenism?  There are far too many Christians who believe that they can write off all of the Orthodox, Catholic, mainline Protestant, and plenty of other people who call themselves Christians, who have put their faith in Jesus Christ, and who seek to be his disciples, simply because a worldwide Church that is succeeding and triumphing doesn’t fit their own viewpoint.  In essence, they look at 95% of all of the people who have called upon the name of the Lord, as Paul says in Romans 10:13, and conclude that the grace of God is incapable of saving them because only a tiny minority of the universal Church is not in a state of Apostasy.  Needless to say, I cannot understand how the Church of God, empowered by the Holy Spirit, can be thought of as being so impotent. 

            If pre-millennialism and pre-tribulation beliefs, along with Dispensationalism, tend to lead to these fatalistic and pessimistic viewpoints, what can we do about it?  Do we have to adopt a post-millennial belief in order to be optimistic and therefore anticipate the triumph of the Church BEFORE Jesus can return?  We don’t have to do that, unbridled optimism has similar pitfalls (such as not thinking anything needs to be done because the future of necessity must get better), although without the doom and gloom mood.  Being aware that such attitudes are a danger is the beginning of keeping yourself from falling prey to them.  I have no idea if the next 100 years are going to be a golden age or a wasteland for America, the Church, or the world; but neither do the pre-millennial OR the post-millennial advocates.  What we think the future holds, affects how we view today; since only the Father truly knows the future, why don’t we stop acting like we have inside information.