God. Real. Right.

Education has its pluses and its minuses. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m an educator and believe very strongly in the benefits of what I do. But I constantly see the downside of academics as well. If enlightenment, circumspection, and maturity typify the benefits of education, then disenchantment, aloofness, and either lethargy or skepticism typify its curses.

One of the most important benefits of education is in the application of hermeneutics, the discipline of interpretation. The significance of being able to interpret texts accurately should be obvious to any text-believing follower of Jesus. Scripture is a text, after all. There are incoming students in the habit of reading a passage and reacting to it purely (more…)

Share on Facebook

“Once-saved-always-saved,” the doctrine of eternal security, is a hard pill for some people to swallow. A caller to my radio program is witness to just such. He claimed that since the letters to the churches in the Revelation were written to believers, and that God said to them that if they did not repent He would blot them out of His book, that it is obvious that some believers can lose their salvation. As I struggled to figure out what passage he could have in mind, it became apparent that his well-intentioned argument was based, as is often the case, on something not quite the same as the actual content of the passage of scripture so casually referenced.

To be precise, the caller’s claim was, “If the believers do not repent, God will blot them out of His book.” For perfect clarity, that statement could be symbolized as
~ R –> B
where “~” means “not”, “R” means “that believers repent”, and “B” means “that they will be blotted out.” The arrow, “–>”, represents implication, the “if-then” relationship in this case.

However, as it turns out, the only passage in the chapters he mentioned even vaguely similar to the caller’s reference is Revelation 3:5, which actually (more…)

Share on Facebook

Previously, Dr. Everett Berry addressed a listener’s claim that John 6′s statements about eating the flesh of Christ and drinking His blood are about the Eucharist, a common belief among Catholics and others who hold the doctrine of transubstantiation—not my view, of course. Here are the follow-up emails regarding that interchange. Obviously, I agree with Dr. Berry, and find his comments sufficient to make the point.

Here’s Gene-the-Catholic’s reply to Dr. Berry’s first explanation:

Dr. Everett, thanks for responding to (more…)

Share on Facebook

Dr. Everett Berry (Ph.D. Theology, Southern Seminary) is a frequent guest on “Live from Criswell”. His presence allows me to address more significant theological issues. He is a theologian, after all!

Here’s a follow-up e-mail he received after mentioning John 6′s comments about “eating my flesh” and such, followed by his reply to the email.

Dr. Berry, I heard you on Dr. Creamer’s radio show. I have a question for you. Why should we take John 6 verses 50-69 as symbolic? Why not take Him literally as Catholics do?
Thank you, Gene

And here is Dr. Berry’s reply:

Gene,

Thanks for the question. Briefly, when we deal with John 6, verses 50-69 are a part of the larger discourse that Jesus is having with the crowds, the Jews and his disciples. He begins by saying that the people are following him because they have eaten “literal” food. But they should rather seek the food which is eternal (6:27). He then interprets the eating of that food in several ways; as believing in the Father who sent him (6:29), as coming to him and believing (6:35), and as beholding and believing in the him (6:40). This being said then, when Jesus claims that the one who eats his flesh and drinks his blood will be raised on the last day (6:54), the point is that the one who has eternal life is the one who believes he is the bread from heaven who gives his flesh for his people. Furthermore, Jesus tells the disciples that the flesh profits nothing but his words are of the Spirit and so they give life (6:63). Those who eat them have eternal life but still there are those who do not (6:64). Also, just as a practical question, how does it make sense to interpret this passage as referring to the Eucharist when this ordinance has not been established yet. This would seem to be anachronistic.

Just food for thought. No pun intended.
Blessings,
Everett Berry

And my comment? I think the pun was intended.

There is more on this interchange here.

Share on Facebook

Here is a circumspect letter from a Catholic listener about a doctrine we’ve covered for the last couple of days on the radio, sola scriptura, i.e., that scripture is the sole final authority for Christian faith and practice.

Dr. Creamer, I am Catholic and I listen to your program everyday and I enjoy it even though I disagree with most of your theology. I am not able to call in to your show but I want to address sola scriptura.

But before I ask my question I must take issue with several comments. First the Catholic Church does not and never has believed in ongoing revelation.

From the Catechism # 66 There will be no futher revelation: …no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit, it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries”

Example: About ten years ago Pope John Paul II spoke from (more…)

Share on Facebook

“You can stand up or sit down as we worship—whatever you need to do to follow the Spirit—just feel free to follow the Spirit.” Somewhere over the last ten to fifteen years those lines have become much more common. And, in reality, they may not amount to anything more than a hill of beans; that is, as they contrast with the more traditional, “let’s stand and sing together” or “let’s stand and pray together” or “you may be seated.” However, there is a reason to consider being more directional in the leadership provided for a congregation, and it has little to nothing to do with pragmatics. It is actually an issue of key importance to doctrinal practice.

There are two (more…)

Share on Facebook

Here’s a devotional I obtained from the recent national Episcopal Convention in Los Angeles. I have also inserted (double-indented) a couple of comments for, shall we say, “clarification”:

Baptism is the foundational ritual and sacrament of the Church. In baptism we recognize and convey our essential identity as God’s own children, members of the Body of Christ. In Baptism we are filled with God’s Holy Spirit, renewed and cleansed and empowered for ministry. Everything flows from Baptism. The Prayer Book speaks of our tradition: “Holy Baptism is full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into Christ’s Body the church. The bond which God establishes in Baptism is indissoluble.” (BCP, p. 298)

In our story today from Acts, an angel tells the apostle Philip to travel the wilderness road between Jerusalem and Gaza. Along that road he meets a foreigner, a eunuch who serves as a treasurer for the queen of Ethiopia. The text says that he had “come to Jerusalem to worship.” Now that phrase gives me pause. The Torah makes it very clear in the laws guarding community purity that a eunuch shall not be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. (Deuteronomy 23:1) It may be that this unnamed eunuch has experienced some form of exclusion or discrimination in Jerusalem, where he would have been barred from entering the worship assembly. Maybe he is a Jew who was kept outside in the Court of the Gentiles.

The leap from exclusion to discrimination is unwarranted at best. Others were excluded along with those who had their genitals “crushed” or cut off, as the passage in Deuteronomy says. So were women who had recently given birth, descendants of Moab, and, oh yes, there are those “sodomites” in verse 17 (of Deuteronomy 23). Either the exclusion is proper and provokes the right sense of a need for holiness now missing, or it is improper and the OT is nothing more than a record of ancient discrimination. The latter view is an Antinomian error. It is only the former option which leaves open a need for grace, regardless of the cause of exclusion, whether moral (as in the case of Deuteronomy 23:17), or covenantal/ceremonial (as in the case of Deuteronomy 23:1).

Returning home, the eunuch is reading scripture. (In ancient days, silent reading was unusual; people spoke the words as they read.) When Philip joins him in the chariot, Philip hears him read from Isaiah, “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearer, so he does not open his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.” The words are Isaiah’s, and they seem to evoke something in the eunuch. Maybe when the eunuch was excluded from the assembly he experienced humiliation and injustice, and seemed powerless to protest. He asks Philip, “About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?”

Regardless of what the eunuch feels, the passage itself is about a Holy Servant, Jesus, taking the uncleanness—the reasons we ought to be excluded—of unholy and unacceptable people onto Himself, a now Suffering Servant (e.g., Isaiah 53:6). So the point is not going to be that someone ought to be included and overcome their sense of exclusion, but that someone ought to be excluded by their guilt, failure, or shortcoming, but can be included by propitiation or even substitution, not the merit of being as acceptable as a self-righteous crowd.

Philip tells him about another who was excluded from the assembly; another who experienced humiliation and injustice; another who was silent like a lamb. He tells of Jesus whose “life is taken away from the earth,” and about his resurrection, the life restored and empowered. Philip gave the eunuch the good news about Jesus.

Again, Jesus’ exclusion is improper because He is not in violation of the guidelines established in the OT. The Ethiopian’s exclusion is proper since he is in violation of the guidelines. (And again, it does not matter whether the exclusion is moral or otherwise; the exclusions are created in the OT so everyone can become aware of their failure to measure up to God’s standard, and His provision through Christ of a means of forgiveness and redemption. (Romans 3:19.)

The eunuch must have been deeply moved. He could identify with Jesus. He wanted to be connected with one who had been humiliated and restored.

Then comes the question. “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” That is a loaded question.

I am about to leave for the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. This question from the Ethiopian eunuch is the kind of question that could provoke great debate from our assembly. The scripture says very clearly, no eunuch shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. That has been our tradition for all of these centuries. But, this eunuch has heard and received the living Word. He has a deep spiritual desire to be baptized, and he has compelling gifts of the spirit to offer to God and to God’s people. Shall we bar him from the community? Shall we reject his being and his ministry?

Philip did not ask the General Convention. Philip stopped the chariot and baptized the eunuch, and God’s Holy Spirit filled Philip with rejoicing.

The last two paragraphs are a profoundly clear example of the “fallacy of analogy.” “Look”, says the fallacious, “these things are alike in some ways, so they must be alike in every way.” On this reasoning, no ongoing serial rapist could be excluded from the assembly either. There is a difference between how the morally excluded were received (through repentance and sacrifice, if their moral failure did not merit stoning) and how the covenantally or ceremonially excluded were received, through passing of time and/or ceremonial cleansing. So the leap in the last two paragraphs is nothing short of rhetorical equivocation. It may not have been deliberate. Perhaps the author did not know what he was doing. But it is an egregious violation of biblically respectful hermeneutics and of sound reason.

Years ago when we were asking whether women could be ordained, there was much debate. Many raised up scriptures that gave women a secondary place in community and family life. Others spoke of the tradition of centuries, going back to the apostles, all males, like Philip. But some spoke of the foundational sacrament of Baptism which identifies us as children of God, fully initiated into the Body of Christ. Is the Body of Christ to be represented only by maleness? “If you won’t ordain us, then stop baptizing us,” said women, whose compelling gifts and spirit were being offered to the church.

It is no surprise that gender issues run together. The elimination of gendered roles and the advocacy for homosexual inclusion do follow one another. The mistake in this paragraph is the presumption that the body of Christ can only be represented through the priesthood (“maleness”). Do lay members not serve to represent Christ in their service as well? It is a logical equivocation similar to the one mentioned in my last comment.

Our General Convention followed the path of Philip. We recognized the presence of God’s empowered spirit in women, and we honored the theology of baptism which makes us children of God, members of the Body of Christ, empowered for ministry.

We are still debating. Now we are talking about the descendants of the Ethiopian eunuch. Shall gay people be barred from the community? Shall their ministries be denied to them? Shall they be denied access to the sacraments of marriage and ordination? Shall their gifts and spirit be rejected?

Can there be any doubt what Philip would tell the Church if he could?

No doubt at all.

Share on Facebook

I teach and find biblically indisputable the doctrine of eternal security—once saved always saved. But there are passages which leave even those who agree with the doctrine scratching their heads. John 15 contains one of those passages. However, as with every similarly “offending” passage, the offense is all in the reader, and not in the text. Here are the first six verses of John 15:

1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.  2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.  3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.  4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.  5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.  6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

The confusion in the passage is built on (more…)

Share on Facebook

There is a very simple but unpleasant theological truth which changes everything about our worldview: the depravity of man. Believing people are inherently evil rather than inherently good changes the way we think about reality, understand art, trust leaders, make rules, depend on governments, and even temper our own behavior. All of those topics deserve extended attention off the point of this post.

One thing that changes when we comprehend our moral condition is how we interpret unpleasant circumstances.

Suppose circumstances are bad. Anything from Monday’s (Sunday night’s) earthquake in Italy to my daughter’s car failing inspection will suffice for an example. In other words, it doesn’t matter how bad a situation is, just that it is something we don’t like. Whether we break into full-bore complaint is not at issue, although the frequency with which we do so simply makes the point more obvious. When things are bad and we are unhappy with those things, we are presuming that things ought to be better, that somehow we do not deserve the problems associated with the circumstance. The truth is, though, that when things are bad for us, they ought to be worse. But God restrains His judgment. The middle verses of Psalm 103 make this point.

9 He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever.  10 He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.

If we actually understood our moral condition, we would always regard our circumstance as far better than it ought to be. I understand the difficulty of saying those words in the light of some excruciatingly painful circumstances with which people can be faced, but that difficulty itself rests only in our mitigated understanding of our condition—a state of understanding which itself then mitigates our grasp of just how magnificently and persistently merciful God really is.

Share on Facebook

Here’s a brief observation: These rays (at the right side of the panoramic picture above, and in the photo below) are viewed toward the horizon opposite the direction of the sun. More details about the phenomena are with the picture below. What is interesting is that they appear to converge at the horizon, even though they do not actually converge. In fact, the rays, being generated from a light source 93 million miles away, are parallel to each other. But the curve of the earth and perspective of an earth-bound viewer leads to the impression that there are convergent points at each horizon with the rays bowing out to diffusion in the middle—just above the observer. Usually, there is not continuity between the two horizons, so it actually appears that there is a convergence at the horizon(s) and divergence or dissipation where the observer is.
The difference between the parallel reality and convergent/divergent appearance is similar to what all of life looks like to believing but earth-bound observers. There may be faith that God was completely in control at Creation. There may be confidence that God will bring everything back together in the future. But where most people live there is a sense that God may not be keeping it all together. Of course, believers know better in their heads. But the world still looks as if it has diverged from God’s plan and purpose. The rays in the pictures make a handy reminder that regardless of pressures, pains, failures, and frustrations appearing over our heads, God’s plan, purpose, and power are as arrow-straight above our heads as they are at our beginning and our end.
Explanation (From APOD, Astronomy Picture of the Day): What’s happening over the horizon? Although the scene may appear somehow supernatural, nothing more unusual is occurring than a setting Sun and some well placed clouds. Pictured above are anticrepuscular rays. To understand them, start by picturing common crepuscular rays that are seen any time that sunlight pours though scattered clouds. Now although sunlight indeed travels along straight lines, the projections of these lines onto the spherical sky are great circles. Therefore, the crepuscular rays from a setting (or rising) sun will appear to re-converge on the other side of the sky. At the anti-solar point 180 degrees around from the Sun, they are referred to as anticrepuscular rays. Pictured above is a particularly striking set of anticrepuscular rays photographed in 2001 from a moving car just outside of Boulder, Colorado, USA.

Share on Facebook