The first six verses of Hebrews 3 really caught my attention this morning. The comparison is between Moses and Jesus. It goes like this:

Moses – faithful (v 2)
Jesus – faithful (v 2)
Moses – Servant in house (v5)
Jesus – Son over house (v 6)
Moses – part of the house (v 3)
Jesus – builder of the house (v 3)
God – builder of everything (v 4)
Moses – worthy of honor (v 3)
Jesus – worthy of greater honor (v 3)

The phrase that really tweaked my attention though was “we are his house”. The implications of that are pretty significant. “We” is arguably referring to the church. That means that Moses was in the church, that he was a faithful servant (or minister) in the church and that Jesus was the head (or builder) of that church Moses served in just as he is the one we are part of today.

This says a great deal about continuity between the Old Covenant and the New. Can’t wait till Dr. Carson gets to Hebrews in class.

You know about that court case before the Supreme Court about the Pledge of Allegiance? I actually agree that “under God” should not be in there because of atheists. The guy is arguing the case on behalf of his daughter, he doesn’t think that she should be made to say that in school. He doesn’t want it to say that there is no God either (fair enough). BUT, and it is a big but, something I didn’t know was that he doesn’t have custody of his daughter, his wife does and she is an evangelical Christian raising the girl as a Christian. On those grounds I think the case should be tossed! It is also tragic that schools are once again being used as a political battle ground.

Remember that other controversial film about Jesus, the Last Temptation of Christ? Well, the screenwriter of that one, Paul Schrader, has some very interesting comments about The Passion. For example:

My guess is that Mel has a problem with the Enlightenment because his film really does go back to the visceral blood cult origins of Christianity, and the fervour it’s created is more akin to a Gospel tent meeting than it is to a motion picture.

Well, Schrader, not surprisingly, is very modernist. Notice the notion that his version of Christianity is better than even the original. But wait, there’s more!

The Gospels were rigged for political reasons from the get-go. They were written 30-40 years after the fact to curry favour with the Romans and separate the Christians from the Jews. So the Pharisees were made to seem much worse than they were and Pilate was shown to be more agonised.

So where, one wonders, does Schrader get any reliable information about the origins of Christianity? How can he determine that anything anyone says about it is true? To the point, how can he be sure that his view is the correct one? A good thing that he says is that the gospels were written 30-40 years after the fact. There are critics who claim they were written 100 year later, especially the Gospel of John which is sometimes pushed to 250 AD or so. At least liberal theology has allowed the Gospels to move back a bit. What is really curious is that the Gospels were slanted for political favor and yet that move utterly failed. The Christians faced persecution first in Jerusalem but later from local governors and later by Roman Emperors. Furthermore, if the Gospels were “rigged for political reasons from the get-go” why not rig them even better? Why not make Jesus into a Roman apologist and have him persecuted and killed by the Jews for being too Roman? That would have really scored points with Rome especially after the destruction of Jerusalem in 72 AD (when Schrader claims they were written.)

Modernism isn’t an answer to this. It proceeds based on disbelief in the trustworthyness of the Bible and then try to prove their case. If you look at modernism since the 1870s it has repeatedly gotten black eye after black eye. It is amazing that it survives to this day.

Rome’s doctrine of the infallibility of the pope stems not from the man who occupies the office, but the office itself. God so superintends that teaching office so that regardless of the man, he cannot pronounce error in matters of doctrine and morales (when speaking ex cathedra, and the other numerous qualifications.)

Yet, Paul told Timothy “what you heard from me…entrust to faithful men” (2Ti 2:2). If it were impossible for those in that office to err in those things, why would Paul tell Timothy this? Those who were in the line of Apostolic Succession would be “faithful” (in those things) because of the office, so why would Timothy have to find faithful men?

Also, a brief history of the papacy would reveal that the church did not entrust these things to faithful men, there were many rogues and reprobates in that line. So even if there were such a thing as apostolic succession, the church squandered that long ago. I’m sure the Eastern Church would disagree with that, they’d say that God preserved it through them. That’s another story. And another blog entry. Some other day. Along with the answer of how that works for Protestants. And Baptists.

I’ve been listening to John Piper on the Internet lately. Man, that is some excellent preaching. Fortunatley his MP3s are free downloads so I’m filling up my iPod. :) His theme music is Be Thou My Vision, my favorite hymn. It is my cellphone ringtone. John is raising money to get his show on the radio across the nation. I think this would be a great thing for the Church in America. I’m going to try to contribute some money to get that program off the ground and on the air.

I’ve also been listening to R. C. Sproul. He’s going through the attributes of God. Thrilling stuff. RC is on in my area but he comes on at 9AM and that’s when I’m in class so I have to listen on the Internet. What is really cool is that I can use iTunes to play the program and even with my 56K dial-up it doesn’t stall. Can’t say the same with Real One or Windows Media Player.

So, why do I study theology? Because it deepens my worship. Why should sermons be rich theologically and not only practical? To intensify worship and further godliness:

His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. – 2Pt 1:3

It is snowing. This is the second day in a row that it snowed. It is supposed to snow again. What is up with that?

Fascinating program on This American Life on political polling. Sounds like pretty much what I thought: fraught with errors and mostly useless information.

I am a sinner. I have sinned. What do I do? Do I beat myself? Do I run and hide from God until he gets over it? Do I sink in to depression and despair? Or worse, do I blow it off and act as if it is okay, no one got hurt and I had a good time so what’s the harm?

No, I am a Christian and so none of these responses is appropriate. But neither is the response that says that Christ has atoned for my sins so it is no big deal. God hates sin. Christ has atoned for my sins. Those two things go together and must stay together. I can’t punish myself, either physically or emotionally, and expect God to be happy with me. He hates sin but he loves his son and his son took the punishment I was due. If I try to inflict myself then I am saying that Jesus’ work wasn’t good enough. I can’t “claim the blood”, laugh it off and walk away. God hates sin so much that he sent his own son to the cross because of it.

My attitude to my sin, and indeed sin in general, should mirror God’s attitude. I must hate my sin, reject it, turn from it but I must also flee to Christ not away from him. In Jesus God has reconciled me to himself. I need to avail myself of the means of his grace. Prayer, confession, the Lord’s Table, Bible study, fasting, preaching or teaching of God’s word, all these things repeat the gospel to me anew. I need to be reminded of both God’s hatred of sin and his mercy in Christ.

The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe for their salvation, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts. It is ordinarily brought about by the preaching of the word. By baptism, the Lord’s Supper, prayer and other means appointed by God that grace is strengthened and increased. – 1689BCF 14.1 (modernized)

I need to have that faith by which I first believed strengthened. When I first turned to Jesus I believed he was sufficient and I need to be reminded of that again.

German theologian Martin Luther was once asked by a member of his congregation why he preached the Gospel to them week after week, thinking that surely they were ready to move on to some deeper, more spiritual teaching. Luther’s reply was, “Because beloved, week after week you forget it.” – Derek Webb (http://www.derekwebb.com)

EDIT 1/29/2024: There is no evidence that Luther ever actually said this. Also, Webb left the faith for a number of years and has since returned to a liberal form of Christianity.

As has been said in the past, we currently live in the now and not yet. Now: Jesus has come, salvation has dawned, atonement has been made. Not yet: we’re only 1/2 saved, our spirits are renewed, we are new creatures but our flesh is the same old stuff that lived in sin.

So I have sinned. I am a sinner. I hate my sin and am ashamed that I still commit it. But I am a Christian. I don’t dwell on my sin morbidly, I flee to the cross because of my revulsion and I seek to be set free. I don’t want to be alienated from God.

Oh yea, this wouldn’t really be a Christian blog if I didn’t say something about The Passion of the Christ.

Since it debuted Wednesday, I have had 5 conversations about it at work. Employees and customers alike. I have not seen it yet and i’m not sureI’m going to. Haven’t made up my mind yet. I don’t care for a lot of violence in movies. My church mailed out 100,000 invitations to four discussion groups on the movie, none being held at the church building. The thought is that it will raise more questions than it will answer.

Is it “the” gospel? No, I don’t think it is. There is too much left out of a movie for it to be “the” gospel. Who is Jesus in the flim? A good but misunderstood teacher? A misguided rebel? The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world? I don’t know that the film can answer that. So I don’t think the film is the gospel, but I think it is a chance to get the gospel out as you talk to people about it.

Rosie O’Donnell and her lesbian partner Kelli Carpenter on why they rushed to San Francisco to get “married”:

We were both inspired to come here after the sitting president said the vile and vicious and hateful comments he did.

President Bush’s “vile, vicious and hateful” comments:

The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.

Is Rosie over-reacting or is it just me? I read the entire text and I just didn’t find anything in there about homosexuals being evil or anything like it. Here’s another quote from the President’s speech that I found interesting:

Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.