I have been a believer for quite sometime – since I was eight. It’s a miracle, however, that I believe at all. I grew up in a Oneness Pentecostal home that was very legalistic and rigid. Since then I have changed a great deal in regard to my beliefs. I very much believe in the Trinity, justification by faith, etc. So you could say I’m pretty much orthodox now. But with all that said, I have been having a bit of trouble with my faith. I’m kinda having a hard time believing in God or praying to him because I just don’t see the point in it anymore because I feel like he doesn’t answer. In fact I feel as if it pointless because he isn’t here – right here, spatially – to speak with me. I dunno I just feel like with all that I have happening in my life a face to face relationship – a person to person to person conversation – is what I need from him. And I can’t have that. I mean it is as if God is a distant uncle to whom I send letters (prayers), and he sends a postcard. Is it enough to just say that God has spoken through his word so he doesn’t need to speak now? I don’t feel like it. Why couldn’t Jesus have just stayed here, albeit in a ubiquitous form? That way I could talk to him. I know he is the Father’s representative to man and for man so why not stay here where he can be physically accessible?

__________________________________

My friend,

Thanks so much for writing and for your honesty. Your thoughts, it might comfort you to know, are not uncommon. The problem you speak of is called the “hiddenness of God” in theological circles. Why is God so hidden? It is hard to know exactly why, but the fact of his hiddenness is something the Bible speaks to very clearly. In Acts 1 the angels say, “Why do you stare into heaven. . . He will come back just as you have seen him go.” In other words, you will not “see” him again until he comes back. Christ told his disciples in the upper room before his death that it is “better for you if I go because I will send the Comforter.” I often think “it is NOT better for you to go because I cannot see or hear the Holy Spirit.”

I believe that naked belief (i.e., without empirical experience) is what God calls on us to have right now. We do have to “limp” through this life without having seen God or Jesus, yet believe in him. I don’t have any perfectly sound theological reason why God is not more empirically evident in our lives (though I will give some thoughts below). My more charismatic friends would disagree, as you probably know. However, I have called and called to God to show himself to me. In my darkest times (and against my better theological judgement), I have groped for a sign of his presence, love, even his very existence! Angels, Jesus, a sound, or some type of miracle would be sufficient. I remember two years ago when I was going through my depression. I stayed up all night crying, sitting in my car in the garage yelling at God, asking him to just do something - anything! The silence at that time was deafening. It was painful. It hurt my feelings at a very deep level that the all-powerful God would not perform the simplest of tasks. I thought, “God, if you are so great and love me so much why are you so silent? Why now? Why when I am this depressed? Just do something!”

But I think the empirical silence of God is normative for the Christian life. Philip Yancey says that we have to work with “rumors of another world.” In fact, ironically, if God were not empirically silent, the Bible would be in error. Peter says, “And though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls” (1 Pet 1:8-9; emphasis mine). You see, Peter here assumes that those in his day – even those so close to the life and death of Christ – have not seen Christ (or God or the Holy Spirit). Peter’s point would be moot if he did not mean to include all other forms of experiencing God empirically. The fact is that when Christ ascended into heaven, that was the last we have seen or heard from him in such a way. The door to the “other side” was shut.

If Peter’s statement was not enough, the Apostle Paul also says that the Christian life is a life following after the unseen: “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Cor. 4:18). He goes on by telling us that we “live by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). Christ even told Thomas, who needed to see him before he believed, ”Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29; emphasis mine). The “those who have not seen” are us, and we are many. John could not be more clear here: “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen (1 John 4:20, emphasis mine). John does not say, “whom he has probably not seen.” He works under the assumption that everyone reading his letter has not seen God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and (if I can be so bold) the “other side.” Finally, the author of Hebrews defines faith as something hoped for which is not seen: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1; emphasis mine). The very definition of our faith is that we have conviction about truths that cannot be empirically verified. This does not mean that faith is irrational. It just means that we should not expect to have it verified through our senses.

I am not saying that I have not seen God work in my life. I certainly have. However, my thinking and interpretation of his “movements” is possessed by my belief that he is moving in my life in non-dramatic ways. I see him in everything. I see him even in this email you sent to me. I believe that it is a “God thing.” Why? Because I am convinced of the central truths of Christianity and the reliability of the Bible. I feed off of this (even though I would rather have a periodic conversation with Christ face to face). We work with what we got: trusting God knows what he is doing.

However, I do believe that the silence of God serves a definite purpose. God’s silence, ironically, may serve to keep us productive in this life. It may keep us from (and I am getting dramatic here) committing suicide. Let me illustrate (as I have done before) by referencing my favorite show Justice League! It was an episode where Flash went so fast that he actually began to die and cross over to the “other side.” The molecules in his body were completely unstable and he was stuck between this world and the next. When prodded to come back, Flash had a hard time. He said, “But it is so beautiful over here.” Watch it here:

You see, the lines were blurred between this life and the next and Flash wanted to go to the next. He could not concentrate on this world any longer due to his exposure to the next. In other words, he wanted to die due to his empirical experience on the “other side.” He needed to have an experiential breach between this life and the next in order to remain here and accomplish his mission (gettin’ them bad guys). When “rumors of another world” turns into “experience of the other world,” we lose sight of this world.

I don’t think this story is too far from reality. You and I also need an experiential (empirical) breach from the “other side.” We need not to see Jesus. We need not to talk to Jesus. We need not to hear Jesus.

Let’s look at the example of the Disciples of Christ. The Disciples, understandably, did not want Jesus to die. When he spoke of his death, they were so bold as to desire to die with him. When Thomas - doubting Thomas, of all people! – thought Jesus was going to die, he said to the other disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with Him” (John 11:16). I love it! A call for death in the name of the Lord! What a simple faith this expresses. Peter was no different when he said “Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!”(Lk. 22:33). All who were with Jesus had empirical evidence of the “other side” in the person of Christ and they were not willing to let that go, even to death. In Acts 1:6, they still had hope that Christ had blurred the lines permanently: “Is it at this time you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” But they had to watch as Christ was taken into the sky, never to be seen again until his second coming (Acts 1:9-11). The point is that the disciples would have gladly gone on a suicide mission with Christ if it meant a continuation of their exposure to the “other side” in the person of Christ.

You and I would do the same. Were God to show himself in the ways we so often think he should – were he to do things the way we would do them – we would probably never be able to accomplish our mission. We would continually be wanting to die in order to cross over. We would be like Flash, having empirical involvement in the world to come, but still having one foot in the current world. However, unlike Flash (who had Superman and Wonder Woman pulling him back!), we most definitely would cross over. Why wouldn’t we? The mysterious would be unmysterious. The lines between this life and the next would be so blurred that we would not hesitate to take that extra step of death, even by our own hand. At the very least, if God were to talk to us face to face, we would never get enough.

While I don’t claim to have all the answers as to why God does not allow us to experience him in such empirical ways, I suspect there is some truth to what I have said here. It is odd to say, but God’s silence may actually preserve his mission for us. The ability to be stable here in this life is actually facilitated by God’s (empirical) silence. I am not saying this is the only reason God is silent, but it does make sense.

Most importantly, while we should not expect to see God with our eyes nor hear him with our ears, God is not ignoring us. His presence is evident and he is not silent. He just moves in very unconventional ways!

Keep the faith my brother. If Christ rose from the grave, then we will one day see him face to face. Until then we must fight the good fight and run the race with our eyes set on the future.

 Similar Posts:

• Why is God So Silent?
• Questions I Hope No One Asks: Why Is God So Silent?
• The Anatomy of Belief (7): Real Life Conviction
• The Christian Message in 9 Words
• The Anatomy of Belief (8): First-Hand Conviction or “God Things”

Other ways to get TUP:

Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged – The History and Future of Evangelicalism
• Theology Unplugged – The History and Future of Evangelicalism (Part 3)
• Theology Unplugged – The History and Future of Evangelicalism (Part 4)
• Theology Unplugged – Stephen Hawking and the Unknown God
• Theology Unplugged: Certainty

Paul speaks to the Romans:

“For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him.” (Rom 8:14-17)

That was from the New American Standard. However, the NET Bible takes the dative a bit differently at a key point saying, “The Spirit himself bears witness to our spirit that we are God’s children.” (Rom 8:16; emphasis mine). However, most other translations elect the word “with.” Regardless, the Holy Spirit is in view here and there is a definite testimony which believers should have.

Most of the time the connection sought here is between the cry of ”Abba” and the witness of the Spirit. Certainly this should be kept in view, but my thoughts extend to the broader context which follows. The question is one of dependency. Hang with me here. Paul is often very hard to understand because of his syntax. (Translation: Paul gets excited and off track here and there.) I am not really saying that he is off track here, but when he uses the qualification “if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we might be glorified with Him,” it is hard to know what is the conditional referent here. In other words, we don’t get something if we don’t suffer with him. What is the something?

I think the text allows us one of two answers:

1) We don’t get salvation if we don’t suffer with him. This would take the condition to be dependent on the statement immediately preceding. We are heirs of Christ if we suffer with him. In other words, we are saved if we suffer with Christ. This could be the case and does not really present any theological problems as Christian suffering is presented as a norm for the Christian and, therefore, a sign of being God’s children. However, there is another option.

2) The condition is relevant to the witness of the Spirit. In other words, Paul could be saying that we receive this witness (whatever it is—we have not gotten there yet) only if and when we suffer. If we were to take it this way, the syntax might be changed in this way: “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God (and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ) if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him.”

I lean towards the second. Not simply because it is a syntactical option and I have flipped the coin, but because I believe the extended context supports this conclusion. Most importantly, I think it helps us to get a better understanding on what the “witness of the Spirit” might be.

Paul continues:

“For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now” (Rom 8:18-22).

Notice here that Paul is extending on the idea of suffering brought up in verse 17. But in verse 19, Paul takes a curious turn and brings in creation. I don’t think that this is simply for the sake of theologically explaining why nature is fallen and how it will be restored. That would be quite out of context (even for Paul!). Paul, in my opinion, is using nature analogously to his current subject, the witness of the Spirit. In other words, there is a witness of the Spirit in creation also. Nature itself, according to Paul, is suffering and awaiting the “revealing of the sons of God.” Nature will soon experience the same restoration that awaits believers at the resurrection. But here is where things get really interesting. Paul says that nature is groaning (not literally of course.)

If I am right, nature’s groaning, in some sense, is analogous to the believer’s cry of “Abba.” In other words, creation wants to be set free from its captivity and its growning is evidence of its fallen condition and suffering. Nature knows things are not the way they were supposed to be. Again, I repeat, we don’t take this literally as if nature has a conscience, but figuratively, as a representation of what the witness of the Spirit does with believers. We groan and cry out to God in our suffering as well saying ”Abba.”

Therefore, for us, the “witness of the Spirit” would not be some deep subjective psychological emotion that says, “Psst: You are truly God’s child,” but a longing for redemption and complete restoration. It would amount to a deep hope and understanding that things are not the way they are supposed to be. Maybe a sort of “Christian incontentment” that is evidenced through suffering and pain and our hope and faith that things are going to change one day.

If I am right, then I get it. If I am right, then I got it. Here is the witness of the Spirit expressed through me (and probably you too):

“Abba, can you hurry and come get us?”

“Abba, I can’t wait till we get to heaven and all this suffering is over.”

“Deliverance to your Kingdom cannot come too quickly Abba.”

“Why are you taking so long Abba. The pain is unbearable.”

“Things are not the way they are supposed to be. Help us Abba.”

Like with creation, there is a recognition of the problem. But this alone does not provide the formula for the witness of the Spirit. There has to be hope and faith of something better to come. There is a sense that things are messed up, but also a belief that redemption is coming. There will be a longing of our spirit for the promises of God and the restoration of all things. Of course, only believers would qualify for this witness because only believers have faith and hope in God’s coming kingdom.

In the end, it becomes pretty simple. The witness of the Spirit is that we believe. Period. It is the gift of faith that is from the Spirit. It is the Spirit that witnesses to our Spirit that the Gospel is correct. The result is our longing for something better and crying out to God in groans exclaiming “Abba!” 

However, if the witness of the Spirit is some existential voice of God or subjective feeling that comforts us differently than the bare reality of our belief and confidence in the Gospel, I’m ashamed to say that I don’t know that I have it or ever really have. I am certainly open to it and would love to experience such. But I think that the broader context of Paul’s argument presents us with a more likely option that the witness of the Spirit is our groans and longing for restoration. The greater our faith, the greater the witness will be and vice-versa.

I know that this will challenge some people’s very cherished belief in an existential anchor to the reality of their position before God and his reality. I also know I could be wrong about this. I would love to hear what you have to say.Similar Posts:

• Was God’s purpose in creation to glorify Himself?
• Questions I Hope No One Asks: Is God an Egotistical Maniac?
• Dealing With Pleasure and Pain of Others When We Can’t Relate
• The Gift of Restoration
• Why is Hell Eternal?

During the recording of Theology Unplugged today, Greg Cromartie (the ”muddying the water guy”) asked me a very difficult question that I have yet to make any definitive decision about. This should not surprise many of you knowing that there are many issues which I have yet to decide upon and many about which I assume that I, out of necessity, must be comfortable concerning my indecision until Christ comes. But the question touched on something that I feel is very important. Therefore, my indecision is an uncomfortable one. The issue has to do with the “doctrine of” the development of doctrine.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with this issue (you obviously have yet to watch Session 10 of Introduction to Theology - shame on you!), let me briefly explain. Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics all have a philosophy of history which has to account for the way in which truth has been progressively understood from the early church until now. There are doctrines to which each tradition holds that not only have to be examined biblically, but historically as well. The history of how God’s people have understood truth is a frustrating yet serious study that all traditions have problems with. Here are the problems that each tradition faces:

Protestants: How do we explain why we hold so strongly to doctrines such as sola Scriptura (the Scriptures are our final and only infallible rule of faith and practice) and sola fide (salvation is by faith alone) when prior to the Reformation of the sixteenth century it seems that most of those in the church did not hold to these doctrines? Saying “because the Bible is clear about these doctrines,” while important, begs the question of why, if the Bible is so clear about such teachings, did these doctrines take so long to develop? What of those who did not hold to these doctrines for the first sixteen hundred years of the church?

Catholics: How do Catholics explain how they can introduce historically novel dogmas such as the assumption of Mary (that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven like that of her son’s) in 1950 and hold their people responsible for believing such a doctrine under the pain of excommunication? This doctrine finds little support in church history and is not mentioned at all until the fifth-century. If it is so important that Pope Pius XII felt it necessary to speak infallibly about such a doctrine (one of the few acknowledged ex cathedra statements made by a Pope), why isn’t it emphasized to this degree prior to the Pope’s proclamation. We could as well talk about the dogmatizing of the seven sacraments as salvific in the middle ages through the influence of Peter Lombard’s Sentences, the development of what “Outside the Church there is no Salvation” means, the infallible proclamation of the Pope concerning his own infallibility, and the other Marian Dogmas. The question is the same for Catholics as it is for Protestants: What about those before these dogmas were proclaimed? Why didn’t they emphasize these issues to the degree that you are?

Orthodox: The Orthodox have a very different approach to doctrinal development. In short, they don’t really believe in it – at least in the way we have been discussing it thus far. The Orthodox believe that the fullness of doctrine was developed in the first few centuries of the church. They would believe that all developments since this time are novel and/or heretical. In short, if the early church did not articulate it, neither should we. Their problem comes when we begin to realize that the early church articulated doctrine only to the degree that issues were challenged. In other words, we cannot expect the early church to have dealt with many issues since time had not elapsed for their simple and primitive understanding to be challenged and, in turn, developed. Orthodoxy has a hard time when it comes to explaining issues concerning the meaning of the atonement, the instrumental cause of salvation, and the authority in the Church. Frozen in the first few centuries, they find themselves defending many beliefs such as the ransom to Satan theory of the atonement because that is where it stood then, not because it is biblical. From the Orthodox perspective, all issues that were not dogmatized in the first few centuries are doomed in their perpetual state of apophadic necessity. 

Both Catholic and Orthodox look alike in that they seek, above all else, to find their tradition in the early Church. They both hold to a philosophy of history that assumes the closer you can get to the Apostles successors, the closer you are to truth. Protestants, on the other hand, are divided on this issue. (Frankly, the division is not an informed division, but comes from mass ignorance about the history of the church among Protestants.) 

Some Protestants will follow the methodology of the Catholics and Orthodox and attempt to find their beliefs in the early Church. These will jump in the trench dug by Catholic theologian John Henry Newman with his (ingenious) publication on this subject called An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Here they will argue that doctrines such as sola Scriptura and sola fide were always held, it just took controversy to articulate and dogmatize them.

Other Protestants will reject the assumption that the early church had it all right. (Hang with me here, for this is going to get messy). They would opt for a development of doctrine which sees the Protestant dogmas as those that define Protestant orthodoxy, yet, while true and important, do not define historic orthodoxy (see my blog “Are You Orthodox or Heretic“ for more on this). In other words, the doctrine of sola fide, for example, may not have been held prior to the Reformation, but God, in His grace and in His own time, allows doctrines to develop in essence and articulation throughout church history. Their argument would be that the primary essentials of who Christ is and what He has done have always been held by all. That Christ is both fully God and fully man, that Christ died on the cross and rose from the grave, that we are sinful in need of a savior, that faith in Christ is necessary, that grace is the only foundation for salvation, etc. are doctrines that have always been held. Yet, from this perspective, discoveries have been made through the centuries that help us to add flesh to what these doctrines mean. Many times, this flesh is significant and changes our understanding. These would also seek the concession of others that they hold to this methodology as well, they just don’t admit that it amounts to change.

“Change” is the key word here. Orthodox, Catholics, and the first option among Protestants do not like this word with regards to doctrine. According to them, no doctrine changes. This second group of Protestants don’t mind a nuanced use of the word “change” with regards to this issue. They would say that all the essential components for doctrine are found in the apostles’ teaching, but that even the apostles themselves had yet to put flesh on these bones. Another way to put it is that doctrine is an undeveloped seed. These Protestants would say that the seed of Scripture can grow in wrong ways, being in bad soil and having lack of water (hence the Orthodox and Catholic corruption). But the seed can be restored by being placed in soil that is purified and has allowance to grow (hence the Reformation). From this perspective, it is not as if the Orthodox and Catholics are without the essential elements – the seed (who Christ is and what He did, etc.), but that they have failed to allow doctrine to develop correctly based upon unfounded assumptions.

In short, Catholics will not allow for and admit change or mistakes in doctrine. Orthodox will not allow for essential development, only articulation. Protestants will either follow the methodology of Catholics or allow for change.

So, here is my problem: I am a Protestant. The Bible is my final authority because no other authority can meet the same qualifications. Therefore, de facto I hold to sola Scriptura. Because, from my perspective, Protestantism has more integrity with regards to the interpretation of Scripture than Orthodoxy or Catholicism, I am forced to choose one of the two Protestant options. Option one, while attractive, has problems with the doctrine of sola fide. Sola Scriptura does seem to have much support throughout church history (though not by any means universal), but sola fide is a little more difficult to find. Most in the early and medieval church did believe that their works contributed to some degree to their salvation.

The second option is where I have been for some time. I do believe that it is rather naive to think that the early Church had everything right simply because they were closer to the Apostles. Why would we make such an assumption? How would we justify this belief? I don’t even think the Apostles themselves had everything figured out. They certainly would not have articulated the doctrine of the Trinity the way we do, even if they did progressively believe its basic components. They laid the perfect seed, but this seed was undeveloped. That is why the earliest creeds simply state, in biblical language, what the truth is without attempting to define things too much. It is only when challenges are made and time has passed that the church further studies and defines doctrine in a more comprehensive way.

Since I adopt the second option, I now introduce my problem that goes back to Greg’s question on Theology Unplugged (man, it took a long time to get here!). He asked if we, from God’s standpoint, can say that God holds the church accountable for adhering to doctrine as it has developed. In other words, while the church may not have been unorthodox for not having a doctrine of sola fide prior to the Reformation, if a church denies sola fide now, post Reformation, post articulation, post development, does that make them heterodox with regards to the issue?

This is the question I leave you with while not assuming you have adopted my position.

One more thing. A quote. Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Christian historian who converted from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy in his 70s and who died last year, sums up all these issues this way:

“I consider that the parting of the ways between the two Christian communities [he is speaking of Catholicism and Protestantism] takes place on the issue of development of doctrine. That development has taken place in both communities cannot possibly be denied. The question is, what is legitimate development, what is organic growth in the understanding of the original deposit of faith, what is warranted extension of the primitive discipline of the church, and what, on the other hand, is accretion, additive increment, adulteration of the deposit, distortion of true Christian discipline?
. . . Perhaps, above all, the question is, What are the limits of development and growth – the limits that must be reached on peril of archaistic stuntedness, and the limits that must not be transgressed on peril of futuristic decadence?” (J. Pelikan, Development of Christian Doctrine. Some Historical Prolegomena [London 1969], p. 1.)Similar Posts:

• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
• Theological Word of the Day: Sola Fide
• An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” – Part 4: Are Catholics Orthodox?
• Finally a Catholic who is Not Afraid to Condemn Me?
• An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” – Part 3: The Maturing of Orthodoxy

The term orthodox can be defined in a few ways:

1. Historic Christian Orthodoxy: This refers to the sine qua non (the “without which not”) of Christian belief. This belief is held, to paraphrase Augustine, “by all Christians, of all time, everywhere.” In other words, it is not limited to time or geographical region. Therefore, it would be found very early in some sort of articulated fashion, though not necessarily in formal document, in the early church. Historic orthodoxy did take a few centuries to articulate in thought and word. It is unthinkable that in the first few centuries Christians would have developed in their understanding beyond a seed form of the basics below. They were too busy trying to stay alive, legitimize themselves to hostile Jews and Romans,  and encourage the local congregations. These basics were handed down in tradition (the regula fide) and Scripture.

In this case, a historically orthodox Christian would be one that believed in these essential elements:

• Deity of Christ
• Doctrine of the Trinity
• The Sovereignty of God
• The historicity of the physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ 
• Hypostatic union (Christ is fully God and fully man)
• The sinfulness of man
• The necessity of the atonement
• Salvation by grace through faith
• The reality of the body of Christ (the catholic [universal] Church)
• The authority of the visible body of Christ
• The inspiration of Scripture
• The canon of Scripture made up of the Old and New Testaments
• The future second coming

2. Traditional Orthodoxy: This focuses upon the further articulations and nuances of an individual tradition, implied or dogmatized. As the above doctrines developed in understanding, people began to part ways in their interpretation of these doctrines. Traditional orthodoxy takes time to develop since it comes primarily as a result of controversy and challenge. There is a Catholic orthodoxy, Protestant orthodoxy, and Eastern Orthodoxy traditional orthodoxy. I will list all three (although I could have missed something). Notice that the further articulations are inserted in bold.

Historic Protestant Orthodoxy

• Deity of Christ
• Doctrine of the Trinity
• The Sovereignty of God
• The historicity of physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ
• Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully God and fully man)
• The sinfulness of man in corrupt nature, imputed guilt, and personal sinfulness
• The necessity of the vicarious substitutionary atonement on the cross
• Salvation through grace alone by faith alone on the basis of Christ alone
• The reality of the body of Christ (the catholic [universal] Church)
• The authority of the visible local bod[ies] of Christ
• The infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture alone with final authority on all matters of faith.
• The canon of Scripture made up of the Old (39 books) and New (27 books) Testaments
• The future second coming

Historic Roman Catholic Orthodoxy

• Deity of Christ
• Doctrine of the Trinity
• The Sovereignty of God
• The historicity of physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ
• Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully God and fully man)
• The sinfulness of man in corrupt nature, imputed guilt, and personal sinfulness
• The necessity of the vicarious substitutionary atonement on the cross
• Salvation by grace alone through faith as God works these out through our cooperation with Him
• The reality of the body of Christ (the catholic [universal] Church) which subsists only, explicitly and implicitly, in the one true Catholic Church that resides under the ultimate authority of the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.
• The infallible authority of the visible body of Christ as expressed by the Magisterial authority of Rome
• The infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture.
• The canon of Scripture made up of the Old (39 books + Deuterocanonical books/Apocrypha) and New (27 books) Testaments
• The future second coming

Historic Eastern Orthodox Orthodoxy

• Deity of Christ
• Doctrine of the Trinity
• The historicity of physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ
• Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully God and fully man)
• The sinfulness of man in corrupt nature and personal sinfulness
• The necessity of the recapitulation found in Christ’s atonement in his life and on the Cross
• Salvation by grace through faith as God works these out through our unification with Him
• The reality of the body of Christ (the catholic [universal] Church)
• The infallible authority of the visible body of Christ as expressed by the first seven ecumenical creeds
• The infallible inspiration of Scripture.
• The canon of Scripture made up of the Old (39 books + the possible inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books/Apocrypha) and New (27 books) Testaments
• The future second coming

3. Denominational Orthodoxy: Finally, there is the further division that can be broken down as Protestants continue to further define each of these areas. Of course Calvinists would further define issues of salvation, election, security, and God’s meticulous sovereignty. Arminians would do the same emphasizing God’s universal atonement and God’s providential sovereignty. Baptists would add issues such as believers baptism and congregational style of leadership within the local church. As well, Catholics have continued to further define areas as well such as the Marian dogmas.

OK, so this is the question: Are you orthodox or heretic? It depends on what you mean. My thoughts are that we need to define our terms here and be careful with our pronouncement of heterodoxy. I suppose one can be a heretic with regards to a particular traditional or denominational orthodoxy, but this does not necessarily make them a heretic in the proper sense.

My thoughts are these: To be a heretic in the proper sense means that you deny a doctrine that has been held by all Christians of all time, everywhere. To be orthodox in a proper sense means that you affirm all the essential doctrines of historic Christianity.

Thoughts?Similar Posts:

• An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” – Part 3: The Maturing of Orthodoxy
• An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” – Part 2: Six Views of Orthodoxy
• Why Eastern Orthodoxy? Part 1: Introduction
• An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” – Part 4: Are Catholics Orthodox?
• Can Doctrine Develop? An Important Issue that Divides Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics

Obviously, I am going to say something that is at odds with the common conception among those of us who grew up in the context of our western Judeo-Christian culture, otherwise I would not have included the word “really,” and put it in italics! The reader must also be warned that I am going to use a phrase that is very offensive to many. I am assuming that I am dealing with a mature audience who understands the intentionality that I bring to this blog (most of the time!). If what I am proposing here is correct, we all need to hear this in order to overcome a serious issue of folk theology that damages the character of God and misrepresents what it means to talk in a Christian manner.

For most, the ultimate violation of the third commandment, “You shall not take the Lord your God’s name in vain,” is to say “God damn it.” You can use just about every other word or phrase, no matter how bad, but when your vulgarity includes the utilization of this phrase, many would believe that you have crossed the line. You might even be charged with blasphemy. Some people will stand before God and when asked “Why should I let you in to heaven?” will proudly say, “Because I did not murder, commit adultery, and I never said “the G-D word.” (Please note, I don’t think God is going to ask that question.)

I believe we have this wrong. In fact, from a purely objective standpoint, I don’t believe that this phrase causes God to bat an eye whatsoever. Think about it this way for a moment. Why would calling on God to damn something be so bad? What does the verb “damn” mean? The American Heritage Dictionary defines the verb ”to damn” as “the act of pronouncing an adverse judgement upon.” To call upon God to damn something is neither sinful nor unbiblical. In fact, you can find people throughout Scripture, especially in the Psalms, who call upon God to bring judgement on their enemies. In other words, they are asking for God to damn those who they feel are ripe for His judgement. In this sense, saying “God damn _____” is as biblical as saying “God bless _____.”

Some may say to me the reason why this is a violation of the third commandment is because people are using God’s name in a “vain,” “worthless,” or “empty” way. In this case, to say “God damn it!” in our colloquial tongue is not the same as seriously calling upon God to damn something or someone. For these people, if you say it seriously, fine, but if you say it casually, then you have used His name in an empty way and thereby broken the third commandment.

But there are three major problems with this line of reasoning: 

1) “God” is not the name of God, but a common phrase used to refer to deities in general. How can a generic classification be considered a formal name? It would be like you saying that my name is “person.” God gives His name to Moses in the book of Exodus. His name is Yahweh. Would you have the same offense if someone were to stub their toe and say “Yahweh damn it!”? I doubt it.

2) If the principle that we are going by is that we are not to use God’s name and not really mean it, then I believe that we are very inconsistent in what we take offense to as a culture. Why don’t people get offended when others say “God bless you?” Do you think that every time someone says this that they really mean it? Do you think that in their mind they are talking to God, beseeching on your behalf for a blessing? Just about every email I get ends with the phrase, “God bless.” I seriously doubt that that person actually said a prayer for me before he or she hit send. If this is the case, then why is saying ”God bless you” not just as much a violation of the third commandment as saying “God damn you?” Is it more biblical to ask for God’s kindness or judgment? I don’t think anyone who is honest with themselves can say that they are consistent in this regard. Saying “God damn it” and not meaning it should be just as bad as saying “God bless you” and not meaning it.

3) This is the most important so I have saved it for last. In fact, if what I am about to say is true, then the first two don’t really make a difference. The question is this: What does it mean to use God’s name in an empty or vain way? What does the third commandment really mean? It is hard to tell from a simple word study on the Hebrew term naqa (vain). As well, our understanding of a “name” and what it signifies is much different than what it meant in the context in which this commandment was given. What we have to do is to try to understand what it meant then, so that we can understand what it means now. It does us no good to anachronistically impose our understanding upon an ancient text. This is eisegesis (reading into the text what we presuppose), not exegesis (letting the text speak on its own terms).

Briefly, here is what I believe your studies will show. The nations to which the Israelites were going had many gods. They were highly superstitious. Their prophets would often use the name of their god in pronouncements. The usage could be in a curse, hex, or even a blessing. They would use the name of their god to give their statements, whatever they may be, authority. To pronounce something in their own name would not have given their words much weight, but to pronounce something in the name of a god meant that people would listen and fear. They may have said, “In the name of Baal, there will be no rain for 40 days.” Or “In the name of Marduk, I say that you will win this battle.” This gave the prophet much power and authority. But, as we know, there is no Baal or Marduk. Since this is the case, they did not really make such pronouncement and therefore the words of the prophet had no authority and should neither have been praised or feared.

God was attempting to prevent the Israelites from doing the same thing. God was saying for them not to use His name like the nations used the names of their gods. He did not want them to use His name to invoke false authority behind pronouncements. In essence, God did not want the Israelites to say that He said something that He had not said. This makes sense. God has a reputation to protect. He does not want anyone saying “Thus sayeth the Lord” if the Lord had not spoken. All of you have experienced this. You have had people say you said something you did not say. This can be very damaging to your character. It is very destructive to your name. Why? Because it makes you out to be something that you are not. How much more important is it for God to protect His character? It is fitting that God would have put this as one of the ten most important commandments as the nation of Israel moved towards Canaan.

What does this mean for us? Well, for starters we understand that the third commandment is certainly not focused on something so trivial as saying “God damn it!” The funny thing is that while some people may never think of using that phrase, people all over the Christian religious landscape are breaking the third commandment every day, damaging the Lord’s reputation. “Thus sayeth the Lord . . .” “God told me to tell you . . .” “God says that if you send in this much money, you will be blessed.” I could go on and on, but you get the point. Using the name of the Lord in vain means that you do damage to His reputation and character through false and unsure claims. Think again before you say “God said . . .” Make sure that He has really said it. If you are unsure, make your statement reflect your uncertianty. Saying “I think God is telling you to . . .” rather than “God is telling you to . . .” may not be as authoritative, but it will keep God’s reputation safe and keep you from breaking the third commandment.

As an aside, I think that this misunderstanding of the third commandment is not only sad, but tragic. If I were Satan (and I am not ), I can’t think of a better way to trivialize such an important commandment and misrepresent the character of God than to make people focus its essence on the phrase ”God damn it.”

Does this mean that I believe that we can now say this phrase and not worry about it? Not exactly. I think that using this phrase in a colloquial way is offensive in many (if not most) contexts. We don’t want to be offensive. It all comes back to being intentional with everything we say. While it is not a violation of the third commandment necessarily, it is offensive speech that must be used with wisdom and discretion.Similar Posts:

• What Does it Really Mean to Take the Lord’s Name in Vain?
• Inviting Jesus into your Heart (Dan Wallace)
• Would Christ have died had he not been killed? (2)
• Was God’s purpose in creation to glorify Himself?
• A Near Death Experience? A Theological Evaluation of Don Piper’s “90 Minutes in Heaven”

Similar Posts:

• "If the Bible is Not Inerrant, then Christianity is False" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• Bible Translations in a Nutshell
• Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
• Can Doctrine Develop? An Important Issue that Divides Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics
• The Danger of Inerrancy

• Engaging Postmodernism (5): Changing the Water
• Dealing with Doubt: Part 4 – Intellectual Doubt
• The Parable of the Life Preserver
• Christians Playing Santa: Responding to the Objections
• My Life: simul iustus et peccator (3)

I have to be very careful here since I am going against what has become the popular evangelical way to present the Gospel, but I don’t buy it. Not only do I not buy it, I think this, like the idea that all sins are equal in the site of God, is damaging to the character of God, the significance of the cross, and I believe it trivializes sin. Let me explain.

First off, I don’t know of a passage in the Bible that would suggest such a radical view. It would seem that people make this conclusion this way:

Premise 1: Hell is eternal
Premise 2: All people that go there are there for eternity
Premise 3: Not all people have committed the number or the same degree of sins
Conclusion: All sin, no matter how small, will send someone to hell for all eternity

The fallacy here is that this syllogism is a non-sequitur (the conclusion does not follow from the premises). Could it be that people are in Hell for all eternity based upon who they are rather than what they have done?

Think about this. We believe that Christ’s atonement was penal substitution. This means that it was a legal trade. God counted the sufferings of Christ and that which transpired on the Cross as payment for our sins, each and every one. Therefore, we believe that Christ took the punishment that we deserved. But there is a problem. We are saying that we deserve eternal Hell for one single sin, no matter how small. I don’t know about you, but I have committed enough sins to give me more than my share of life sentences. I have committed sins of the”insignificant” variety (I speed everyday) and significant variety (no description necessary!). So, if Christ were only to die for me and only me and take my penalty and I deserve thousands upon thousands of eternities in hell, why didn’t Christ spend at least one eternity in Hell? Why is it that He was off the Cross in six hours, payment made in full? Combine my sentence with your sentence. Then combine ours with the cumulative sentences of all believers of all time. Yet Christ only suffers for a short time? How do we explain this?

You may say to me that I cannot imagine the intensity of suffering that Christ endured while He was on the cross. You may say that the mysterious transaction that took place was worse than eternity in Hell. I would give you the first, but I will have to motivate you to reconsider the second. Think about it. Do you really believe that the person who has been in hell for 27 billion years with 27 billion more times infinity would not look to the sufferings of Christ and say, “You know what? Christ’s six hours of suffering was bad. It is indeed legendary. But I would trade what I am going through any day for six hours, no matter how horrifying it would be.” You see, what makes hell so bad is not simply the intensity of suffering, but the duration. Christ did not suffer eternally, so there must be something more to this substitution idea and there must be something more to sin.

I believe that Christ did pay our penalty. I believe that hell is eternal. But I don’t believe that one sin sends people to hell for eternity. Sin is trivialized in our day. Sin is first something that we do, not something that we are. In other words, people think of God sitting on the throne becoming enraged (in a holy sort of way) each time that someone breaks the speed limit. It is only the cross of Christ that makes Him look passed the eternally damning sin and forgive us. Don’t think that I am undermining the severity of sin (read here as I deal more with personal sin), but I am trying to bring focus to the real problem that has infected humanity since the Garden. The real problem is that we are at enmity with God. From the moment we are born, we inherit the traits of our father Adam. This infectious disease is called sin. This disease issues forth into a disposition toward God that causes us to begin life with our fist in the air, not recognizing His love for us or authority over us. It is rebellion. While this rebellion does act according to its nature, the problem is in the disposition, not so much the acts. When we sin, we are just acting according to the dictates of our corrupt nature. But the worst of it-the worst sin of all-is that we will never lower our fist to God. We are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) and as a leopard cannot change his spots, so we cannot change our rebellious disposition toward our creator (Jer. 13:23).

This disposition is that of a fierce enemy that cannot do anything but fight against its foe. Paul describes this:

Romans 8:7-8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.  Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

We are of the “flesh,” therefore we commit deeds according to the flesh. Does this mean that the person in this state does no good at all? Well, it depends on what you mean by “good.” Can an enemy of God love his neighbor? Sure. Enemies of God can and do all sorts of acts that the Bible would consider virtuous. But from the standpoint of their relationship with God, they cannot do any good at all (Rom. 3:12). Giving a drink to someone who is thirsty with the left hand while having your right hand in a fist clinched toward heaven does not count as “good” before God. Why? Because we are in rebellion against Him. This is our problem. This I propose is the only sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity.

It is important to understand that hell not is filled with people who are crying out for God’s mercy, constantly hoping for a second chance. People are in hell because they have the same disposition toward God that they had while they were walking the earth. They do not suddenly, upon entrance into Hell, change their nature and become sanctified. They still hate God. People are in hell for all eternity, not because they floated a stop sign, but because their fists are still clinched toward God. They are not calling on His mercy. They are not pleading for a second chance. They are in hell for all eternity because that is where they would rather be. It is their nature. As C.S. Lewis once said, “The doors of hell are locked from the inside.”

Christ, on the other hand, was the second Adam. He did not identify with the first either in disposition or choice. He gained the right to be called the second Adam who would represent His people (Rom. 5:12ff). He is not spending eternity in Hell because He was never infected with the sinful nature which caused Him to be at enmity with God. His fist was never clinched toward the heavens.

Will one white-lie send someone to Hell for all eternity? No! To say otherwise trivializes sin and makes God an overly sensitive cosmic torcher lover. Sin does send people to Hell. People will be punished for their sins accordingly. But the sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity is the sin of perpetual rebellion.Similar Posts:

• "All Sins are Equal in God's Sight" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• What is Sin? A simple definition
• Would Christ have died had he not been killed? (2)
• The Myth of “Abraham’s Bosom”
• Are We Condemned for the Sin of Another (Part 4: The Resolution)

Outside of the Roman Catholic Church official bull (Humanae Vitae) prohibiting birth control, there is no official position that the church has taken with regards to this issue. While Roman Catholics believe that taking birth control can be a mortal sin (one which removes the justifying grace of God), Evangelicals have seen the use of birth control as permissible. 

You could consider this as part of the adiaphora. The adiaphora are things which the Scriptures do not speak on and therefore should not be imposed upon others according to one’s opinions. There is nowhere that Scripture speaks directly to this matter either in precept or principle. As Paul told the Romans concerning things indifferent, “Who are we to judge another.” Romans 14 speaks very clearly to issues which are unclear.

Yet, at the same time, it would seem that everyone does practice birth control in one way or another. Abstinence within marriage can be a form of birth control. Avoiding sex during certain times of the month is a form of birth control. Humor me more a moment, but it could even be said that a lack of exercise and eating unhealthy, since it can drastically reduce sperm count, could be a type of unintentional birth control.

If the principle that some would like to impose is that we are not to “play God” by attempting to disrupt the natural course of events as God intends to bring them about, we are presented with some theological problems.

1. Can we actually disrupt the plan of God to this degree? In other words, is it conceivable for us to think of God as sitting on His throne, desirous to create baby Johnnie through parents Greg and Laurie, yet Greg keeps wearing protection thereby frustrating the plan of God? As many of us know, God is in control of this and brings about many unexpected events. Sometimes He opens the womb when you thought you had prevented such an occurrence!

2. Does this mean that we are to have sex as much as possible so that we can be sure that we are meeting the divine ”quota?” If birth control were wrong for the above stated principle, this might be the case. How does one know when they have met this “quota.” If somehow they are tired one night and miss an opportunity, does this fatigue become sin?

But we must be careful and qualify this answer, knowing that certain types of birth control can amount to post-conception abortion. If this is the case, then this type of birth control is nothing more than homicidal population control. And we know that murder is a sin. Therefore, any birth control that causes abortion is sin.

Is birth control sin? Not when it is practiced responsibly and for the right reasons.

I hope this has been helpful.Similar Posts:

• Are we condemned for the sin of another? (Part 1)
• Swindoll on Self-Control
• Are we Condemned for the Sin of Another? (Part 2)
• Beware of “Professional Weaker Brethern”
• Beware of “Professional Weaker Brethren”