Final Church History Lectures

I have included these powerpoints that we went through, but if anyone wants an even fuller source of information on a particular time period check out the lectures on www.firstbaptistwelcome.org/collegeresources.html.

PowerPoint 2

PowerPoint 3

PowerPoint 4

Church History Session 1

Church History 1

Just to save time, I am posting the PowerPoint and taking questions. So, if you were not here, and want to know some more specific information then email me a question, otherwise hopefully this can be a resource for you.

Powerpoint

Also, this is the deleted scene from Gladiator that I referenced on Sunday, with a group of Christians being fed to lions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6z38LmxW4g

Church History stuff

Alright, so I am going to try to do a better job at initiating this 4 week study on Church History. I am going to take a mulligan for Sunday, and do some better resource usage for you guys. Pictures and what not.

So beginning this week, we are going to begin again on a four week look at the history of Christianity. I promise that it will be interesting, cause I know many of you aren't history people. Hope you guys can make it, if not I will try to blog with the resources that I have.

Below is the link for a resource page that I am starting on our college page. For now I am including an even larger and better list of MP3s on Church History done by a really great pastor named Tom Nelson in Texas. He is a nationally known speaker, and author (He once was the keynote speaker for Campus Crusade's Christmas Conference in Charlotte when I went over Y2K - yeah that's right, I said Y2K)

http://www.firstbaptistwelcome.org/collegeresources.html

I hope this will be a fruitful experience for all of us! Don't miss it if you get to be in :)...

Luke 2:39-40: Is there a problem?

(Taken from Sunday School on Dec 13th)

Luke 2:39 says the following:

And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.

The question then becomes, is Luke saying that after Jesus is blessed by Simeon and Anna that they went to Nazareth and that was it? Is he saying that there was no fleeing to Egypt, no wisemen, no confrontation with Herod?

There needs to be some considerations before we begin this discussion.

1. If my memory serves me correctly, a typical scroll of this time period was about 40 feet long. The characters were fairly large, so that 40 feet isn't quite as large as it would seem to us. We are used to Word Documents that are endless, but all writers of the time period knew that there was a time when their space ran out. So Luke and Matthew had only a limited amount of space to write about Jesus' entire life. That is why there is a 1st and 2nd Samuel, 1st and 2nd Kings, etc. They could not fit on one scroll. The Psalms were not kept together on one scroll, but a collection of them, others in similar fashion.

2. A comparison of the birth stories in Matthew and Luke show the following: (click the picture for a readable size).


It is interesting that Luke and Matthew do not mirror one another's telling of the story of Jesus' birth, though their gospels mirror one another a lot. The gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke are often called the "Synoptic Gospels" because of the stories that are contained within each one of them.

It is hard then to make the case for either one of them being a rogue gospel, since there are so many similarities between them. Matthew and Luke were written, as each of the gospels were, to be "stand alone" gospels. They needed no other gospel to communicate the message of Jesus to people.

HOWEVER, it seems likely that Luke knew of Matthew's gospel, and the perspective that is told of Jesus' birth in it. The birth narrative is very important, but it is Jesus' adult ministry that really teaches and shows and clarifies who He is, why He came, and what that means and calls mankind to do.

3. So, the assumption can be made, and it is an assumption, that at least Luke perhaps knew of the narrative in Matthew, and that is why on the birth narrative he told the other perspective of what happens (from Mary's perspective). Matthew's birth narrative is almost entirely Joseph, Mary is a supporting character. The opposite is true in Luke, even the genealogy in Luke 3 is Mary's (as Luke notes that Joseph was only "thought" to be Jesus' father, then the next male back that Jesus was descended from was Heli (Mary's father), so he is listed next - compare the genealogy in Matthew 1 and you will see that Joseph's father is listed there, and it is not Heli. Matthew is examining Joseph's line as an affirmation of Joseph's role in Jesus' life, but not claiming true fatherhood in a DNA sense).

So, then...

The question becomes, what does Luke mean when he gives verse 39. At first glance it seems to indicate that when Jesus was 8 days old and had fulfilled the law of the Lord at the temple, everyone went home and hung out until Jesus was 12.

I don't think that this is a contradiction, I simply think that Luke doesn't deal with the other things because he has limited space, and Matthew has dealt with it already. In Eusebius' History of the Church (dated about 312 AD) it is mentioned that when John wrote his gospel, he did so wanting to tell the story of things that were not mentioned in the other gospels that he had read, and had access to. John ends his gospel by saying "and Jesus did many more things as well, I suppose that if they were all written down that the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written" (John 21:25).

And so we have to recognize, in our world that demands to have the loose ends tied together, that we do not know for sure the order that things happened even with all of the Scripture written about Jesus' birth and early life being correct and systematic (connecting and complimentary).

- Jesus could have been circumcised, headed back to Galilee with them, and for unforeseen circumstances that we aren't told about, they moved back to Bethlehem so that the wisemen would find them so close to Jerusalem, and prophecy could be fulfilled, and then the flight to Egypt would occur.

- As Luke refers to the "Law of the Lord" in verse 39 he could be referring to the fulfillment of the prophecies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled by the flight to Egypt and return along with the circumcision at the temple, though he does not mention them.

- a lot of other possibilities are there as well. But I hope that this helps you as you look at these Scriptures to take a bigger approach then simply thinking, "well I guess that doesn't fit, one of these is wrong." While the Bible is accurate historically, its goal is not simply connecting details for us, it is the story and message of Christ, that was given in a time when 600 page histories were not written by just anyone. Can you imagine trying to be people of faith if the life of Christ was given in a 12 volume encyclopedia set? We'll know all the details one day, but for now "only as in a mirror dimly" (I Cor 13:12).

Atheism and Agnosticism

Sunday we looked at two topics not completely removed from one another, both in essence are the same thing, with the same goals in the end. I would love any comments or additions to this in the comments section below, if anyone wants to add anything. Let's unload what we looked at.

First, the two positions:

Atheism - fairly straight-up, men like Dawkins, whose book is pictured, who would claim that there is no God, god, or gods, or any beings supernatural. Any need for intelligent design in creation could have been performed by alien beings long ago, or ooze on the back of crystals (see Xpelled with Ben Stein). Therefore morality is a human invention, which is necessary, but ultimately there is no sort of judgment or anything else where people are held accountable for what they have done (obviously).

Agnosticism - this can mean different things to different people who call themselves this, but in the end it goes something like this: there may be a god(s), probably not the Biblical God, but perhaps a greater design or being somewhere. However, he hasn't revealed himself to us, so we shouldn't worry too much about him. Morality, judgment, heaven, and hell, probably don't exist, but if they do, I'm sure everyone as good as me or better will get in to heaven. All faiths then are mostly human by invention, but none can be put above another. I need not concern myself with my soul, in a real sense, because who can know what to do for sure.

Now let's get a little broader perspective:

Agnosticism finds its roots in Enlightenment Deism. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and some other early intellectual American colonists were part of this belief system, and it is about 3 inches different than agnosticism. The Classic Deist would say that YHWH (Yahweh) created the world and set it spinning and that was it. It is impossible to know Him, and He doesn't want to really know you. Jesus was a great man, he wasn't God, he wasn't a Savior.

Jefferson formed his own Bible by going through and cutting out all the things that he didn't agree with (not kidding). Mostly all the things that dealt with prophecy, Jesus' divinity, miracles and other supernatural thinking, God's communication with mankind, and anything that just didn't seem to work. You can imagine how small the Bible was that he was left with!

Deism was actually the fruit of slavery in one sense, I know that seems ridiculous, but it really was. These rich white men who should have had to earn a living instead spent much of their youth and young adult lives on their own pursuits, making money off of slave labor. (If you look at a cross section of colonial deism, it was almost completely made up of wealthy and/or intellectual white people). They poured themselves into John Locke, Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and others. All of the sudden they FELT more intelligent than anyone around them, and because they FELT that way, they now became the authority on ultimate truth in their own minds, because of their pride.

Sunday we read Romans 1 as we looked at these topics; read it and see what Paul says as he talked about people who "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" and "their thinking became futility." That no men get to atheism naturally, instead they shut God out of their minds and hearts. They exchange His authority, for their own authority.

Where do these belief systems come from?

There is one thing that makes it possible to move from a Deist to an atheist - Darwinist evolutionary theory in its classical sense. (To clarify, there are those who hold to certain elements of evolutionary theory, but still see a Creator in the midst of the process, that is not what I am talking about).

The reason a Deist couldn't be an atheist, even though he practically was by the way he lived, was that Creation had to have a Creator. Darwin was the first person to lay out a theory that everyone bought where there was no longer a Creator necessary. In that sense, a true atheist has only existed for that last 150 years or so. Before that point, even if someone was a practical atheist, (they didn't live like there was a god, or they didn't trouble themselves with the specifics) they had to acknowledge that someone or something created the cosmos. The need was not there anymore with Darwinian theory.

Okay, enough of the theories, what does this mean to me?

Most of the time, the agnostic/atheist person came to their belief system in one of these ways:

-They have no TRUE knowledge of Christianity (i.e. the Gospel). Everything they know about Christianity has to do with morality (hypocrisy in their mind), perceived ignorance (think how Christians are shown in media outlets), political stances (Evangelical Christianity as Highly Conservative, or Liberal Denominations as Socially Driven), and the list could go on and on. They have never heard the gospel in its true sense, but they have prepared arguments over a lot of things.

- They were burned by someone or something tied to the church. This can be legitimate or illegitimate, but it doesn't matter to them. They cast Jesus off completely, because of what Brother Bill did to them.

- They view Christianity as primitive and themselves as enlightened. This is especially seen in these forms: My parents and their beliefs are stupid, I am smart. My hometown is small and ignorant, My college/new life is part of the enlightened bigger picture. I was sheltered as a child, so I must have been fed propaganda, now I am being exposed to all sorts of truth, and so this must be more legitimate, or at least since there is so much truth, there can't just be one truth. NOTICE: in none of these scenarios has the gospel been dealt with, only their situations. BUT, this is the most common thing that I have dealt with in people of the Atheist/Agnostic framework.

- They are in love with themselves and their own thinking. They literally would rather stay in the sinking lifeboat cause they built it, and they have much confidence in themselves as the ultimate authority.

When I talk to someone who is an atheist or an agnostic, there are several things that I try to remember:

There is a time for intellectual debate, especially when someone wants to just view you as an ignorant putz who has never dealt with tough questions, or gotten outside their hometown. However, debate will only get you so far, and in the end will only hurt your cause with many atheist/agnostic folks.

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. When I talk to someone who is an atheist I take a little bit of time dealing with logic, science, historiography, or whatever, and try to keep prying them with conscience questions, and questions about their own position before God. If you haven't gotten a chance to listen to Judson's story yet, do it; it's in the previous blog. He was a deist, who came to faith listening to a dying man. The words that kept ringing in his head were "death, hell, death, hell."

I truly believe that God will use those words to haunt an atheist/agnostic if the gospel is presented to them in love and truth, in a way that they know it's God or nothing. At some point, somewhere, they are going to have to shut those words out of their mind as best they can, or deal with them before God. It's probably going to happen when they are alone, in thought, before God in the dark, not in an intellectual debate.

I try to present my beliefs as much as I can in asking questions (when it fits). The person who asks the questions controls the conversation. In my conversations with atheists/agnostics this fall, I have tried to simply deal with "what happens when you die?" type questions. Not because I am trying to scare them, but because they need to realize that their thinking is not a game, and this is serious.

I want them to unload their thinking and they themselves hear how it sounds out loud, (sometimes that makes a huge difference in them) and then answer the question that they will never have to stand before an ultimate authority and be judged based on His standards. I also want them to take full responsibility that it is their own thinking they are placing trust in. If it is someone I know, if I can do this the first time, the conversation is done, and I let it stew for a while before bringing it back up again. God deals with their heart, not me or you.

So I hope this has been helpful, I would love any thoughts you guys might have! God bless you all!

Missionary Story: Adoniram Judson

Missionary Story:

The first American missionaries were Adoniram and Ann (Nancy) Judson. They were missionaries to Burma, and went through unimaginable pain and loss for the sake of spreading the message of Jesus.

I was able to give their story last Sunday night, and below is the audio from that night. This is not a sermon, it is simply their story, and it is worth listening to. If you are interested at all in missions or just hearing stories of great believers, don't miss this. I encourage you to drop this on your IPOD or whatever, and listen to it when you have 45 minutes or so. Just click below, you are welcome to redistribute this as much as you like.

Adoniram Judson's Story

I also gave the following list of Missionaries, whose biographies are worth reading. I realize that this is nowhere near a complete list.

Ø Adoniram Judson – Burma

Ø Lottie Moon – China

Ø David Livingstone – Africa

Ø Eric Liddell – Olympic Gold Medalist, Missionary to China

Ø Hudson Taylor – China

Ø William Carey – India

Ø Nate Saint/Jim Elliot – South America

To Pre or Not to Pre...(destine)

In Shakespeare's play Hamlet, there is a central scene where the famous "To Be or Not to Be" monologue takes place. Hamlet is wrestling with the full picture of life, death, and in that he is wrestling in the end with the futility of all efforts.

For some, the nature of what we have talked about for the last few weeks could make the same impression on them if taken wrongly. In the big picture, God is in control, and our lives and existence are anything but futile. If anything, the Sovereignty of God gives us confidence in the future and the goodness of what is in store for His people.

For the last few weeks we have been looking at the questions surrounding buzzwords like "predestination" "Calvinism" "Arminianism" and many others. If you missed it, you missed it. But I will try to add in the substance of some of what we looked at.

The Tulip outline is outlined in a previous entry more fully, so check that out if you don't know what I am talking about. We tried to look at several of the points from a Biblical point of view. In the midst of 3 of the points - irresistible grace, limited atonement, and unconditional election we sort of skated on top of the ocean of depth that could be developed in these arguments. Here are some of the highlights.

Limited Atonement

With limited atonement, it seemed that we all affirmed that in the end, no matter what our stance on the current situation, Christ will have only paid for those who believe in the sense that they are the only ones to "cash in" on the atoning work that has been done. Limited atonement from a Classical Calvinist perspective makes logical sense (however it is unclear whether Calvin himself even held to this doctrine). So Calvin's students came to this conclusion from a logical and not necessarily a Scriptural standpoint.

Scripture states several times that Christ died for all men (though it is not necessarily true to apply that "all" to every human being, often in context when the Bible says "all" it is speaking of a certain group. For example, if I was to say at the beginning of class on Sunday "all are here, let's start." That doesn't mean that everyone on earth is there, simply the expected group). Still, the argument gets very problematic when sinners not atoned for have a case before God that Christ's blood was not available for them. Also, what does our evangelism become when we start having to say "Christ died for you!...I hope, at least"

We need to recognize though, that without a doubt, Christ knew the sins and the sinners he was dying for by name. Would God needlessly burden His Son with the sins of those who would not accept Him? The question is worth posing. At the same time though, it is hard to imagine the greatest sacrifice in eternal history just not quite being sufficient for some, that somehow there is not enough atonement left for everyone.

Unconditional Election

What cannot be argued is that there is no election, or predestining. Numerous times (Romans 9, Ephesians 1, John's gospel in numerous places, others as well) God's electing purpose is clear. The breakdown is what election fully entails.

Classic Calvinist - God has chosen who will come to Him, and who will not. When He created them, some were objects of grace, and others were objects of wrath (Romans 9). He has a right to do so, and His will is perfect. He not only foreknew who would be saved, but he draws them, woos them, bestows faith and repentance upon them, and completes the work of salvation completely on His own, for His glory, and this has been His intent for His elect since the beginning.

Sovereignty in Foreknowledge Argument (SFA) (I made this term up) - Many, especially in Baptist circles would argue that election is strictly a foreknowledge, and not a "choosing" in the strictest sense. This becomes problematic when it is noted that God created a being with knowledge of whether they would reject or accept Him, because to some that would seem that in essence He is choosing by simply creating with foreknowledge. The SFA though would say that God is loving because in that creation He maintains a person's free will, even though He knows their destiny.

There are so many further discussions in this, but I will stop at this point.

Irresistible Grace

The Classic Calvinist would say that God must make grace irresistible, because man is so depraved He would never accept it, no matter what. God must take His heart all the way to salvation. This would definitely hold weight in one sense, because we know how wicked the human heart is. There is no doubt for all of us, that salvation is not completely an act of man just deciding that a relationship with God sounds good.

Others would find it problematic though, to say that, while God draws, calls, and moves in people's hearts that He is the one who would bestow salvation on them apart from any will of their own. In Matthew, as Jesus weeps over the people of Jerusalem, saying he longed to gather them to Himself, but they were not willing, he seems to indicate that there is a part that human will plays in the process.

At the same time we see language like "Their eyes were opened" in Luke 24 speaking of the men on the road to Emmaus (though it could be argued that this is speaking solely of their physical ability to recognize Jesus, not what is taking place in their hearts. I would not fully agree with that though). In Acts 16, it is unmistakeable that in Lydia's heart the Scripture says that "The Lord opened her heart to respond to the things being said." Even there though, the text says that her heart was opened so that she could respond. There is a good deal of room for arguing on this one.

All of us would without a doubt say that God plays the biggest role in our salvation. He draws, calls, that He has to teach us faith and repentance in the least. Some would say that faith and repentance are also gifts that He must bestow, because we can't come to them on our own. I think that argument makes sense as well, but each scenario shows that they are not something our minds naturally come to.

To be fair to the Classic Calvinist as well, as we mentioned in class, irresistible grace is something that is not God dragging someone kicking and screaming into heaven. Instead it is the natural reaction of a human being under the saving power of God. Who of us could or would resist God when He begins to reveal Himself to us. Even Paul on the Damascus road didn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming through the Mediterranean world after meeting Jesus, He was not only saved, but changed. Did he truly have any power to resist, or is the better question 'would anyone resist after being met by God in such a way?'

Other things of Note:

Hypercalvinism - this is a buzz word thrown around by many, and it could mean any number of things. It doesn't refer to people who hold to the Tulip doctrine, though many use it that way. Hypercalvinism is simply "disfunctional, unBiblical" ideas on election, etc. Some examples:

- The person who says evangelism is unnecessary because God is electing, and we don't need to be involved in it. That is in direct conflict with Scripture (Romans 10, Acts 1, many others). This person would be a Hypercalvinist, because His wrong views on election have made him passive, lazy, and unconcerned about what Scripture clearly calls people to.

- The person who views God's sovereignty having taken man's complete free will away. God has ordained how much toothpaste will be on my brush this morning for example. Most Calvinists would see there being unbreakable boundaries in God's sovereignty, but that God has not robotized people in such a way that every action is his working not ours. That's not to say that there aren't many little things that God has ordained. If His plan for me does not include me dying today, then I am not free to choke on my toothpaste.

Open Theism - Jared brought this doctrine up, and I think it is very helpful also to look at. In one sense, we could call this Hyper-Arminianism. That God doesn't have a sovereign plan, He just rethinks things based on the decisions we make. This is problematic for a number of reasons, that I don't think I need to go into. We would all be certain that what is written in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation are not "What could be if everything goes as planned" but instead "what will be."

Final Word

These are all issues that if we are not careful we try to "out-think God" on. We will be left with uncertainty in some way shape or form, and have to trust God. There is no doubt that He plays the largest role in the universe, and in our hearts as well.

Any arguments you are going to form on these issues must come from Scripture primarily, and logic second. Statements like "God's not like that" or "God wouldn't do that" don't mean anything if they aren't backed up by Scripture. Job's friends had ideas about the nature of God as well, and God was left saying "where were you when I laid the earth's foundations?" He would ask the same of us when we get too arrogant about our knowledge of Him.

If anyone would like to hear a GREAT lecture on this from two different Southern Baptist Seminary presidents - one what I would call an SFA (see above) - Paige Patterson, and the other a 5 point Calvinist (Al Mohler). Both are men that I highly respect. Click the link below for a copy of it, it is worth listening to:

http://www.sbts.edu/media/audio/Mohler/20060612pattersonmohler01.mp3