Bible Study Notes: Revelation 20:1-6

We're working our way through Revelation (we touched on Revelation 19:17-21, but didn't spend much time there today) and are now dissecting the various interpretations of Revelation 20 and eschatology (study of the end times).  There will be more notes to follow over the next few weeks, as we continue reading through Revelation 20, but here's what we covered today.

There are four main eschatological views:

• Historic Premillennialism (not common anymore, actually existed somewhat before Christianity in Judaism)
• Dispensational Premillennialism (first taught by the Gnostic heretic Cerinthus in the mid-2nd century, largely developed in the 1830s-1870s and most common protestant, specifically Arminian, eschatological belief)
• Postmillennialism (popularity has waxed and waned, most popular at the turn of the 20th century but died out around WWI, slight resurgence today especially in Reformed, or Calvinist, churches)
• Amillennialism (the proper eschatological view subscribed to by Lutherans and Catholics) -- perhaps more properly called "Realized Millennialism" as "Amillennialism" is a derogatory misnomer (meaning literally "no millennium")

Another lovely white board drawing from Pr. Wolfmueller

All four eschatological beliefs have some similarities in their timelines:

• Death of Christ
• Resurrection and Ascension of Christ
• Gifting of the Holy Ghost to Christians
• <...something happens...>
• Resurrection of the Dead
• The Final Judgment
• Eternity

It's what happens in-between (the <...something happens...>) that is different, and in different orders, for each eschatological view.  Here are the "in-betweens" for each type:

Historic Premillennialism

• The church age
• Tribulation
• 2nd coming of Christ
• 1,000-years kingdom on earth (during which Satan is bound)
• "Satan's Little Season" (where he is loosed for the final battle)
• 2nd 2nd coming of Christ

Dispensational Premillennialism

• The church age
• Christ sort of comes back for the "rapture" (invented in the 1830s)
• 7 year tribulation: 3 years of "peace", then the Antichrist comes and persecutes the converted Jews
• (2nd) 2nd coming of Christ
• 1,000-years kingdom on earth (during which Satan is bound)
• "Satan's Little Season" (where he is loosed for the final battle)
• (3rd) 2nd coming of Christ

Postmillennialism

• The church age
• "Golden age"
• 1,000-years kingdom on earth (during which Satan is bound)
• "Satan's Little Season" (where he is loosed for the final battle)
• 2nd coming of Christ

Amillennialism

• The church age = 1,000-years kingdom (the death of Jesus caused Satan to be bound)
• "Satan's Little Season" (where he is loosed for the final battle)
• 2nd coming of Christ

------------------------------------------------------

What does Revelation 20:1-4 say about the end times?

• The Millennium begins with the binding of the devil (which is accomplished in the death and resurrection of Jesus)
• After the Millennium, Satan must be released for a time for the final battle
• The resurrection of the dead and final judgment follows

------------------------------------------------------

Now for a few notes on Dispensational Premillennialism:

• Teaches that God works in different "dispensations" or "economies" of salvation, usually 7:
• The Garden
• The Fall
• Noah
• The Patriarchs
• The Law
• The Church (or Grace)
• The End Times
• They base much of their teaching on the 70 weeks in Daniel (which are really week-years, or 490 years)
• Jesus was rejected by the Jews at 69 weeks
• There is a pause (called the "great prophetic comma") between Jesus and the 70th week
• The Rapture removes the church so God can "deal" with Israel in the 7 years Tribulation
• Question they can never answer: Is the 2nd coming at the rapture, after the Tribulation, or at the end before the final resurrection?
• They say that about 2/3rds of the Jews will become "believers" during the Tribulation, and 1/3rd will be killed in the Great Persecution by the Anti-Christ
• One of the three pillars of Dispensational Premillennialism is the Distinction between Israel and the Church (Dual-Covenant Theology)
• During the 1,000-years Kingdom, Jesus reigns on an earthly throne in Jerusalem and continues to offer sacrifices in the rebuilt temple (which is utterly ridiculous and unsettling, since He already made the final sacrifice on the cross)
• At the beginning of the 1,000-years kingdom, those raptured and who died in the Great Persecution during the Tribulation will be resurrected with heavenly bodies, but the believing Jews who are still alive will remain with their earthly bodies and can still marry, have children, and die of very old age (500+ years)
• The 5th or 6th generation of the Jewish converts will rebel and join with Satan in the final battle at the end of the 1,000-years kingdom
• Dispensational Premillennialism comes from the incorrect reading of the Bible as if it is about Israel, not Jesus
• Dispensational Premillennialists use Matthew 24:36-44, 1 Corinthians 15:50-58, and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 to "prove" the rapture, but that is through a misinterpretation of the texts (trying to get the text to say what they want it to instead of proper exegesis of Scripture interpreting Scripture)
• Dispensational Premillennialism teaches that Jesus was only crucified, died, buried, resurrected and ascended as "Plan B"; "Plan A" was to get the Jews to believe and He wasn't supposed to die (which is also utter nonsense)

In other words, Dispensational Premillennialism ends up looking like a ransom note, with snippets from various verses from various parts of the Bible all hobbled together to fit preconceived ideas rather than letting the clear Word of God interpret itself... and some of it, they honestly just made up.  The majority of Dispensational Premillennialism was invented in the mid-1800s.

Sermon Notes: Law and Gospel and the Two Kingdoms

This week's sermon came from our Gospel reading Matthew 9:1-8 (with references to our Old Testament reading from Exodus 20:1-8, 12-18).

Pastor prefaced the sermon with a note on politics, or more specifically, the two kingdoms and the role of law (the 10 Commandments, or our interpretation of Natural Law) in Christians deciding how to vote.

I won't recount the entire sermon, since the audio is online so you can listen for yourself, but I wanted to make a few observations about Two Kingdoms Theology in general (some of which comes from a previous Bible Study) as well as some of the points Pastor made both in the sermon and our discussion of it in Bible Study following service regarding the Christian's role in politics and voting (as well as the rest of the Sermon--since we can't have the Law without the Gospel!).

Regarding "Two Kingdoms Theology"

Two Kingdoms Theology refers to the Lutheran teaching of the proper distinction between the Left-hand Kingdom (or the Kingdom of Man) and the Right-hand Kingdom (or the Kingdom of God).  I personally consider Romans 13 to be the original separation of Church and State document.  By this, I don't mean that they are completely severed from each other at all, but as another Pastor reminded me, it shows the proper distinction of the Kingdoms, and more importantly, the proper role of a Christian in both Kingdoms.  

I also mean by "separation of Church and State" that a) theocracies are a BIG no-no (basically, preachers are preachers and rulers are rulers, the two roles should not be combined--that is, no blurring of the clear lines between the two Kingdoms); b) that the Left-hand Kingdom is meant to not interfere with the Right-hand Kingdom (First Amendment, anyone?); and c) Christians are called to be involved in government, not using government to advance Christianity, but rather, to advance Natural Law (which we'll get to in a minute).

For a better illustration, here are some of the differences between the two Kingdoms:

Left-hand Kingdom	Right-hand Kingdom
Kingdom of the Man (State)	Kingdom of God (Church)
Law	Gospel
Sword: Internal* and External**	Word, no swords
Power	Grace
Exists for Order	Exists for Mercy
External Righteousness	Internal Righteousness
Realm of Morals	Realm of Faith
Ruled by Reason	Ruled by Scripture

 *Internal Sword = police, etc.

**External Sword = military

Now, from the Christian (and particularly Lutheran) perspective, Natural Law is exemplified in the second table of the Ten Commandments.  The first table deals with the Right-hand Kingdom, or our faith in God, and the second table deals with the Left-hand Kingdom, or Natural Law and interaction with our neighbor.

From that perspective, here is how the Commandments shape up as compared to Natural Law (my own analysis based somewhat on Pastor's Voter's Guide to the 10 Commandments):

Commandment	Natural Law
4th Commandment: Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.	Establishes earthly authority  (not just parents, but “masters”: teachers, bosses, rulers, etc.; also places emphasis on a stable family unit)
5th Commandment: Thou shalt not murder.	“Do not encroach on other persons.” (keep in mind that “murder” ≠ “kill” -- that is, self-defense and justified wars do not fall under the “murder” category; also places emphasis on the government respecting all life)
6th Commandment: Thou shalt not commit adultery.	“Do all you have agreed to do.” (especially since from a state perspective, marriage is essentially contract law, and adultery would be a violation of your contract)
7th Commandment: Thou shalt not steal.	“Do not encroach on [other persons or] their property.” (economic issues and theft fall under this commandment--something interesting we discussed was that socialism would also fall under this commandment)
8th Commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.	“Do all you have agreed to do.” (again, contract law—also addresses slander)
9th Commandment: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.	“Do not encroach on [other persons or] their property.” (eminent domain)
10th Commandment: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, not his maidservant, not his cattle, nor anything that is they neighbor’s.	“Do not encroach on [other persons or] their property.” (cross-applies to the 7th commandment and theft of personal property/items)

Of course, we can then argue how much of a role the government has in some of these issues.  Anyone who knows me politically knows I take a pretty extremely libertarian (or limited government) stance, especially when it comes to social issues, but that's a different discussion for a different blog.  But as you can see, the second table of the Ten Commandments works well with natural and common law (I used Richard Maybury's summary of common law above because it is that with which I am familiar and ridiculously succinct to boot at 17 total words).

Regarding Christians and Politics

A few brief notes from Pastor's sermon (these are the bullet points I wrote down, I've been taking sermon notes since confirmation):

• Many Pastors say that you must "Take your faith into the voting booth," but that is wrong
• It is not faith, but reason, by which we should vote because the Left-hand Kingdom is ruled by reason (the Right-hand Kingdom is ruled by faith)
• We should bring not the Apostle's Creed but the 10 Commandments into the voting booth
• We don't need to elect someone who is Orthodox, but someone who understands and values Natural Law
• Pagans and Christians should vote the same, because it is by reason and natural law that we should all cast our votes
• The 10 Commandments are the Christian's "Cliff Notes" of Natural Law
• Knowing the 10 Commandments makes us reasonable, keeping them makes us wise
• The State exists for order and the Law, the Church exists for mercy and the Gospel

Regarding the "Rest" of the Sermon

Now, before I go into the "rest" of the sermon, I wanted to briefly discuss Law and Gospel, since this is another fairly uniquely Lutheran thing--and is important to understand the distinction between to understand why this sermon was so well constructed.

The Law is what God demands of us, but because of Original Sin, we cannot fulfill.  The Gospel is the "good news" of God that forgives our sins and gives us what we cannot do on our own.  It is not simply Old vs. New Testament, nor is it always easy to distinguish in modern Christendom (sometimes even inside the Lutheran church).

I bring this up because, more obvious than usual, the Law and Gospel were very clearly defined in this sermon.  Our Left-hand Kingdom duty in politics is clearly covered the by Law.  But no good Lutheran sermon would be complete without the Gospel.  So today we had the story of the healing of the paralytic.  My notes:

• Jesus' words ("Take heart, My son; your sins are forgiven.") were likely shocking and offensive to the onlookers
• The man came for healing, not forgiveness of sins, why would a paralytic need forgiveness of sins?  Wouldn't he rather "need" his arms and legs healed?
• Jesus was questioned by the scribes, who thought Jesus was blaspheming
• Jesus poses an interesting question to the scribes: "Why do you think evil in your hearts?  For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'?"
• Both require higher power, but for us, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven' almost seem harder, not easier (luckily we have Jesus who does that for us), but it was the most important thing to say
• He forgives sins so that we may know the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive our sins
• Like many, the paralytic very well may have been consumed by thinking his disability was caused by his sin (which, in a way, it was--or specifically, his sin nature which brings death, disease and decay)
• Jesus wants all to know that nothing in life will prevent us from receiving forgiveness of our sin, even if we think we don't deserve it.
• Melancholy sometimes sets in when we think of the state of this world, especially politics (because it is the Law)--but the Gospel undoes this for us
• Christ tells us to take heart and be of good cheer--we are forgiven and He will come again

So, as you see, this brings it full-circle--the balance of Law and Gospel in another great sermon.  I spent a lot more time on the "politics" side of it than I did the actual sermon side--probably because I am surrounded by politics usually--so I would encourage you to listen to the sermon for yourself, since it brings a better balance than I did.

Heresies Family Trees

My heresies project is far from complete (and it is just a small portion of a much larger project anyways, my goal is to have it totally done by 2017--yes, I think it will take me that long, thanks to my inability to focus on one thing for too long without getting bored or distracted, and other things going on in my life... like baby in 6-ish months), so as I expand it further and/or receive edits from various individuals, this will be updated.

For now, here is what I have come up with for a family trees of heresies.  If you notice an error in categorizing, or a heresy you know of that is missing from the list, please comment and I will correct/look into adding!

Also, keep in mind that with some of these, I just made up names for to describe heresies that I see but couldn't find another name already in use for (such as "Osteenism"/"Prosperitism" to cover the false teaching of the Prosperity Gospel).

Note: I plan on starting a "Heresy of the Week" post (thanks to the suggestion of a friend), hopefully every Monday, on 15 October.  Any votes for the first heresy you'd like to learn more about?  If I hear nothing, we'll default to my "favorite" (not because it is good, but because it's the most prevalent in Christendom today from my perspective) to kick this off.  Anyone want to guess which heresy that is?

Antidicomarian

• Antidicomarianism
• Bonosianism
• Helvidianism
• Jovinianism

Antitrinitarian

• Arianism (also Arian)
• Deism
• Dystheism
• Macedonianism (also known as Pneumatomachism, Tropicism) (also Arian)
• Marcionism (also Gnostic)
• Mohammedanism (also Arian)
• Monarchianism (also Arian)
• Adoptionism (also known as Dynamic Monarchianism) (also Arian)
• Paulicianism (also Arian, Gnostic)
• Psilanthropism (also Arian)
• Samosatenism (also Arian)
• Unitarianism (also Pelagian)
• Christadelphianism (also Pelagian)
• Sabellianism (also known as Modalism) (also Arian)
• Noeticism
• Patripassianism (also known as Patripassionism) (also Arian)
• Photinianism (also Arian)
• Polytheism
• Socinianism (also Gnostic)
• Subordinationism (also Arian)
• Tritheism
• Universalism

Arian

• Anomœanism (also known as Aëtianism, Anomeanism, Eunomianism, Heterousianism, Heteroousianism)
• Arianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Ebionitism (possibly Pelagian)
• Eudoxianism
• Kenosism
• Macedonianism (also known as Pneumatomachism, Tropicism) (also Antitrinitarian)
• Mohammedanism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Monarchianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Adoptionism (also known as Dynamic Monarchianism) (also Antitrinitarian)
• Paulicianism (also Antitrinitarian, Gnostic)
• Psilanthropism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Samosatenism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Sabellianism (also known as Modalism) (also Antitrinitarian)
• Patripassianism (also known as Patripassionism) (also Antitrinitarian)
• Photinianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Semi-Arianism
• Subordinationism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Tritheism (also Antitrinitarian)

Ascetic

• Albigensism (also Gnostic)
• Archonticism (also Gnostic)
• Cerdonianism (also Gnostic)
• Donatism (also Gnostic)
• Encratitism (also Gnostic, Monophysite)
• Fraticellism (also Other)
• Free Spiritism (also Other)
• Montanism (also known as Cataphrygianism, Phrygianism) (also Pelagian, Protestant)
• Priscillianism (also Gnostic)

Eschatological

• Christian Zionism
• Futurism
• Historicism
• Idealism
• Millenarianism (also known as Millenarism) ( slightly Protestant)
• Joachimism
• Dulcinianism
• Millennialism (also known as Chiliasm)
• Postmillennialism
• Premillennialism
• Dispensationalism
• Dispensational Premillennialism
• Millerism
• Preterism

Eucharistic

• Impanationism
• Symbolism (also Protestant)
• Transubstantiationism

Gnostic

• Archonticism (also Ascetic)
• Bogomilism
• Albigensism (also known as Albigensianism, Catharism) (also Ascetic)
• Bosnianism
• Patarenism
• Paulicianism (also Antitrinitarian, Arian)
• Tondrakianism
• Borboritism (also known as Barbalitism, Koddianism, Phibionitism, Secundianism, Socratitism)
• Cainitism
• Carpocratianism
• Cerdonianism (also Ascetic)
• Marcionism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Cerinthianism
• Colobasianism
• Docetism (also Monophysite)
• Encratitism (also known as Hydroparastatæism, Saccophorism, Severianism) (also Ascetic, Monophysite)
• Euchitism (also known as Messalianism)
• Gnosticism
• Luciferianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Ophitism (also known as Ophianism)
• Johannism
• Notzrimism (also known as Nazaraiosism)
• Mandaeism (also known as Mandaeanism)
• Elcesaitism (also known as Elchasaitism, Elkasitism, Elkesaitism) (also Monophysite)
• Manichaeism (also known as Manichaeanism)
• Bagnolianism
• Naassenism
• Peratism
• Sethianism 
• Bardaisanitism (also known as Bardesanitism)
• Valentinianism
• Basilidianism (also known as Basildeanism)
• Thomasenism (also known as Thomasinism)
• Priscillianism (also Ascetic)
• Simonianism (also known as Helenianism)
• Socinianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Swedenborgianism (also Pelagian, Protestant)

Monophysite

• Apollinarianism (also known as Apollinarism)
• Docetism (also Gnostic)
• Elcesaitism (also Gnostic)
• Encratitism (also known as Hydroparastatæism, Saccophorism, Severianism) (also Ascetic, Gnostic)
• Eutychianism
• Miaphysitism
• Monoenergism
• Monophysitism
• Monothelitism
• Polemianism

Other

• Audianism
• Averroism (also known as Aristotelianism)
• Circumcisionism (possibly Protestant-related)
• Conciliarism
• Donatism (distantly Gnostic)
• Circumcellionism (also known as Agnosticisism) (possibly Pelagian or distantly Gnostic)
• Ebionitism
• Feeneyism
• Fraticellism
• Heliocentrism
• Nestorianism
• Nicolaitanism (also known as Nicholaism, Nicolaism, Nicolationism)
• Novatianism (also known as Sabbatianism)
• Origenism
• Quartodecimanism
• Traducianism (also known as Generationalism)

Pelagian

• Asceticism
• Free Spiritism
• Legalism
• Molinism (also Protestant)
• Montanism (also known as Cataphrygianism, Phrygianism) (also Ascetic, Protestant)
• Osteenism (also known as Prosperitism) (also Protestant)
• Pelagianism
• Semi-Pelagianism
• Swedenborgianism (also Gnostic, Protestant)
• Synergism (also Protestant)
• Unitarianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Christadelphianism (also Antitrinitarian)

Protestant

• Anabaptism
• Anglo-Israelism (also known as British Israelism)
• Antinomianism
• Covenantalism (also known as Federalism)
• Henricianism
• Hypercalvinism
• Jansenism
• King James Onlyism
• Molinism (also Pelagian)
• Monergism
• Montanism (also known as Cataphrygianism, Phrygianism) (also Ascetic, Pelagian)
• Osteenism (also known as Prosperitism) (also Pelagian)
• Reconstructionism
• Restorationism
• Swedenborgianism (also Gnostic, Pelagian)
• Symbolism (also Eucharistic)
• Synergism (also Pelagian)
• Waldensianism (also known as Vaudoisism and Waldensism)

UPDATE: Why I am not Catholic

I'm going to keep this simply to the topics why, rather than explaining them at this point.  I'll also do "why I am not [fill in one of three protestant sects]" posts soon.

Part of what I am working on now is a study of why the Book of Concord (UAC) is still necessary today, which is why I have been more and more convicted that the teaching of the dogmas below are why I cannot be Catholic.  As my project progresses, my hope is to post short summaries on a number of theological topics with the Catholic, Lutheran and other protestant teachings on each of them so you can see more clearly from where I am coming.  My first topic is Original Sin.

That said, if I was forced to choose between Catholicism and protestantism (Arminianism, Calvinism, Radical Reformed), I wouldn't hesitate for a second to choose to be a Catholic.  Thank God I can be a Lutheran instead, though.

1. The Infallibility of the Pope
2. The Office of the Pope (in general)
3. The deification of Mary*
4. Worship of the Saints**
5. Purgatory and penance
6. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus 
7. Definitions of Justification and Sanctification
8. The number of Sacraments
9. Transubstantiation
10. The Theology of the Cross vs. the Theology of Glory

P.S. I haven't forgotten about the Heresies family tree list, it is just taking longer than I expected to finish up.


* Update 1: For clarification, I am referring to four separate things here: 
1) The hyper-Marian Catholics, a few of whom I have had conversations with, who are a small but vocal sect pushing for Mary to become the fourth part of the Godhead (but not part of the Trinity as I understand it) which is not, from my understanding, common Catholic teaching.  
2) The immaculate conception of Mary, which from a Lutheran perspective would make her God (since God is the only perfect being, and no human since the Fall can be perfect, therefore for any human, such as Mary, to be perfect, she cannot be truly human because of Original Sin). 
3) The use of the term "co-redemptrix" (which makes it sound as if Mary plays a role not in being the Mother of our Savior, but in our own salvation with Jesus, which is false).
4) Prayer to/in the name of Mary--which, from a Lutheran perspective, is the same as worship of Mary in addition to and/or in place of God.  

There are other items which would be of concern from a Lutheran perspective as well, such as the assumption of Mary, but are less of an issue than the four above.

** Update 2: By "worship" I mean prayer to, or (probably more specifically) prayer in the name of, Saints.  As a Lutheran, we believe we need no intercessor but Jesus, and, as the redeemed children of God, we are even bold enough to pray in the name of Our Father, through Jesus Christ, as taught to us in Matthew.  Again, prayer is a form of worship, and to pray in the name or to the name of anyone but God is tantamount to worship of that person rather than God from the Lutheran perspective.


Originally published on 28 August, 2012; updates on 13 October 2012.

Why I am not "protestant"

It might be easier for all three "protestant" sects to share only what I actually agree with them on, rather than disagree.  I think the "agree" lists will be much shorter in all three cases than the "disagree" lists.

I'm referencing below strict adherence to Arminianism, Calvinism and Radical Reformed teachings, rather than the various denominations and their further misunderstandings of theology today.  Most of them are even worse and I would agree with them less than I do with their root sects.

Arminianism

1. The existence of Free Will (although they seriously over-emphasize it to the point of heresy)
2. God
1. The Trinity
2. Who God is
3. The Humanity and Divinity of Christ
3. Infallibility of the Word of God

Calvinism

1. Original Sin (or Total Depravity from TULIP)
2. Unconditional Election ("U" from TULIP, although they misapply and misunderstand it)
3. God
1. The Trinity
2. Who God is
3. The Humanity and Divinity of Christ
4. Infallibility of the Word of God

Radical Reformed

1. God
1. The Trinity
2. Who God is
3. The Humanity and Divinity of Christ
2. Infallibility of the Word of God

---------------------------------------------------------

And... that's all I can think of off the top of my head.  I'll add to these lists as I think of more, because I feel like there has to be more than this, but I honestly can't think of anything else at the moment.

They're so short because I disagree with all three on everything from tradition in the church to Justification and Sanctification, to eschatology, to free will/predestination (none get it right on this count), to the sacraments, to soteriology, to civil affairs and the church's role in that, to law and gospel, to the office of the keys, to confession, to even simple things like the creeds... and on and on.  When so much that is basic to our faith can't be agreed upon... we have problems.

This is why I've often said if I can't be Lutheran, I'd be Roman Catholic.  I agree with them on far more than I disagree with them, certainly in comparison to "protestants" at least.

A Brief Note on the Term "Theologically Illiterate"

As I was falling asleep last night, I realized just how truly arrogant "theologically illiterate" sounded in my last post.  It sounded, even to me, as if you can't be a good Christian if you don't know or believe exactly as I do.  I'm sure you can guess that wasn't my intent.  So let me clarify now that I'm not rushing to finish my post before leaving the house (impatience often leads me to come across more bluntly than I usually intend--ironic considering the subject of this post and the "twitter timespan" I mention below).

Most American Christians today seem to become "theologically literate" in spite of, rather than because of, the Church.  This is a travesty.  Our churches, more often than not, churn out "shallow" Christians (by this, I am thinking of the James analogy of "milk" vs. "meat"--you can't graduate to eating meat if you don't know how or don't want to, both of which are far too common in American Christendom).  It isn't really anything new, I would dare say it's been around as long as Christianity has, but it seems to occur more frequently of late.  Or maybe it just seems that way since we are all so much more connected now than we used to be thanks to the internet.

Part of it I blame on the advent of the mega-church.  It's unreasonable to expect a church that large to be properly shepherded, even with a whole team of Pastors.  There simply isn't a human way to do it. Even with "small groups" and Bible studies, the time and attention you receive directly from a Pastor is minimal at best, according to friends who attend these types of churches as well as my own research into it.  That is a huge part of the problem--the inaccessibility of the Pastor, and his inability to do his job because of the size of the congregation (yes, I used the masculine pronouns on purpose, and always will when referring to Pastors).

I also blame the twitter timespan of this generation.  It seems that no one wants to take the time to learn and understand the seemingly difficult things anymore because they want instant gratification.  It's good enough for far too many people in general, not just in the church, to have someone tell them what they want to hear.  They want to feel good.  They don't want to contemplate the bad.  They like to write off parts of the Bible that they don't like or don't understand and don't want to understand further, so they just ignore them.  They don't want to be bothered with questioning information or studying it or learning the "who, what, when, where, how and why" of anything.  If it can't be done in 30 seconds or less than 144 characters, why should they listen?

Part, too, lies with far too many Pastors who don't challenge their parishioners enough.  They give into the twitter timespan mentality.  They do just the minimum.  They want to make you feel good.  No one likes to preach the Law, but without it, you cannot have the Gospel.  Pastors are only human, too.  Part of that problem here, I think, comes from the lack of proper training or prior education of a Pastor.  I'm a big fan of seminaries and ordination so that I know my Pastor has had significant training in the original languages, context, theology, early church fathers, etc.  That isn't to say you can't learn all that without a seminary, but I can definitely tell when a Pastor has studied and when one simply hasn't.  If our Pastors aren't properly educated, how can we expect them to properly educate their flocks?


Finally, this isn't a phenomenon unique to any one denomination.  In fact, I can't think of a single denomination (include, all too often, Lutheran) where this doesn't occur.  Case in point from a Lutheran perspective: I had three other ladies in my confirmation class.  I was the only one who bothered to even try to memorize what I was supposed to, or answer any of the questions, or ask questions of my own.  Since it wasn't strictly enforced, these gals skated through without really challenging themselves to actual understand what they were being taught.  I only ever saw one at church after confirmation on anything but Easter or Christmas, and rarely at that (although, granted, she was at college the last few years and now I attend a different church in a different city).

It's not enough to know the Bible, or think you know what you believe.  Both are important.  But equally important, as Peter writes in 1 Peter 3:14-17 (ESV), is being prepared to give an answer for your faith, something you cannot do if you only superficially understand it.

But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.

It is ultimately up to us to ensure we know and understand our faith as much as humanly possible.  Others may help along the way, but the only ones we can ultimately praise or censure in this endeavor are ourselves.  Even with a "bad" Pastor in a mega-church with unfocused fellow congregants, you can still be entirely theologically literate if you make the effort.  It just takes work--something I know very well first hand, even though I've been, overall, very lucky to be surrounded by those who want to help and encourage me learn (my Mother most especially).  Lifelong catechis is very important.  That is, in some part, why I started this blog and why I'm working on the book project I am now--to keep me accountable in continuing to learn.

Bible Study Notes: God is...

I warned my Pastor that if I started coming to Bible Study regularly, I would ask obnoxious, obscure and time-consuming questions.  He learned today that I was not kidding.

While discussing the eternal union of Human and Divine in the Son, I had to ask how we describe that to other people (Christians and non-Christians), since we consider Jesus to retain His human body and nature even now (Divine and Human eternally joined), without anthropomorphizing the rest of the Godhead (the Father and the Spirit).  So, we spent at least half an hour on this (instead of studying Revelations...) and here is what we determined.  Interestingly, Pastor felt like he didn't answer my question, but he definitely did.  It just took me until the drive home to realize it.

The Trinity and who God is basic Christian doctrine that almost everyone, regardless of denomination, agrees upon (sans the heretics).  However, it is also unbelievably complex and not particularly logical in a mathematical sense, for example (Pastor said that after this discussion, we can all graduate Seminary because of the complexity of the topic we just discussed...).  It makes sense to me, but that is largely because of faith.  To be fair, from a human perspective, I can more than understand why a non-Christian would look at this and think we're nuts.

Pastor Wolfmueller's lovely illustration.

Edit: Thanks to Becki for a link the the image my Pastor was referencing here.

First, for clarity, the Persons of God within the Trinity are the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.  Each Person of the Trinity has the full Essence of God.  The Son has two Natures: fully God and fully Man, or both Divine and Human.  So that is what I mean by those terms when I use them below.

The Essence of God:

God is the Father.  The Father (A) is God (D).  (A = D)

God is the Son.  The Son (B) is God (D).  (B=D)

God is the Spirit.  The Spirit (C) is God (D).  (C=D)

However... the Persons of God within the Trinity:

The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father.  (A ≠ B and B ≠ A) 

The Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Son.  (B ≠ C and C ≠ B)

The Spirit is not the Father, and the Father is not the Spirit.  (C ≠ A and A ≠ C)

The Natures of God:

The Father is fully Divine in Nature.

The Son is both fully Divine and fully Human in Nature (Personal Union).

The Spirit is fully Divine in Nature.

God is fully Divine in Nature, joined through the Son to humanity.

Additionally, all Persons of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal (no one is above the others, and no one existed before the others).  However, we would say that the Father beget the Son (that both name are essential to the Persons of that member of the Trinity) and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND Son--while all three remain co-equal and co-eternal, always existing together and without "rank" in the Godhead.

All of which brings us to my question, which essentially is how to describe the Nature of the Son as being separate from the other Persons of the Trinity without being separate from Essence of God, which all three persons of the Trinity share in full.  

When the Son took the form of flesh (fully God and fully Man), did the essence of God change (since the Father, Son and Spirit are all fully God)?  No, because the Divine = the Flesh in the Son, but the Flesh ≠ the Divine in the Son.  This, by the by, was the answer to my question: because the Son is fully Divine, therefore fully God, God is joined into humanity in the Son, but since neither the Father nor Spirit are the same as the Person of the Son, they cannot be joined in humanity as well, even though both, like the Son, are also fully God.

This is also the reason we (meaning Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans) can, should, and do call Mary the Theotokos ("God-Bearer" or Mother of God) rather than those (all not listed above--basically, protestants and heretics--not implying that the two are the same) who would call her Christotokos ("Christ-Bearer" or Mother of Christ)--because Christ is fully Divine, and therefore fully God in Essence and Nature.  Nota Bene: the Council of Ephesus in 431 declared "Christotokos" to be heretical.

For more on how all this works, the Athanasian Creed (written to combat Arianism, which denies the Divinity of Jesus, as well as those accusing Christians of polytheism--the worship, in Christianity's case, of a Trinity of gods, instead of the Trinity in one God) does a beautiful job of explaining "one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity."  It's more lengthy than the Apostles' or Nicene-Constantinople Creeds, which is why the Lutheran Church at least only uses it on Trinity Sunday, but it is the most succinct, yet thorough, explanation of the Persons, Essence and Natures of God in the Trinity.

Finally, one of Pastor Wolfmueller's great observation was with regards to the question of "having a relationship with Jesus."  Technically speaking, everyone has a relationship with Jesus, some are just very bad ones (i.e. non-believers).  Christians don't really have a "relationship" with Jesus, though.  No.  Rather, through baptism, we are joined with Jesus, and we are one with Christ and become partakers of the Divine Nature (knows as the mystical union or mysterious union--2 Peter 1:2-4).  

Just like the "So when were you saved?" question I despise, the "Do you have a relationship with Jesus?" question is on my "hate list" for questions asked by well meaning, but theologically illiterate, Christians.  Both are totally the wrong question, a) because both emphasize your role in salvation (which is only to reject faith, but by emphasizing more than that, these questions are Arminianist, and therefore Synchronistic, and, consequently, heretical), and b) because the real questions are "When were you baptized?" and "Has the Holy Ghost worked faith in you?", respectively, if you must ask one of the two--although the latter here ("Has the Holy Ghost worked faith in you?") is often what is meant by the previous above ("So when were you saved?").