Grace and Mercy for You

Mary, Queen of Heaven? Coredemptrix?

I’ve been watching an interesting debate on another person’s blog. The discussion is between two Roman Catholic believers and they were arguing about whether the title of “Coredemptrix”, or co-redeemer should be given to Mary. When I suggested it wasn’t for man to grant titles, it provoked a response. I responded thus:

Taylor Marshall writes:

Robert Sessford,

You write:

“It is not for man to grant titles.”

Is it wrong to give Jesus the title “Personal Lord and Savior” since God never issued that title?

Is it wrong to assign the title “Holy Trinity” since it was not revealed as an explicit title for God?

in Christ,
Taylor
Today, 1:44:15 PM
RobertSessford
1. Yes, I believe it is confusing. Some evangelicals are so stuck on “personal saviour” as a title, that I think they would be shocked to see the rider on the White Horse returning with not three, but only two titles written across his thigh. But that’s a subject for another discussion. Suffice to say, I don’t think the people who are using that “title” for our Lord mean it to elevate Jesus to a station not previously recognized. He is God. There is no high and lofty descriptor that would be out of place. We are not granting him a title. He owns all titles. In all things He has preeminence.

We cannot speak about assigning titles as if we are naming the species or categorizing plant life. A title proper is indication of Lordship or ownership over that which is included in the title.

To grant to sit on Jesus’ right or left is not for us to decide. The Father holds that prerogative. He has named Christ as Saviour. I don’t think we have the authority to name a co-saviour, or anything like it. No matter how much we may appreciate someone, or have testimonies or other evidence that that person has been helpful or even instrumental in the salvation or redemption or comfort of other people, it would be “putting them forward” to ask for a title for them. Just like when the mother of James and John asked Jesus to give them titles. For man to give a person a title like that would be presumptuous of us. It’s not ours to give.

2. Regarding the Holy Trinity: No, I don’t think it’s out of place. And I think this is why: (without going into a defense of the Trinity or a feeble attempt to explain it!) Each of those 3 persons has been described in Scripture as being God. We are not elevating any of them to a position higher than that denoted in Scripture.

benedictus Deus et Pater Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui benedixit nos in omni benedictione spiritali in caelestibus in Christo Eph 1:3

Accepting Orthodoxy: It’s not just refusing to think about it.

I wouldn’t suggest anyone have disrespect for St. Peter. But as we think it through, we have the following evidence regarding the possibility St. Peter was capable developing an errant doctrine: Peter had to be corrected (as did most if not all the disciples) by our Lord on more than one occasion. Examples being: suffer the little children to come to me and St. Peter’s attempt to convince our Lord to avoid the cross. These corrections were necessary, and were made by our Lord before his ascension, and before the granting of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost – The Spirit who would lead them into all truth. We can see other examples of ‘mistakes’ made by God-loving, truth-seeking men. Moses really shouldn’t have thrown down the tablets (and God let him know it; He did not permit him into the physical Promised Land). Interestingly, we see St. Peter make another misjudgment many years after Pentecost. Galatians 2:12 “But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to [the] face, because he was to be condemned:” Did St. Peter repent? We don’t exactly know. And if he wasn’t in the wrong, then St. Paul was. At any rate, it is a GIFT of God that it is recorded in Scripture that early church fathers can be wrong on a point. They actually can be. That is a great relief because it means that any church father, or council, may have been in error. So when we reconsider their teachings, we don’t have to conclude that we are either just too sinful or just too dense if we are unable to see agreement between them, and other principles in God’s Word or the tradition of the Church. I believe such errors exist when doctrine was ever formulated apart from the Grace of our Lord – or when it was influenced by a human desire for control or the preservation of human power or reputation. Scripture clearly indicates many examples of such, and that eventually, God brings about a correction. That is why, although I don’t go crazy “throwing out dogma” just because its dogma, I firmly believe we must know why we believe. And I believe we must compare every teaching of the Church with every other teaching, checking for anything contradictory to Grace, or purporting “another” gospel.

Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Tim 2:15

gratia Domini nostri Iesu Christi vobiscum

What do you Love?

I read recently on a young man’s blog: “It’s better to do right than to be right”. It’s an ideal that certainly contradicts human nature; and that didn’t go unobserved by our Lord. His most scathing critizisms were aimed at men that said all the right things, but lacked the fruits of love. He called them beautiful whitewashed tombs, not because they were caring men that aided widows and orphans in their need yet were unclear about some religious questions, but because of the opposite: Pious, praying in public, fasting and careful to observe to the letter their duty to honour God, these men would steal from widows and send orphans away to beg. They believed they were justified in whatever they did because of what they believed.

I have been spiritually brought up in the evangelical tradition. I’m not questioning the teachings I’ve received. I am however, a bit wearied by those who place so much importance on being right (what they believe), and little thought to doing right. I think that some of us Evangelicals are on thin ice. When pride in being right blinds our hearts to the Love of God in the most “unlikely” places and people, then we are in danger of missing the real point? Aren’t we?  A very well known and respected Christian writer encouraged me to publish this blog post and I’m grateful to him for taking the time to read it.

Matthew 23:25-28

• vae vobis scribae et Pharisaei hypocritae quia mundatis quod de foris est calicis et parapsidis intus autem pleni sunt rapina et inmunditia
• Pharisaee caece munda prius quod intus est calicis et parapsidis ut fiat et id quod de foris est mundum
• vae vobis scribae et Pharisaei hypocritae quia similes estis sepulchris dealbatis quae a foris parent hominibus speciosa intus vero plena sunt ossibus mortuorum et omni spurcitia
• sic et vos a foris quidem paretis hominibus iusti intus autem pleni estis hypocrisi et iniquitate

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”

You shall know a tree by its fruits; not by what it says, but by what it does.

James 1:27  religio munda et inmaculata apud Deum et Patrem haec est visitare pupillos et viduas in tribulatione eorum inmaculatum se custodire ab hoc saeculo

“Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this : to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”

James 2:14-20

• unusquisque vero temptatur a concupiscentia sua abstractus et inlectus
• dein concupiscentia cum conceperit parit peccatum peccatum vero cum consummatum fuerit generat mortem
• nolite itaque errare fratres mei dilectissimi
• omne datum optimum et omne donum perfectum desursum est descendens a Patre luminum apud quem non est transmutatio nec vicissitudinis obumbratio
• voluntarie genuit nos verbo veritatis ut simus initium aliquod creaturae eius
• scitis fratres mei dilecti sit autem omnis homo velox ad audiendum tardus autem ad loquendum et tardus ad iram
• ira enim viri iustitiam Dei non operatur

“What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works. “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?”

Useless. As useless as a clanging cymbal?   We can see that faith without works (of love) is useless. I have a question for those who enjoy being “right”, who love knowing that their doctrine is correct: Is love without faith useless?  Or, more clearly put: Is an expression of human love an abomination in the sight of God when it is not accompanied by  “being right”;  evangelically, or otherwise, being able to confess with one’s mouth all the correct creeds?

If someone came up to you and said: “I’m not sure about Jesus. Or God. Or the Church.  In fact, I don’t know what I believe, but I do feel that God, whomever he is, would want me to be as kind and loving as I may be, and that he will decide in the end who was loving and who was not (in respect to eternal judgement).”  What would you say?  I know I would have said what I’ve been taught:  It’s more important to Be Right than to Do Right. In other words:  God will forgive the Christian that hypocritically lives a self-serving life, ignoring the needs of those who are suffering and are within his reach and power to help because such a man believes the gospel and confesses his dependance upon the Lord, and by doing so is made righteous.  I would have used Romans 10:9 as the acid test of whether a person is forgiven or not.  Others may use other tests: Is the person baptized? Has he participated in the sacraments?  But really, all of our tests exclude Love.  I realize another thing:  My tests had excluded scripture.

Matthew 7:21-23

• non omnis qui dicit mihi Domine Domine intrabit in regnum caelorum sed qui facit voluntatem Patris mei qui in caelis est ipse intrabit in regnum caelorum
• multi dicent mihi in illa die Domine Domine nonne in nomine tuo prophetavimus et in tuo nomine daemonia eiecimus et in tuo nomine virtutes multas fecimus
• et tunc confitebor illis quia numquam novi vos discedite a me qui operamini iniquitatem

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles ?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’”

What would you say to someone who declared: “I am not convinced that Jesus is the Son of God, but truly believe that if there is a God, he would want us to be loving, and that’s how I try to be!” ?  Well, I bet you can think of alot of answers.  And if you believe those answers, you will even feel an anxiousness for the lost soul and make attempts like I have, to convince them that the Love they think they are seeking, is actually angry with them for their lack of faith (though patient until they repent) but if they do not repent, they will be eternally damned. And though I feel sorry for them now, I will be relieved of that burden when I’m in heaven myself, and agree with God that such a non-believer should be damned.  But hold on a minute.  They said they do believe.  In love.  Nameless, (does that sound familiar, old testament buffs?) though, in their ignorance, yet they express their worship of Love and even say they commit their souls to the judgement of Love.  But they are speaking words against Jesus….   What would He have to say about that?

Matthew 12:31-32

• ideo dico vobis omne peccatum et blasphemia remittetur hominibus Spiritus autem blasphemia non remittetur
• et quicumque dixerit verbum contra Filium hominis remittetur ei qui autem dixerit contra Spiritum Sanctum non remittetur ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro

“”Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”

The Holy Spirit of God.  The sin mentioned shouldn’t be a mystery. God is Love.  Whoever decides in his life to utterly refuse Love, that person is refusing Life Himself.  I wonder if heaven will be home to many who say: “When Lord? When did we see you hungry?…. we weren’t even looking for you.”  I also wonder if heaven will notice the absence of those men that thought they were so right, yet scorned Love- in others and in the Holy Spirit.

In case anyone should think I’ve fallen from faith, I don’t think so.  I believe in Jesus, the Son of the Living God; in Romans 1:9 and in the Apostles Creed.  I believe that becoming a disciple of Jesus does not mean that God now loves me.  It means that I can now love Him more fully, with understanding and serve him more completely and in freedom knowing he has forgiven my sin.  After all, don’t we love him because he first loved us?

I welcome your comments.

Why I don’t believe in Universalism

Actually, I didn’t even know what that was until I looked it up on Wikipedia. I probably knew at one point during my education, but never gave it much more thought; until now.

I was going to join a discussion board called carm.org and was reading the ‘Rules’.  There are two banned subjects: Universalism and Satanism. Satanism I can see banning; after all, it’s a Christian discussion board and would be inappropriate for anyone to expound on the benefits of worshipping Christ’s nemesis. But Universalism…. that caught my interest. Why would that be such a “hot” topic?

I think I figured it out – in part perhaps.  Christians are generally afraid of the concept of Universalism because if it is true, why bother being a Christian at all  (as if being a Christian is some sort of onerous task for which those who devote their lives to being such deserve some sort of reward, like seeing the lost and not themselves get damned?

Well, I believe being a Christian to be a privilege, not a dreary task. But I cannot swallow universalism as Wikipedia defines it – That every soul, without exception, will eventually be reconciled to God our Father. There are just too many scriptural references (especially quotes from Jesus) about how some folk (who think themselves to be righteous) will be rejected because they never, ever would accept the doctrine of grace; neither in theory and especially not in practice.

Matthew 7:13-15

Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it. Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

See… Jesus doesn’t warn us against false infidels, or false Satan worshippers, or false hedonists.  He warns us against false prophets.  People who try to turn prophesying into profiteering.

I think I have a new word for what I believe. New to me, but no doubt someone (or many people) have thought of it before. After all, all wisdom doesn’t come only through me, and there is nothing new under the sun.  (My) new word……………… Surprisalism.

Matthew 25:41 “tunc dicet et his qui a sinistris erunt discedite a me maledicti in ignem aeternum qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius”

Won’t that be a surprise?

But equally surprising will be the first half of Jesus’ welcoming speech to “all the nations”. When Lord? When did we see you thirsty, or hungry and give you food an drink? When were you a stranger, and we invited you in?  Now those of us that know the bible… will we be surprised? Or will it be rather anticlimactic to hear Jesus? Yes, yes, we did all that, and we could see your face in the faces of all those poor people we helped. We know the story. Can we inherit the kingdom now?…  I don’t think Scripture lies. Those whom Jesus addresses will be surprised. And so might some of us, when we see those of the earth whom we thought were not disciples, but Jesus considers worthy of eternal life. People who may have spoken a word against The Son of Man, but curiously, did not blaspheme against the Holy Ghost.  Surprise!

So, let no one accuse me of universalism.

I welcome your comments.

Apollos – When was he saved?

Acts 18:24-25

Iudaeus autem quidam Apollo nomine Alexandrinus natione vir eloquens devenit Ephesum potens in scripturis

hic erat edoctus viam Domini et fervens spiritu loquebatur et docebat diligenter ea quae sunt Iesu sciens tantum baptisma Iohannis

Now a certain Jew, named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus, one mighty in the scriptures. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord: and being fervent in spirit, spoke and taught diligently the things that are of Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John.

His knowledge about Jesus was limited to what John the Baptist preached.

Who was this man?  I must admit, I’m not impressed with the explanations about Apollos I’ve heard. I’ve read that Apollos was just strong in human power, and his ministry is an example of a failed attempt to preach without the Holy Spirit. I’ve also heard the same re-hash that the baptism of John as well as all his preaching was nothing more than a “turn or burn” ministry. Don’t we believe the Prophecy? I’d like to take another look at the prophecy of John’s father, Zacharias, because if it was true, John’s message (and that of Apollos) was much fuller and more gracious than I had previously assumed.

Luke 1:67-79

et Zaccharias pater eius impletus est Spiritu Sancto et prophetavit dicens

benedictus Deus Israhel quia visitavit et fecit redemptionem plebi suae

et erexit cornu salutis nobis in domo David pueri sui

sicut locutus est per os sanctorum qui a saeculo sunt prophetarum eius

salutem ex inimicis nostris et de manu omnium qui oderunt nos

ad faciendam misericordiam cum patribus nostris et memorari testamenti sui sancti

iusiurandum quod iuravit ad Abraham patrem nostrum

daturum se nobis ut sine timore de manu inimicorum nostrorum liberati serviamus illi

in sanctitate et iustitia coram ipso omnibus diebus nostris

et tu puer propheta Altissimi vocaberis praeibis enim ante faciem Domini parare vias eius

ad dandam scientiam salutis plebi eius in remissionem peccatorum eorum

per viscera misericordiae Dei nostri in quibus visitavit nos oriens ex alto

inluminare his qui in tenebris et in umbra mortis sedent ad dirigendos pedes nostros in viam pacis

And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, For He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people, And has raised up a horn of salvation for us In the house of David His servant -As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old -Salvation FROM OUR ENEMIES, And FROM THE HAND OF ALL WHO HATE US; To show mercy toward our fathers, And to remember His holy covenant, The oath which He swore to Abraham our father, To grant us that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies, Might serve Him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before Him all our days. And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; For you will go on BEFORE THE LORD TO PREPARE HIS WAYS; To give to His people the knowledge of salvation By the forgiveness of their sins, Because of the tender mercy of our God, With which the Sunrise from on high will visit us, TO SHINE UPON THOSE WHO SIT IN DARKNESS AND THE SHADOW OF DEATH, To guide our feet into the way of peace.” NASV

Interestingly, Apollos is described as being “instructed in the way of the Lord”. Interesting to me, because he hadn’t the further knowledge of Jesus that Pricilla and Aquila had; yet the Scripture says he “taught diligently the things that are of Jesus”, or as the amplified version puts it: “he spoke and taught diligently and accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he was acquainted only with the baptism of John.”  He lacked not courage, nor eloquence. He was fervent, and he must have spoken boldly to the Jews of the Knowledge of Salvation – the Mercies of God – the Forgiveness of Sin.  Acts doesn’t record that he was  converted upon hearing more about Jesus – that He had risen etc.  It simply says Aquila and Priscilla expounded to him the way of God more definitely and accurately. It doesn’t say he then received the Holy Ghost, or at the moment he believed Jesus had risen etc., suddenly became Christian. He wanted to continue (as opposed to commence) his service and was encouraged by the brethren and was a huge help to those who by grace had believed; publicly proving that Jesus was the Christ.  He knew that God loved people, and had provided for their salvation and had forgiven them their sins. Very different from Saul- who breathed out threats, obviously didn’t know God loved anyone, and did not preach that God had forgiven anybody. Apollos started with love and forgiveness and was instructed more accurately in the way of Jesus. Saul started with violence and condemnation and had to be converted. Saul had to be turned completely around – from hatred, to love and when he was converted, he commenced his service to God.

I welcome your comments.

Grace Abounds More

Daniel made a dog house over Christmas. Here’s Luna and Ben making an inspection.

 

 Grace Abounds More: Play Now

NWT

Christmas Message of Grace

We, (I mean mankind in general) have a great way of adding explanations to God’s messages to earth.

1. God says something simple.

2. We know that people will misinterpret it if we don’t add a few conditions and explanations.

Result: What I call Legally Evangelical.

It’s quite similar to something that happened at work the other day.  Another organization recently approached me because it wanted to add a section to their Emergency Plan. They needed to specify a location to which their residents could go in case of fire, flood, plague, etc.  The solution was easy – we could write up a Memorandum of Understanding saying that their guys can stay at our Centre unless our E.D. said they couldn’t; with no obligation on us to accommodate otherwise if that were the case.  I typed it up, sent it to Headquarters and waited.  Yup, it came back. After going through the Legal Department whose job it is to protect us from liabilities. They do this essentially by taking the number of words in our little agreements and multiplying by a factor of 25. Now it’s clear. I guess.

We evangelicals do the exact same thing; as if we are afraid the legal department in Heaven would disapprove of any short and possibly misinterpreted bible passages or sermons. You know, like the one which inspired Martin Luther (est iustus autem ex fide vivit).   Sadly,  I believe doing so doesn’t mitigate anyone’s liability and it’s not to anyone’s edification, unless the Holy Spirit closes peoples ears to it and allows the hearers to hear only that which He is Speaking.  Take a few examples:

-  Luke 23:34 “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

Legally Evangelical Translation: “Father, help them to realize that what they are doing is wrong, so that they are seriously repentent; desiring in their hearts to be clean and forgiven, so that You, O God, will forgive them if they believe with all their heart that You, O God will raise Me, Jesus, from the dead.”  Even then, we’d feel uncomfortable leaving anyone with such a brief explanation and would load them with literature exhorting them to tithe, attend an evangelical church regularly, pray, read their bible (the correct translation thereof), flee immorality, and perhaps also get baptized quickly before they forget and maybe throw in a doctrine or two about the rapture, or dispensationalism.

- Luke 2:8-14 “Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.”  And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host priasing God and saying: “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”

Legally Evangelical Translation: “Be afraid! For Judgement is coming! For behold, I bring you essential information that will allow you to live forever, if you receive it with your heart, the evidence being a transformed life, otherwise it’s proof you don’t believe: For today, in the City of David, there has been born for you who believe, a LORD, who is Christ, that is, the fullness of the Godhead – God, incarnate and He shall save some of you, but not all of you, so don’t get your hopes up! This message is only for Evangelicals.  And this will be a sign for you: you will find the baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.”  And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: “Glory to God in the highest, and may it not be long before He crushes the vile and the sick and perverted, and all the sinners on earth!”

Thanks be to God we didn’t write the original script.

Below you will find an Audio file of a message I gave in Regina last Sunday…

 

 Christmas Message of Grace: Play Now

That was odd eh?

They asked Jesus why he spoke in parables. And he gave a strange answer. “So that they might not get it”.
It is the heart that needs to understand, not the intellect. We humans so often make sure we can justify ourselves because we have observed what we believed to be the letter of the law when our hearts were actually holding back. I don’t think Jesus wanted to give anyone “more letters of more laws” or anything that could be written down so tightly that we could observe perfectly without ever giving our heart to the poor, the oppressed or the needy; or to God. Well, even though Jesus didn’t say it, we’ve done it anyway: “You can’t be a Christian unless…… you attend an evangelical church; you cut your hair; you tithe; you don’t drink; you don’t smoke; you vote conservative?”
Take another look at the last post. Funny? Maybe. But have you ever denied those under your power and influence the resources they need to do that which is expected of them? “Who is that servant that is put in charge over his fellow servants, to give them their food at the right time? Blessed is that servant who, when his master comes, finds so doing.”