Paul's Passing Thoughts

Transcript/notes for parts 1 and 2: 

Origen: The Man, His Method, and His Message

You know me, know of me, and some probably wish that they knew less of me. My degree is in education, primarily what is called “special education.” The official title connected to my job is Developmental Specialist and I work with parents who have children with documented delays, medical and/or genetic issues. Truth be known, I get to play with babies and toddlers, for play is a child’s work.

When I decide on a topic to research for our conference my selfishness supersedes all other reasons. For two years this man Origen has been a hangnail irritating my mind so in January I purchased 4 books, and last month I borrowed two books from Ohio’s public library system written by him or about him. What I bring to you today is a sharing of the highlights of my gleanings.

Unlike Jerome, a Church Father I loathe, Origin is difficult to dislike. His message of freedom was to give hope where hope was buried beneath chaos, a mystical man who presents himself in love with the LOGOS, the WORD, Jesus. “Apart from Jesus, nothing to him is worthy of being loved.” He announced to his world that there is no true Christian life in separation from the man who was the Christ and from Mary his mother. He uses endearing terms such as “my Jesus” “my Lord,” “my Savior.” His piety was expressed in his concern for orthodoxy. In one of his homilies he says: I quote: “ As for myself, my wish is to be truly a man of the Church, to be called by the name of Christ and not that of any heresiarch( a founder of heresy), to have this name which is blessed all over the earth: I desire to be, and to be called, a Christian, in my works and in my thoughts.” (Introduction: On First Principles)

To understand in part, the man, Origen, briefly addressing his background, family, education, and community will open opportunities for you to have those “Ah, Ha!” and “So, that’s’ why.” moments. Another way to look at Origen is as if we are peeling off the layers of an onion, some dry layers, some thin and translucent ones, until you get to the parts of the onion that are flavorful and the best for use. Hopefully, you won’t say that Susan’s onion did nothing more than make you cry.

((Powerpoint #1, onion)

Alexandria, “next to” rather than “in” Egypt, a spiritual center of an aggressive Hellenism, a city that was an intellectual and commercial center of the ancient world. Alexander the Great founded it in 331 B.C. and it has been thoroughly Greek since. Alexandria, an Eastern Mediterranean empire with Egypt as its chief province.

( Powerpoint #2 map of city)

Modern day Urban city planners take note: Alexandria was a model planned city. A grid of broad streets was laid down on the city’s flat and rectangular site. Two chief avenues intersected at the center of the city where stood Soma, “the Body” a mausoleum containing the remains of Alexander the Great.

( Powerpoint #3 city with harbors)

Engineers assured Alexandria’s continuing commercial prosperity by making it the chief port of Egypt with two sheltered harbors, and on the island of Pharos, a 400-hundred-foot lighthouse that became known as one of the Seven Wonders of the World.

(Powerpoint #4 lighthouse)

The Ptolemaic rulers of Alexandria took a small fishing village on the Nile delta and developed it into a great intellectual and cultural center, the greatest city in the ancient world.

Historian Strabo ( 63 BCE-21CE) wrote about the city of Alexandria:
The city has magnificent public precincts and royal palaces which cover a fourth or even a third of the entire area. For just as each of the kings would, from a love of splendor, add some ornament to the public monuments, so he would provide himself at his own expense with a residence in addition to those already standing.

(Powerpoint #5 Library)

The rulers patronized learning to gain prestige. Ptolemy I founded the Museum, an institute for advanced research, and the heart of the Museum was the great library. This library is considered to be the most famous product of Alexandria. Its aim was to collect all the knowledge of the world and house it in a single place. Ptolomy II instituted a practice that required every ship docking at the port to hand over any books on board to be copied out for the collection. The city attracted artists, philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians (like Euclid). Unfortunately, this gold mine of science, history, mathematics, and literature was destroyed. As the city lost control to new governing bodies the Library became a threat to their control. The use waned, and several fires destroyed scrolls and documents. ( Ancient Alexandria, Egypt, by Jocelyn Hitchcock)

The Library, a collect of knowledge from all over the world, became a threat to government control of the people. This was my first “Ah Ha” moment. Knowledge can be a threat to government, and we here all know that knowledge is a threat to the institutional church.

The historian and scholar Mangasarian wrote:

“Under the Ptolemies, a line of Greek kings, Alexandria soon sprang into eminence, and, accumulating culture and wealth, became the most powerful metropolis of the Orient. Serving as the port of Europe, it attracted the lucrative trade of India and Arabia. Its markets were enriched with the gorgeous silks and fabrics from the bazaars of the Orient. Wealth brought leisure, and it, in turn, the arts. It became, in time, the home of a wonderful library and schools of philosophy, representing all the phases and the most delicate shades of thought. At one time it was the general belief that “the mantle of Athens had fallen upon the shoulders of Alexandria.”
( Ancient History Encyclopedia, Alexandria, Egypt by Joshua J. Mark)
This was the city of Origen.

(Powerpoint #6 School supplies)

Shawnee’s first day of school was Monday. He left with a backpack full of notebooks, 1 package of loose leaf wide ruled paper, headphones, and three ring binders. This does not count the school supplies we took to the Open House: 1 can of wipes, 2 boxes of tissues, 3 pink erasers, 4 boxes of crayons, 60 #2 pencils, 10 glue sticks, a pack of washable markers, and a partridge in a pear tree; not at all resembling the ancient school system of the Greeks.

For all of us grandparents who jumped rope at recess, this jump rope rhyme can sum up elementary education in Origen’s day.

Oh, no, here comes teacher with a big black stick, not it’s time for arithmetic. One plus one is? Two plus two is? Four plus four is? Now it’s time for spelling. Spell cat. Spell dog. Spell hot. When the jumper spell HOT, the rope is swung as fast as possible until the jumper misses.

The civilization Origen grew up in cared much about education but cared very little about children. The Greeks despised elementary education, which normally began with a child was 7 years old. Why? Because it only taught the rudiments: reading, writing, counting, and doing sums. They did not learn to read and write words until they had memorized every conceivable symbol. They got to sentence only after they had acquired an inventory of two-three syllable words. Doing sums was more difficult because the Greek number system did not contain the numeral zero. (Here comes teacher with a big black stick…) What supplied the motivation to learn? Corporal punishment. Hellenistic elementary education was mechanical and did not place in its curriculum the molding of attitudes and values such as our educational system tries to do. No DARE programs, in school Scouting, or counseling. When children were ready (when they mastered the content) were passed on, and if their parents could afford it, went to grammar and general education. Grammar was the more important of the two and meant the study of Homer, Hesiod, Euripides, and Menader. General education was the study of arithmetic, musical theory, astronomy, and geometry.

A typical grammar lesson in Alexandria would look like this: When studying a book, or a poem, 4 stages of appreciation were emphasized: criticism of the text, reading, exposition, and judgment. Criticism: the class review the manuscript letter by letter to see if they were identical. Reading the text out loud, which was laborious because the Greek system did not have capital letters, or commas, periods, sentence or paragraph breaks. Third stage: exegesis, the final stage of drawing moral lessons from their reading.
The general education curriculum prepared the student for philosophy. Arithmetic taught number theory and a moral value to numbers, numerological theories figured into allegorical interpretations, (i.e. seven is mystically perfect number) ( Origen uses these numerological theories in his interpretations of some portions of Scripture) astronomy expressed an ideal rationality, geometry taught transcendent reality.

This was the public schooling of Origen.

This city , with its culture, and education system was the nursery that fostered, developed, and promoted Origen, (Powerpoint #6 Origen) the person who would do more than anyone else to relate Greek philosophy to the Bible.
The approximate date of Origen’s birth is 185/6 C.E. His family was devoutly Christian, if reading the biographical account of Eusebius ( U-C-B-us)of Caesarea, but according to the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry, ( por-free) he was born of pagan parents. Eusebius’ account is said to be the more accurate. His family was likely highly educated, for his father made sure that Origen was schooled not only in biblical studies, but in Hellenistic education as well.

Piecing together information from the culture, historical documents, and biographical fragments left by other Church writers, we can get a sense of Origen’s family life. Origen’s father was prosperous and a thoroughly Hellenized bourgeois, who had the ability both financially, and socially to give Origen a Greek literary education. His father, perhaps named Leonides, was a Greek convert, an ardent Christian, who personally taught his son the Christian Bible at home. The Old Testament was the Septuagint, and what was considered the essential books of the New Testament; the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul’s epistles ( II Peter and Jude were not considered canonical by the church.)

In all likelihood, memorization of Scripture was encouraged, and as an adult, Origen was known to be able to recite long passages of Scripture and could associate verses throughout the Bible on the basis of key words as though he had a built-in Strong’s Concordance. ( Origen: The Bible and Philosophy) It was said, “ he was not satisfied with reading the sacred words in a simple and literal manner, but sought something further, and busied himself even at that age, with deeper speculations, troubling his father by his questions as to what could be the inner meaning of the inspired Scripture. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, Lawlor and Oulton) Some historians suggest that Leonides, Origen’s father, marveled at his son’s preternatural (extraordinary and exceptional) intelligence and at night would uncover Origen’s breast and kiss it, venerating it as the shrine of a divine spirit. (Lawlor and Oulton)

This was Origen’s home school education.

It is assumed that Leonides led family worship which was the custom of Christians at this time. They prayed three times a day, reciting the Lord’s Prayer, some psalms, and adding their own petitions. When praying they stood with arms outstretched facing east in the direction they expected their risen Lord to appear on the last day. On Wednesdays and Fridays, they fasted.

This was Origen’s home fellowship.

On Sundays and fast days, attendance at the institution church was expected. The Order of Service resembled this: Prayers and hymns, exposition of Scripture by a qualified teacher who read from both Old and New Testaments, immediately following the reading, the qualified teacher expounded on the meaning of the passage in a sermon. On Sundays, the eucharist was celebrated. Unbaptized persons, including most children had to leave the service.

Ah, Ha! Sounds like the order of service that will be printed in a church bulletin and passed out this coming Sunday. The Order of Service has not changed much since Origen was a child. By the way, if there are changes, church division and dismissal of pastors could be on the horizon.

As soon as he was old enough to learn, Origen’s parents probably enrolled him as a “person under instruction” (catechumen). The church insisted that anyone about to be baptized should have a firm grasp of its doctrines and of the obligations of a Christian life. This instructional period could take several years. When thoroughly instructed and able to give an account of the faith, the person under instruction could be baptized and become a full member of the church.
(pps. 25-56 Origen: Trigg)

Baptism as practiced today in most Christian churches is anemic compared to the rite of baptism Origen underwent. Justin Martyr referred to baptism as “enlightenment”, “likening it to the initiatory rites of the pagan mysteries, rites that produced a sudden mystical insight leading to a sense of redemption and rebirth.” Not at all like the study in the book of Acts done by Andy, where he went to great lengths to explain baptism as it took place in the early church.

Easter, the one festival Origen’s church certainly celebrated, was the usual time for baptism. The timing emphasized the baptized person’s identification with the dead and resurrected Christ. Catechumens about to be baptized prepared themselves for baptism by fasting for some days or weeks before Easter, and the rest of the congregation joined them in solidarity. For those who aren’t aware: This is the origin of Lent. On Easter morning they went to a stream of “living” water (flowing). The catechumens were exorcized, they renounced Satan, and they affirmed their faith publicly. Men and women were baptized separately by Deacons. They were baptized in the nude, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Baptismal nudity reinforced the symbolism of new birth. ( By the way, this was not awkward for early Christians because they were used to public baths.) On emerging from the water, they were given a spotless new white garment to wear to remind them of their newly acquired purity and their need to keep it unsullied by sin. If they could keep their “garment” unsullied by sin they could expect to be among the saints clad in white at the resurrection of the dead. Immediately following the baptismal service, the eucharist was given. The neophytes received milk and honey, the food of paradise, along with the bread and wine. The Bishop then conferred on them the gift of the Holy Spirit by anointing and laying on of hands. They were then full members of the church.

Having been baptized, now Origen could participate in the other Christian mystery, the Eucharist. This was celebrated each Sunday. This was an exclusionary event for only baptized Christians of good standing could participate. The Eucharist fostered a strong sense of sharing in a common life. Christians did not want to partake of the bread and wine along with persons who did not meet their doctrinal or moral standards. Denying communion was a powerful instrument for maintaining church discipline. Being denied the fellowship of other Christians was terribly intimidating to anyone who had adopted the church’s beliefs and standards.

This was the Christian Education of Origen.

The root of the process of church discipline, the tyranny, and the intimidation goes back to the early church, not the early church we study in the book of Acts, but the early catholic church. (Origen was born in 185, and you can see how powerful the institutional church had become in under 200 years.) The doctrine, ethical standards, ideals, worship, and organization of the church did not change greatly during Origen’s lifetime. The changes that did occur included a more fixed doctrine, less rigorous ethical standards, less spontaneous worship, and more rigidity in the organized church. These were internal and external controls on the behavior and views of the individual believer. These controls shaped the perceptions and values of the individual believer.

Follow this progression: the organization of the church kept believers in line, provided them stability, and made them part of a universal movement. It demanded a high degree of loyalty. Origen’s life demonstrated that he actively partook in the ambivalence of the early church, remaining devoted, even fanatical.
This was the Christian Education of Origen.

His father was martyred in the persecution of 202 when Origen was seventeen. Origen wrote to his father in prison and encouraged his father to not falter or waver out of concern for his family and to embrace martyrdom. His mother prevented him from following his father in martyrdom by hiding his clothes so he could not leave their home. Even if this account is based on legend, it points to zeal of a young man for the Christian religion. In a later writing, perhaps to Ambrose, entitled An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Origen wrote, “If we wish to save our soul in order to get it back better than a soul, let us lose it by our martyrdom. For if we lose it for Christ’s sake, casting it at His feet in a death for Him, we shall gain possession of true salvation for it.”

After his father’s death, all wealth and possessions were taken from his family by the government. A wealthy Christian Alexandrian woman, who considered herself capable of judging the contents of faith, took him into her household and enabled him to continue his studies until he could support himself and his family as a teacher of grammar.

The second wave of persecution the Alexandrian church found itself without catechism instructors. Because he was a zealous Christian, a professional teacher, son of a martyr, persons wishing to be baptized sought out Origen to provide them instruction. His employment as a grammarian provided him cover. He had to meet prospective Christians at different houses in order to avoid detection. Although he was not arrested, a pagan mob almost lynched him, and some of his students died as martyrs. When the persecution ended, Origen by default, was the principal Christian teacher in Alexandria. He left his job as a grammarian, sold his Greek literary works for a meager stipend that enabled him to subsist as he devoted himself to the Bible. He was only 18 when he became the Headmaster of the Christian Catechetical School at Alexandria. Undeniably he was a brilliant scholar.

His educational resume ( unlike Lori Laughlin’s children) included studying under Ammonius Saccas ( the teacher of Plotinus). At age of 17 he began writing his theological commentary On First Principles. His thoughts were informed by his Greek philosophical education, the notable Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria, and the Neopythagorean philosopher, Numenius of Apamea.

Origen adopted an austere lifestyle embracing a spirit of asceticism. He went without shoes, possessed only one cloak, fasted regularly, took what little sleep he allowed himself by lying on the floor, never on a couch. (Hist. eccl. VI.iii9) At some point during his teaching career a literal reading of Matthew 19:12 led him to castrate himself. “both to fulfill the Savior’s saying, and also that he might prevent all suspicion of shameful slander on the part of unbelievers ( for young as he was, he used his discourse on divine things with women as well as men)” (Hist. eccl. VI.viii.2).

A look at his educational transcripts (sorry, no fake pictures of his Alexandrian rowing teammates) it could look like this:
Home Schooled by his father in the Scriptures
Christian School – (curriculum- church doctrine, polices, procedures and Christian obligations)) Greek/ Hellenistic philosophical education
Mastered the Hellenistic curriculum of Astronomy, Mathematics, Greek literature
Received instruction in Christian morality from the Church

Until the end of his life he remained devoted to the Church and described as a fanatical Christian.

Origen: His Method and Message

Method:

The value of philosophy, according to Clement (who greatly influenced Origen) is a preparation for the deeper Christian mysteries. Philosophy and rhetorical training were the two principal ways to complete an education in Origen’s time. Christians adopted vague philosophical terms such as “The One” or “the idea of the Good” as legitimate ways of speaking of divine reality. In Origen’s time, philosophy was a way of salvation as well as a way of life. He saw Plato and the Bible in profound agreement and molded his understanding of the Christian life.

So, the question arises, was he a philosopher, or was he a churchman? Research authors answer that question this way: Origen was a Christian Platonist. His firm grasp of the philosophical issues of the day show in his writings, for example, in Book IV of First Principles. His commitment to the Christian religion is evident in his essay Exhortation to Martyrdom.

His methods of Biblical study/interpretation reveal that his Alexandrian Hellenism informed his outlook and categories of thought.

Origen, the greatest of all the early Church writers,” the “man of steel” (Powerpoint # 7) in the Church of his day. The methods of modern exegesis were not available to him, and his conception of what he was doing as he interpreted the Bible was quite different from what the modern exegete or biblical theologian thinks he/she is doing.

(Powerpoint #8 triple schema)

He uses what is called a triple schema in two different variations. A) a historical or literal meaning: facts recorded, or the texts of the Law, 2) a moral meaning, which is the application to the soul; and finally 3) a mystical meaning relating to Christ, the church, and all realities of faith. The second variation is a) literal meaning relating to the things of Israel, 2) a mystical meaning relating to the mystery still to be fulfilled ( i.e. Christ and the Church) and 3) a spiritual meaning relating to the soul, the soul as the “spouse of the WORD” in its progress toward full union with God. Allegory and typology were the techniques used within these schemas.

Two examples of his allegorical interpretation of Scripture: the Passover Lamb is a symbol of “holy dogma of the Church of which not one shall be broken.” The second example is the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden. This expulsion is the expulsion of human souls from the supersensible ideal world to the material world and the coats of skin God mercifully proved them as our gross, material bodies.

It could be said that Origen used the Bible as a frame on which to hang the various elements of his theology. His Platonizing cast of thought, a sign that he was a Christian thinker in the third century, supplied him with a system to help Christians in the theological reflection. Origen is a Christian Platonist not because he turned Christianity into Platonism, but because he found the Platonic ideas of his day capable of expressing his truth of the Gospel. He made use of Platonism, Stoicism, and popular philosophy as a method for conveying to his contemporaries the intensity and extent of biblical Revelation.

Prayer, exegesis, allegorical interpretation of Scripture, attention to the ecclesiastical canon, the rule of faith, exact philology ( word origins or translations) and search for the spiritual sense are the tools Origen used to create his theological system or “story”.
His theological story can be described like this: “ the rational mind is the protagonist of the drama and the story explains the pilgrimage of the soul from creation to salvation. The setting of this story is within a cosmology that supplies the context for understanding the Christian life.”

(Powerpoint #9 Origen’s system)

Origen’s system, if you want to describe his methods as a system, have three cross-sections: first stratum is his heterodox opinions heavily influenced by Platonist philosophy, myths, and traditions. The second stratum can be described as Origen’s attitude. His attitude is described as directional: the upward-climbing Christian is the lowest stage, and thus faith is the starting point of insight, (perfect faith), the third stratum is the rule of faith.

Origen is not content to invoke “the rule of Scripture” or the “apostolic rule” he constantly appeals to the “rule of the Church.” “the faith of the church” “the preaching of the Church” “the doctrine of the Church”.

His Message: ( free will, falling away, freedom to return to God)

Powerpoint # 10 “In the Beginning”

God’s original creation was the spiritual world of rational creatures. These beings have the gift of reason as their principal attribute and are naturally immortal. The creation of the material world came later. What is his proof text: Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This verse applies to the spiritual world, and the rest of the chapter in Genesis refers to the material world. (Philo) God created a limited number of rational creatures. He did not create them good, as God only is good, but possession of a free will to choose the good, and the moral responsibility to do so.

Why not an infinite number of rational creatures? An infinite number would be incomprehensible to God, and therefore the All-knowing God to fail to comprehend anything would be a self-contradiction in the nature of God. Origin learned of this from his teacher Numenius: if matter is infinite, it is unbounded, if unbounded, irrational, if irrational, unknowable, if unknowable, without order.” (Numenius: On the Good)

So, my question is: Is math incomprehensible to God? I was taught that numbers are infinite, there is no true first or last number, and there is even a mathematical symbol for infinity. Hmmmm. So if it’s possible that God has difficulty with Math, then because I am made in His image, that explains why I do too?

(Powerpoint #11 four Major types of rational creatures)

According to Origen, there are four MAJOR types of rational creatures: angels, the powers of wickedness, animating spirits of the heavenly bodies, and human souls. The human of soul of Christ is a rational creature but is a uniquely different case. Origin takes the verse from Paul: thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers to build his case that within these 4 major categories are ranks, each with it proper dignity, and authority. Angels, animated heavenly bodies, and devils were predominate in theological thought in Origin’s time, and Christians, Gnostics, Platonists, and Jews all affirmed their existence and importance.

However, God is not responsible for the graduation of angelic authority, the varying brightness of the stars and the multiplicity of intellectual and physical endowments that characterize the human race. Each rational creature merits its position in the physical and spiritual worlds on the basis of its free and responsible conduct. Drum roll, please…..
Hence, the fall of rational creatures from an original unity with God.

Origin taught then, that because of this fall from the original unity with God, the creation of the material world was necessary.

Those who fell the least far are the angels. Those who fell the farthest are the powers of wickedness. Humans are the “tweens” the in-betweens.

(Powerpoint #11 the ranks of rational creatures)

Angels are the highest of the rational creatures, they direct nations and churches and are guardians of individuals. The higher the rank, the greater importance an angel’s function. Origen claimed that angels of higher rank are assigned to persons of higher intellectual stature, and consequently greater responsibility than are assigned to the common run of folk. And, you had better watch out, persons who fail to behave worthily of their high calling could be divorced by their heavenly guardians and assigned to an angel of lower rank. Angels sharpen our intelligence, enabling us to better perceive the nature and consequence of our actions.

The rational creatures that sinned most grievously and are, the farthest from God are the powers of wickedness. What about us, the humans? Our embodiment in these grossly material bodies is a punishment for sin, BUT they are also the means whereby we can be disciplined and trained for our return to God. So, the material body is a punishment and a remedy for their fall from God. According to Origen, souls were once minds, but they lost their pure intellectual character in the process of their fall away from God. All rational natures directed their attention away from God (except for the soul of Jesus). Why? Neglect, forgetfulness, boredom, and satiety are the words Origen associates with the fall. The Beginning is unstable, but the END is stable. It’s a process of “cooling” from the ardor of the mind’s natural contemplation of God. Origen derived the Greek word psyche meaning soul from a Greek verb psycho meaning to cool. ( Which by the way he may have borrowed from our Gnostic friend Valentinus) The extent of the soul’s fall from God determines the diversity of human capacities and situations. “Jacob have I loved but Esau I hated.” When you read this from the Old Testament account of Jacob and Esau, what say you as to what the meaning of these words? This was Origen’s proof text that souls preexist the bodies they animate. “How could God, whom we know to be just and good, prefer Jacob to Esau even before either was born except on the basis of the relative merits of their preexistent souls?” (Origen: On First Principles)

Continuing in his ascent/descent doctrine, the fall he proposed away from the mind’s natural contemplation of God did not take away from the rational creatures their ability to choose the good, so that it is always possible for them to turn again toward the contemplation of God and re-ascend to their former estate. It is better to look at the ranks of rational creatures not as true ranks, but stages in their progress toward or away from God. Taking Paul’s verses written to the Philippians( Phil. 2:10-11) “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ in Lord, to the glory of God the Father” meant that in the end, all rational creatures will be saved and restored to their original state of contemplative union with God. “for the end is always like the beginning.” ( Origen: On First Principles, translated by Butterworth. P. 53)

This is what Origen refers to as Apokatastasis.

A time will come when all evil shall cease to be and since it has no existence of its own apart from the free will in which it inheres, when every free will shall be turned to God, shall be in God, then evil will have no place to exist. If given enough time, the powers of darkness, and perhaps, even Satan can be restored to the contemplative mind of God. In their free will they must choose good and keep choosing good. Origen proposed that it would take a very long time for Lucifer to be restored because he chooses evil more than he chooses good. This is a process of descending and ascending throughout the two journeys.

Now, John, the mystery of who developed the doctrine of the fall of man is solved. Origen, pious, devout, scholar, the man of steel of theology developed this doctrine, and over time it became one of the foundations of the rule of faith, the ecclesiastical order of the Church, adopted by Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Remember, It is not “as in Adam we all fall.”

The soul, once fallen is on a pilgrimage, and its destiny is to return to God. It is the soul’s freedom of choice that enabled it to fall in the first place, and it is the same capacity that allows it to choose God again and to move toward Him . This is Origen’s doctrine of descension and ascension. Salvation consists of returning to the original perfection and then to that perfection “by which it remains therein.”

The body is a sign of the fallen state of the soul; the greater the fall, the grosser the body. The body is a punishment that the soul brought upon itself.

The drama of the soul’s struggle to return to God is Origen’s primary interest. His views of martyrdom, prayer, and Scripture merge into one vision: the Christian life is a movement toward perfect knowledge of God and the perfect fellowship with Him through Christ. In his writings he uses three metaphors to articulate his pilgrimage: a) it’s a journey, its growth to maturity, and it’s a warfare against sin and evil.

The journey consists of stages: ( the 42 stages in the book of Numbers and his allegorical interpretation of Israel’s stay in the wilderness) The 42 stages correspond to the 42 generations through which the word of God descended in order to be born of the Virgin. The Savior descended so he can accompany and assist the soul in its journey of ascent to the true promised land. He is the door at every stage. The journey is really two, one in this life by which we progress from virtue to virtue, and one after our death by which we ascend to heaven.

Any Ah Ha! Moments here? Is not this progressive justification?

In a nutshell, I have tried to present three of Origin’s theological doctrines. I feel these three are also the foundational premises of Protestant orthodoxy: free will, the fall, and freedom to return to God (the soul’s descending and ascending back to God or progressive justification). Although laborious, and mind-bending to plow through his writings, or the translations of his works, it was beneficial to me in order to answer “Where did we get that?” I throw down the gauntlet. ((Powerpoint #12 of gloves) Before accepting the traditions of men, the church doctrines, study to find the authenticity and source of what you hold to be true. Is it Scriptural, or is it the private interpretations of men?

As established in the prior sessions, it is obvious that present-day Christians could have no clue how to live biblically because the church hijacked Christianity in the 4th century and eliminated sanctification altogether. But I do think, if nothing else due to the law written on the heart of every person created by God as discussed in a prior session, that we know some basics that we can build on.

I want to start with under-law thinking. Under-law thinking is the waters we swim in; the “we” is the unregenerate, the religious, and the truly saved. It is a state of being that cannot be overcome except for the new birth. However, even those who now understand justification by new birth will have a long and hard journey climbing out of those waters and learning how to breath on dry land.

Simply stated, under law thinking seeks happiness through not breaking rules/laws, and depends on others not to break rules and laws. Rather than to make the focus on accomplishing love as a way to displace hate, the focus is the negative focus of not hating, and defining the not doing of something as an accomplishment. Hence, the recipe for becoming a good person is to stop doing things that break some rule or standard. Accomplishment is defined as something you don’t do.

This is why people rarely remember what you do right; the focus is what you didn’t do, that is, you didn’t succeed in not breaking a law. Relationally, if you love someone, it means you don’t break their laws. “If you love me, keep my commandments” now refers to everyone in your life, especially your spouse. Most, if not all, marriage counseling is based on the successful law-keeping based on each spouse’s jurisprudence. This is why marriage counseling is almost always an abject failure. The book of James states that people quarrel because of the desires that war within them. What are those desires? The desire that others obey your laws.

Furthermore, this under-law thinking is in-league with sin’s use of the law to control others through condemnation. This reality is seen clearly in nursing facilities among the aides. The aides presently residing at any given facility want the halls to run according to the way they roll. Trust me, when a new aide comes in, they can’t do anything right no matter how good they are. Why? The ruling aides want to control the new aides through condemnation and bring them into subjection in regard to how they run the halls. At home, the punishment for a husband breaking the wife’s laws is nagging, right? This under-law thinking also includes the death penalty in many cases; ie., the silent treatment. You don’t exist. I cut you out of my life, that’s why I don’t hear you talking right now. Of course, husbands also have their own punishments for breaking their personal laws. Drinking, the condoning of adultery, and various and other sentencing at their own private court hearings.

Moreover, in all cases, thanks to church, when the inevitable battles take place when everyone’s laws have been broken, the long drawn out drama of “reconciliation” must take place. Yes indeed, instead of moving on with a focus on love, the criminal offense must be revisited in some reconciliation ritual adding to the condemnation and actually thereby empowering sin. “You will never change.” Well, certainly not, every time said law has been broken and the sin has been committed, a remembrance must take place to deepen the condemnation which empowers the same sin. When you have a pet peeve (law) that your spouse continually violates, cancel the law and give the spouse permission to do it with vengeance and watch the offence go away. When you consider the dynamics of all of this, it is no wonder that reality is divisions upon division and divisions within division. Love seeks to unify, love seeks oneness,

Nothing throws gasoline on the fire of hate like the church’s promotion of a “lifestyle of repentance.” This is a focus on sin for purposes of elevating the act of Christ to end sin. This is an unmitigated metaphysical disaster. According to church orthodoxy, the propensity of man is to think of himself more highly than he ought, and this must be resisted by “owning your own sin” etc. Nothing is further from the truth. Man’s propensity is to condemn self and others. Suicide, in most cases, is the ultimate self-condemnation. People constantly struggle to raise their own self-esteem by condemning others and watch the news to compare themselves with the dregs of society which makes them look better to themselves. And, in their endeavor to control others, they will condemn with what they are guilty of because it is a readily available sin catalogue. If someone falsely accuses you of something, more than likely, they got the idea from what they do in their own life.

What’s the biblical way? Individually, we accomplish and evaluate ourselves according to a truthful assessment. High self-esteem is earned. But, remember, the world at large is out to keep your self-esteem low. Remember, sin seeks to control others through condemnation. Relationally, in regard to other people, we focus on what they bring to the table. A truthful evaluation of a person, hopefully, devalues their faults, that is, faults that are legitimate faults that break legitimate laws or laws that are self-evident to humanity. Your personal preferences are not legitimate laws. As Peter stated, patience is an act of love that covers a multitude of sins, and according to Paul, patience is empowered by focusing on what the person brings to the table, not their faults and especially faults judged faults by bogus laws.

This is a good sanctification principle: associate and fellowship with people endeavoring to build a self-esteem based on truth. Fellowship with those who seek to accomplish things. Associate with people who build.
The Problem with Life

Growing up, nothing intrigued me more than WWII movies. Here these people were, in the middle of fighting for the very survival of humanity, and in the process, were swinging to the music of the big bands, romancing, and dressing up in style, seemingly oblivious that the world was on the precipice of doom, and it was. But those WWII movies reflect reality: life is war. A war for your freedom and happiness is ongoing on the outside, and a war is ongoing inside mentally and physiologically. War defines the present reality. Sanctification is war. Life is war. In regard to some of us, our lives are good and we are thankful. But that will not last if we aren’t on a war footing. Something is always out to destroy us on many different fronts. If you consider the least common denominator, it is death and life. Even if your life is presently good, this does not mean death has declared a ceasefire. This reality transcends all of life from private personal thoughts to statecraft on a worldwide level and everything in-between.

These thoughts occurred to me while studying physiology for school. Good health requires the body to have a good internal balance. This is called “homeostasis.” But often unknown to us, this homeostasis boils down to one thing and one thing only: the war within that is constantly raging is being won by the good guys. And the good guys are not very virtuous looking; they are merciless creatures who take no prisoners.

Homeostasis is the work of the central nervous system and the endocrine system working together. One is electricity and the other is chemicals. The liaison between the two is the hypothalamus, but this article is about the immune system that is part of the endocrine system army. Let me introduce the subjects that are involved in this vicious war.

Specific immunity is the body’s reaction to a certain threat [known threats].
Non-specific immunity is the body’s reaction to anything it does not recognize as a normal body substance [shoot first and ask questions later].

Antibodies are normal body substances that recognize abnormal or unwanted substances. They attack and destroy such substances [search and destroy].
Antigens are abnormal or unwanted substances. An antigen causes the body to produce antibodies. The antibodies attack and destroy the antigens.

Phagocytes are white blood cells that digest and destroy microorganisms and other unwanted substances [they eat the enemy. It is unclear as to whether or not they are nourished by eating the organism ].

Lymphocytes are white blood cells that produce antibodies. Lymphocyte production increases as the body responds to an infection.
B lymphocytes (B cells) cause the production of antibodies that circulate in the plasma. The antibodies react to specific antigens.

T lymphocytes (T cells) destroy invading cells. Known as “killer T cells,” they produce poisons near the invading cells [chemical warfare]. They also call on other cells to then do mopping up operations [probably via cannibalism].

Every day that we feel great is due to the good guys winning the violent war within that involves innumerable troops. The death toll in one person, and in one day, far surpasses the casualties of all wars together in human history. When discussing cells, we are not talking about small numbers. A single person has about 100 trillion cells, and about ten times more of micro-organisms.

However, though this war is automatically fought by intelligent cells apart from our knowledge altogether, we can aid the internal army by making good choices. These choices that properly equip our army involves the following: knowing what brings life and death, and knowing that the rules cannot be changed. These choices range from what we eat and drink, to what we think which leads to what we believe. For example, if we believe the wrong things, especially things that can cause fear, the central nervous system starts partaking in a fools errand and wasting other resources.

Stubborn people don’t know who or what their friends and enemies are, they are unwise in regard to what brings life and death, and they don’t understand how the world works; they think they can change the rules. Where would we begin to cite examples from the big picture of statecraft politics to the homeless drug addict?

Much could be discussed here, but the Bible states that internal misguided desires compel people to choose death instead of life while thinking they can change the rules of how the world works. Or, sadly, the misguided desire has gained so much power in their lives that they are willing to choose death to have said desire for one more moment. That’s a bad idea.

And for the rest of us, we fall into the ignorant idea that happiness means that death has agreed to a ceasefire.

So, why this life? Because Christ came to put an end to this war we call life, and we are His compatriots in that endeavor. Christ has also come to make all of the division one. Who we are and how we live points to the day when our brother and king will bring war to an end. Future hope is why we can be happy in the midst of this war.

Whether having a successful marriage, or raising children successfully, it would seem to help to know why we do such things. The marriage question brings an easier answer than the children question. We get married for companionship and standing together in doing life. But tradition aside, few people really know why they have children, and when they do know, the reasoning is disastrous. For example, if you are having children to “complete your marriage,” your marriage is already doomed. The little completers eventually grow up and move out and will probably only call when they need something.
We have children to build families which are critical to doing life. Families are people within a group that work together to maneuver through life. People within a family contribute to that cause and also contribute in some way to humanity overall. The focus of raising a child is to prepare them to be all they can be; to prepare them to be the best them. In order to do this, they must be taught what the world is and how it works. They must be taught what the purpose of life is and what will give them wellbeing.

We can discuss some very basic things here. First, they must be taught that they were created to be free and the world is out to steal their freedom. Secondly, they must be taught that they were created to produce, and personal wellbeing is found in personal accomplishment. God has created many things in the world to enjoy, but the core fundamental is personal accomplishment. That is the tree, everything else is the branches.

Listen, please don’t have children and raise them to think other people’s thoughts, and don’t trust others to raise them. Know this, the state has a vested interest in keeping your child thoughtless and dumb because people without knowledge are easy to control. A cursory observation of public schools reveals their agenda to keep your child dumb. In regard to my and Susan’s situation with our grandson, you may notice my aggressiveness in trying to get projects wrapped up. Why? Because if he ends up staying with us long-term, his education is going to have to be supplemented if he grows up to be anything.

And, beware of low expectations for your children. I know that pressuring your children to excel gets a bad rap, but I would rethink that if I were you. And another thing; feed your children good food. Remember the adage, “You are what you eat”? That is so true. Nutrition is vital. Later in life, I have taken some very wicked falls and gotten up wondering how I didn’t break a bone or worse. Well, when I was a child, I loved milk and drank a ton of it. I attribute it to that. But overall, mental health and everything, nutrition is vital.

Good practical living and commonsense is next to godliness. Rather than what the world does, which includes religion, and is at enmity with God, bring the material reality as close as you can to spiritual reality. And with caution, I must remind you that children as well as adults are promised a blessed life for living wisely; ” For, ‘Whoever would love life and see good days must keep their tongue from evil and their lips from deceitful speech.'”

This begs the question: is this a promise that living a wise life will prevent bad things from happening in our lives? Not necessarily, although I think that’s true to a great extent, but this is something that I have seen over and over again in my own life and the life of others; even when something bad does happen, God always brings something good out of it. We seem to see this in the garden as God’s MO. Adam and Eve were created beings, but after they were deceived, God’s way of redemption makes mankind His very family and His literal offspring.

Now a word on sanctification and the elderly. People are created to have purpose and to accomplish things. That doesn’t end till the day we die. As a nurse aide, I can’t tell you how many times I have seen it: the difference between the elderly that remain productive as much as they can, and those who are coasting in neutral. Add to that family involvement. My attitude towards the elderly, especially in a facility, is something is better than nothing. I really don’t enjoy taking care of catatonic residents. I see those who partake in meanness as a cut above because at least they are doing something. I also struggle with seeing residents who try to do too much as a problem. Yes, they may fall and injure themselves, but nothing really does more damage overall than inactivity.

Meet Anne, not her real name. She came to my hall in a state of severe depression. Anne was in her 90s, perhaps she still is as I have not worked in that facility for some time. She would not get out of bed, or eat, or talk. Anne was taken from her homestead and put into the facility after she took a bad fall. Anne was put under hospice care and the family pretty much expected her to die in the near future. The aides did everything they could to get whatever nourishment into her they could. That usually meant a bowl of pudding or Jell-O by her bed so whenever an aide was in the room for something, they would attempt to get her to take a bit. Then, with much coaxing, a particular nurse got her into her recliner wheelchair. Every day, they parked her at the nurse station. This interaction resulted in Anne coming back alive. Every day, for as long as I worked there, Anne was there at the nurse station being Anne. What we learned about her follows: she lived an extradentary life. She was also far beyond what we would refer to as a “colorful personality.” Indeed, she became a legend within that healthcare network and certainly the life of Hall 300. Anne found her new purpose, and a new happiness. One day, she was visited by family members who come to the facility to inquire as to why she was still alive. When they saw her in her wheelchair at the nurse station telling jokes to the staff who were buckled over with laughter, the looks on their faces were priceless. Another thing that was priceless was the look on the visiting physician’s faces when they found out she was still under hospice care. They would first go to her room and not find her there resulting in the assumption that she had already passed, then they would find out it was her at the nurse station which usually resulted in something like this being said to the charge nurse: “You are kidding, right?”

We are made to produce, we are made to accomplish, we are made to build things, we are made to create things, we are made to contribute to the lives of others, we are made to be free, and we are made to be happy. This is what it means to be created in the image of God. And we are also made to wage war and make peace whenever we can.

But indeed, reality for us is a WWII movie. Hope enables us to live life to the fullest in the midst of the war. And besides, unlike WWII the outcome of our war is certain. Life as we know it will have the happy ending preordained by God, though the battles in-between depend on us.

 

The gospel is for the unregenerate; not God’s children.

Paul’s notes/transcript: do not match video exactly. 

Recovering Sanctification; More History, The Church’s War Against the Holy Spirit

Theses: the church wages war against the Holy Spirit through; 1. The separation of God’s word from His people. 2. The separation of Jew and Gentile. 3. The institutionalization of God’s family adding additional mediators other than Christ (church, not assembly). 4. Denial of the new birth, or infused grace. 5. Progressive justification dependent on submission to the church. 6. The eradication of worship and love in exchange for obtaining final justification. This circumvents the Spirit’s purpose to sanctify. 7. The execution of God’s election is transferred from the Spirt to the church.

Let’s examine seven ways the early church began to wage war on the Holy Spirit and how these traditions continue in our day.

First, the newly appointed religion of the Roman Empire (the institutionalization of Christ’s assembly, or “church”) under Constantine sought to remove the private interpretation of the Bible from the common people. Let us remember, the word is the “sword of the Spirit” (Eph 6:17) and what the Spirit uses to sanctify (John 17:17).

At that time, the endeavor to hinder private interpretation was a far less problem regarding the New Testament than Old Testament Scriptures which were painstakingly preserved and canonized by the Jews. The Old Testament Hebrew had also been translated into Greek (the Septuagint) circa 250 BC. Greek and Latin were the most common languages during the Roman era, but Latin was the language of bureaucracy, law, and the military.

This is when two primary theologians of the Roman church emerge and seek to demonize the people of God making a strong distinction between the Jews and Christianity. Remember, one of the primary objectives of the Holy Spirit was to make Jew and Gentile ONE body in Jesus Christ (Eph 2:11-22). This is/was one of the primary objectives of the Holy Spirt. The church’s two foundational theologians in its 4th century infancy were St. Augustine of Hippo, and St. Jerome. Both were Saints and Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church. And…

“Church Fathers like St John Chrysostom, St Ambrose, St Jerome and St Augustine (second only to St Paul as a Christian authority for the Western world) had by the end of the fourth century AD crysallised a demonic image of the Jew who combined superhuman malevolence with total spiritual blindness…The monkish, ascetic St Jerome, embittered by the spectacle of successful missionizing in Antioch by the large Jewish population, denounced the synagogue in theses terms: ‘If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil’s refuge, Satan’s fortress, a place to deprave the soul…you are still saying less than it deserves’” (Robert S. Wistrich: Anti-Semitism|The Longest Hatred; Pantheon Books 1992, p. 17 ). “This theology is for the first time institutionalized in the fourth century AD, when Christianity becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire” (Ibid p. 19).

To divide Jews from the body is an audacious throwing down of the gauntlet against the Holy Spirit. One of the primary objectives of the new birth is to unite Jew and Gentile into one body, scripturally, this is also known as “the mystery of the gospel.” But Jerome and company were far from going to war with the Holy Spirit on that front alone. Jerome set out to translate the Bible in the bureaucratic language of the empire and make it inaccessible to the laity and common people via the Latin Vulgate. Eventually, Rome made it against the law to translate the Bible or even teach from it unless accredited by the Church upon pain of death. This was Rome’s mandate for about 1000 years. And remember, Rome is the first “church” which is historically irrefutable:

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned…”

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “…helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River.”

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

~ Source: Huffington Post .com: Why Christians Were Denied Access to Their Bible for 1,000 Years; Bernard Starr, Ph.D. 5/20/2013.

The Church also took it upon itself to establish the formal canon of the New Testament which was only in the form of letters written by the apostles and others. There were many copies of these letters circulated among the laity and commonly accepted as Scripture:

2 Peter 3:15 – And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Colossians 4:15 – Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. 16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea. 17 And say to Archippus, “See that you fulfill the ministry that you have received in the Lord.”

1Corinthians 14:37 – If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

Therefore, the idea that there was no agreed upon collective Scripture for New Testament era believers is unfounded, and the body of Christ hardly needed Gnostic academics to tell them what was inspired and not inspired. Nevertheless…

The Council of Nicaea called by the Emperor Constantine met in 325 C.E. to establish a unified Catholic Church. At that point no universally sanctioned Scriptures or Christian Bible existed. Various churches and officials adopted different texts and gospels. That’s why the Council of Hippo sanctioned 27 books for the New Testament in 393 C.E. Four years later the Council of Cartage confirmed the same 27 books as the authoritative Scriptures of the Church.

~ Source: Huffington Post .com: Why Christians Were Denied Access to Their Bible for 1,000 Years; Bernard Starr, Ph.D. 5/20/2013.

And…

In 382, Pope Damascus therefore commissioned Jerome (c. 347-420) to translate the Bible into Latin, a task which took him twenty years to complete. This Bible came to be known as the versio vulgata (common translation) and became standard for the Western Church.
~ Source: gbgm-umc.org: Three Early Biblical Translations.

Many would argue that keeping the word from God’s people is a church sin of the past, but this is not the case at all. Initially, the church taught that the laity was unable to understand the word of God except for using it to better understand one’s total depravity and total inability (historical-redemptive hermeneutic), plus censorship of the Scriptures was the law of the land. Deprived of its ability to enforce censorship through the state, the church’s ability to persuade the laity to relinquish all understanding of the Bible to church authority has proved adequate. State force is no longer necessary as the laity has been sufficiently intimidated by the church’s claim over salvation by God’s proxy. You either agree with the church or you believe a false gospel and are going to hell.

Attempting to obstruct the Spirit’s work in baptizing the Jews and Gentiles into one body, and confiscating the sword of the Spirit from the laity was manifested in a third way. In translating the Bible into English from the Septuagint (LXX), and for the most part not the original Hebrew, the English translators substituted the word “assembly” for “church.” The Greek word for assembly is “ekklesia” as translated from the Hebrew word for assembly, kahal, or edah.

This is a very significant fact in the transition period that produced another version of the institutional Catholic Church, Protestantism. These are merely two sides of the same institutional church that waged the exact same war against the Holy Spirit and continues to do so in our day. As aforementioned, it was against the law to translate the Scriptures without the permission of the Catholic Church, but this happened anyway because of the “Lollard movement, a pre-Reformation movement that rejected many of the distinctive teachings of the Roman Catholic Church” (closed quotation from Wikipedia).

In the early Middle Ages, most Western Christian people encountered the Bible only in the form of oral versions of scriptures, verses and homilies in Latin (other sources were mystery plays, usually conducted in the vernacular, and popular iconography). Though relatively few people could read at this time, Wycliffe’s idea was to translate the Bible into the vernacular, saying “it helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence”.
~ Source: En Wikipedia .org: Wycliffe’s Bible.

Although unauthorized, the work was popular. Wycliffite Bible texts are the most common manuscript literature in Middle English. More than 250 manuscripts of the Wycliffite Bible survive.

The association between Wycliffe’s Bible and Lollardy caused the kingdom of England and the established Catholic Church in England to undertake a drastic campaign to suppress it.
~ Source: Ibid.

However, by no means did the Protestant Reformation abandon the core fundamentals of the institutional Church’s war against the Holy Spirit which was a devotion to the separation of Judaism from the body of Christ, and academic authority in regard to private interpretation of the Scriptures. Though the Protestants presented themselves as commendable for the distribution of Bible translations to the common people, they never believed the laity could interpret it for themselves, nor did they ever state such. To the contrary,

“The Protestant Reformers in leaving Rome did not leave all Romanism behind them. In particular, they brought with them the prosecuting principles of Rome, and worked them freely and vigorously in support of the Reformed faith. They changed the Pope but not the popedom… Persecution is the deadly sin of the Reformed churches, that which cools every honest man’s zeal for their cause, in proportion as his reading becomes more extensive—Hallam… Rightfully and nobly did the Protestant Reformers claim religious liberty for themselves; but they resolutely refused to concede it to others” (William Marshall’s The Principles of the Westminster Standards Persecuting (William Marshall, D.D., Coupar – Angus. Edinburgh: William Oliphant & Co. 1873).

The English translators did something in the English translation of the Bible that Rome did not even do in the Latin Vulgate. They translated “assembly” as “church” which had no validity whatsoever. The Greek word for assembly and the Greek word for church are two entirely different Greek words with completely different meanings. The Hebrew words for assembly and the Greek word for assembly allowed for a connection between the Judaism of the Old Testament and the Christianity of the New. The word “church” puts forth the idea of a completely different program and plan of some sort. In the like institutional core fundamentals, the Catholics kept the Bible from the laity, while the Protestants skinned the cat a different way by taking liberty with translation. Tyndale was much more virtuous on this wise, translating assembly as “congregation,” but unfortunately was executed by the Catholics for the effort.

The rendering of “assembly,” “synagogue,” as “church” in Protestant translations of the Bible present an egregious distorted dichotomy in regard to the Jewishness of God’s overall plan for the ages. It is best to delve into this while discussing the fact that the 1st century home fellowships were merely a continuation of the Jewish synagogue, and that word seems to suggest some sort of institution, or temple-like mini-institution.
To the contrary, some sort of substructure or mini temple version would have been a blasphemous notion to the Jews. Furthermore, for the most part historically, the Jews have had little choice to do anything other than worship in the privacy of their own homes. Moreover, synagogues were of the laity and far removed from any priestly authority whatsoever. The intended model for Christian fellowship and assembly has never changed since the exodus and before. It is a body and ground-level family unhindered by the musings of bureaucratic control. It is not a machine controlled by men, it is a body that lives and grows.

The Protestants never sought to separate from the Catholic Church and indeed they did not. It was a protest, and an attempt at reform, not a revolution by any stretch of the imagination. Institutional accreditation was vital to the Protestants, and critical to their credibility. This means they NEVER left the Catholic Church. Protestants retained solidarity with the Doctors of the Catholic Church for this reason, particularly St. Augustine. The most prominent fathers of the Reformation, Luther and Calvin, were avowed Augustinians till the day they died. Contemporary Reformers constantly strive to outdo each other in quoting Augustine at every opportunity, and God’s people are completely unmiffed by the exaltation of this serial anti-Semite Platonist. Why? Because what happens under the roof of an institutional church is mostly inconsequential; it is the depot that punches your ticket to heaven.

There are four primary ways that the institutional church wages war against the Holy Spirit, and this is a joint effort that includes Catholic and Protestant alike. We have examined three of them: the separation of God’s word from His people, the separation of Jew and Gentile, the institutionalization of God’s family adding additional mediators other than Christ (church, not assembly), but the fourth is what separates the Catholic from the Protestant. The accusation of this war is not as absurd as it sounds, for the permanent indwelling of the Spirit suggests ability on the part of the individual. Both sides endorse the incompetence of the individual and need for enlightened mediators between the great unwashed masses and God; in other words, an efficacious soteriological caste system.

This fourth war strategy involves the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the new birth. The Catholic Church acknowledges the indwelling of the Spirit and the new birth, but insists that this only enables the salvation candidate to cooperate in the finishing of the salvation process; primarily by faithfulness to the Mother Church. Rome is not shy or ambiguous about this idea. Yes, Catholicism and Protestantism alike hold to an unfinished progressive justification which requires the mediation of the church to complete. Both are a progressive justification.

Protestants, that is, Protestants who know what Protestantism is, deny the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the new birth all together. Let’s think about this: if the Holy Spirit permanently indwells the believer, salvation MUST be FINISHED, there is simply no way around that. A permanent indwelling of the Spirit makes a progressive salvation dependent on the church completely unnecessary.

In Protestantism, the “new birth” is redefined as a perception or ability to understand the total depravity of man as set against God’s holiness, but the “believer’s” state of being remains unchanged. That is why Protestantism describes salvation as a mere “legal declaration” in which a righteousness that remains outside of the believer must be progressively imputed to the believer until “final justification.” And, this can only be obtained by faithfulness to the authority of the church.

Catholicism believes in an internal righteousness, or “infused grace,” (infused righteousness), but this only enables one to colabor with the church for a final salvation. Both are salvation via an additional mediator, viz, church, and both advocate progressive justification. Many scholars believe this was the solidary issue that sparked the Protestant Reformation. Previously, Catholic scholars held to a strict Platonist dichotomy between righteousness and humanity, but began to be influenced by Thomism circa 13th century. The Protestant Reformation was really a debate concerning Plato versus Aristotle, and both churches have sought to hide this fact from the great unwashed, particularly the Protestant stripe. It was by no means a biblical debate, but a philosophical one. The idea that the Protestant Reformation was predicated on scriptural debate is an audacious rewriting of history and rank propaganda. Simply stated, the authority for truth among medieval church theologians was the philosophers primarily and the Scriptures secondarily, and stated such in no uncertain terms.

Hence, in revisiting a prior point for clarification on the first four theses, the retranslating of God’s family function to “church” invoked the idea of authority and additional mediators other than Christ. This was the institutionalization of first century Christianity. Authority as truth: this amounts to a gospel of authority; ironically, the choosing of an authority according to one’s preference. All religions and denominations claim their own authority gospel, but it is up to the individual, at least in the post American era, to choose which authority they think will save them.

Church necessarily has a problem with individual worship. If the individual can please God with personal worship (which is biblically defined as the practice of truth), what do we need church for? However, the church makes so-called “corporate worship” efficacious to a right standing with God. Christ said,

believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

The coming of the New Covenant and the “mystery of the gospel” which is the baptizing of Jew and Gentile into one body emphasizes an individual worship in the sanctified body of the believer. This makes all of life, worship in general, and the goal of worship, love, in particular. Church actually redefined worship as a corporate salvific endeavor and not an individual endeavor to use truth to love God and others. This circumvents the Spirit’s purpose of sanctification which is redefined as the progression of salvation.

Lastly, the church wages war against the Spirit’s purpose of fulfilling God’s elected means of salvation. God’s elected means of salvation does not include the authority of men as the church asserts. There is only ONE mediator between men and God and ALL authority has been given to that one person, and that person is the ONE seed. The church cannot give life, only the Word, who is Christ. Church makes itself a major element of God’s elected plan of salvation.

According to church orthodoxy, which makes election a concern of salvific preselection, whether one perseveres in the faith or not is defined by faithfulness to church. If one perseveres to the end, they are shown as preselected by God. The verse they adore reads, “Those who are no longer among us were never of us.” Hence, one can really elect God’s election by staying faithful to church which focuses on justification and not the Spirit’s purpose of sanctification.

Love isn’t the highest priority, keeping yourself saved is the highest priority.

The Contemporary Church Wars

I have written extensively on contemporary church wars between those who discovered what Protestantism really is hundreds of years later, thanks to an Adventist, and those who were the norm: Protestants waxing eloquent about a Protestantism they knew nothing about and charging people trillions of dollars to learn their misinformation. In illustrating this, we will let our fingers go walking through the book publications that mark the wars. First, other than the theological journal I mentioned published by the Australian forum, there is this book,

The Shaking of Adventism by Geoffrey J. Paxton, one of the core-four of the Australian Forum. Several “gospel recovery” movements came out of the Australian Forum, but I am going to focus on the major ones that are the trunk of the tree.

The first major movement to come out of the Forum was the Sonship Discipleship movement. This movement doesn’t start making waves until the 90s and the pushback can be represented by this book, “Biblical Sonship, An Evaluation of the Sonship Discipleship Course” by Jay Adams. John “Jack” Miller was the father of this movement and most of the New Calvinist movement comes out of Miller’s disciples including Tim Keller. The biblical counseling movement also comes out of this movement. I will get back to this movement shortly, but because this movement is the most significant, not actually the first. The first movement to cause a war was fathered by another core-four member of the AF, Jon Zens, the father of New Covenant Theology. The pushback by Protestants that didn’t know what Protestantism is, viz, Protestants who believe that Protestantism has some semblance of sanctification, can be represented by this book, “God’s Righteous Kingdom” by Walter Chantry. This kerfuffle happened among Reformed Baptists and is well documented in the aforementioned book that founded this ministry.

Back to the Sonship kerfuffle that took place in Presbyterian circles. Jack Miller was a professor at Westminster seminary at the same time Dr. Jay Adams was there teaching. Adams was brought to Westminster to start a biblical counseling curriculum. I document the beginning of the biblical counseling movement in “Clouds Without Water” (TANC Publishing 2015). Jon Zens. one of the core four of the Australian Forum, was also a student there where several students and faculty were influenced by the Forum’s “Present Truth” theological journal. Bottom line: the brain trust of Westminster invited the Forum there to discuss the gospel much to the consternation of Adams which I document in TTANC.

Long story short, Adams was developing a counseling program heavily predicated on a misunderstanding about what Calvin taught concerning sanctification. The movement that came out of Westminster because of the Forum…not so much. As a result, disciples of Jack Miller began to develop there own counseling construct based on authentic Reformation soteriology while covertly pretending to be in league with Adams. From the beginning, it was a deliberate covert movement. It started with Jack Miller, and those he mentored, David Powlison and Tim Keller, and those Powlison mentored, primarily, Paul David Tripp and Timothy Lane. These were covert opponents of Adams from the beginning.

The two movements grew together under the guise of being one until things started getting controversial and confused circa 2006. Until then, especially in the 90’s, Adams’ construct ruled the biblical counseling world and Adams saw the Sonship issue and counseling constructs as totally unrelated. Please note, everyone in Presbyterian circles thought the Sonship movement had been conquered by 2000, but it hadn’t, it simply relabeled and went underground in the biblical counseling movement while Adams was completely clueless as to what was going on. In 2010, the inner contention came to a head and Adams started looking for answers.

Herein is the crux of one of my major points overall: Adams would not find any answers at all within Protestant academia. In searching the earth high and low, his ministry director, Donn Arms, had to get answers from the laity. Period. As the famous refrain from the ELP song goes, “there it is.” As my favorite employee used to say, “there it go.” Please, please, please, stop looking for the one credentialed theological expert who gets it, he’s not out there.

So, here is where this covert movement got a name: “Gospel Sanctification” first coined by this ministry in 2010. Previously, this same movement had been coined “New Calvinism” in 2008 via Collin Hansen’s book in which he falsely rewrote the beginning of the movement, but nobody connected that movement with what was going on in the biblical counseling movement. In fact, it was this ministry that made the connection.

The spearhead of the revelation came through a request from Adams’ ministry for me to write a review of Paul David Tripp’s book, “How People Change” in the “Journal of Modern Ministry.” The editorial board had a fit because I didn’t have a Ph.D in at least basket weaving, yet, I am the only one who could make any sense at all about what these guys were teaching. So, basically, actually, more than basically, Donn Arms published the article and put his name on it with the full blessings of the editorial board, they just didn’t want my name on it.

But don’t miss the crux, as explained on page 82 of TTANC, according to David Powlison himself, the contention between the two camps was a contention over two different gospels…period. In other words, some 2000 years later, in the upper echelon of Protestantism, after hundreds of years, trillions of dollars, and incalculable drama and political intrigue, there is no clear consensus on what the gospel is.

Right, go to church, do that, they are still trying to figure out what the gospel is. Brilliant. Go to church if you will, for whatever reason be it stuff for your children to do, finding a new boyfriend, whatever, but please don’t insult my intelligence by saying you are there for the gospel…church doesn’t even know what the gospel is, and that’s historical fact.

You have a choice. You can believe that the Christian life is a salvation process, or you can believe that your salvation is finished, and you must now move on to maturity and love. But you can’t have it both ways; one is necessarily a law-based gospel while the other depends on a righteousness apart from the law. If your salvation is not finished, only law can fill the void. Righteousness and law are mutually exclusive.