Extreme Theology

Name the Ten Commandments and You Could Win $20,000

Laugh or cry. This is sad on so many levels.

Francis of Assisi NEVER Said, "Preach the Gospel at All Times; When Necessary, Use Words."

Mark Galli of Christianity Today is reporting that the oft quoted Francis of Assisi quote, "Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words" was NEVER uttered by the monk.

I've heard the quote once too often. It's time to set the record straight—about the quote, and about the gospel.

Francis of Assisi is said to have said, "Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words."

This saying is carted out whenever someone wants to suggest that Christians talk about the gospel too much, and live the gospel too little. Fair enough—that can be a problem. Much of the rhetorical power of the quotation comes from the assumption that Francis not only said it but lived it.

The problem is that he did not say it. Nor did he live it. And those two contra-facts tell us something about the spirit of our age.

Continue Reading

Paul’s Mission – Proclaiming the Gospel: Romans 1:8-17

By Steven Newell

When Paul gave thanks to God, he did it through Christ. Just as we are to go to God, in Christ’s name for our requests, we are also to do the same with our thanks and praise (John15:16).

Paul gives thanks to God for the faith of church in Rome. This is the highest from of praise. Paul did not talk about what the church did but what they believe. Today, we hear that faith is not enough to please God, we have to more. This is not true faith since faith never requires anything else. The faith of the Romans was known through the world. Since Paul had never been to Rome, his acknowledgment of their faith shows this to be true. Paul also has given thanks to God for the faith of the churches in Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:4), Ephesus (Ephesians 1:16), Colossi (Colossians 1:3-4), and Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 1:3-4 and 2 Thessalonians 1:3). For Paul, faith is more important than what then local churches do in terms of “good works”. Why is this?  Paul’s letters to many churches, dealt with issues and errors in the various churches. In his letter to the churches in Galatia, Paul does not comment on their faith, but on their lack of faith by accepting another gospel. When we focus on what a church does, we will look at both the good and bad things that a church does. Also, we when look at the activities of sinful Christians and we will be disappointed when they fail to live up to our expectations. If we look at the faith of a church, we will see what they believe by what they preach and teach and we can compare that to Holy Scripture. A church with bad theology can produce many “good works” (in human terms), but a faith church will produce true good works that will be both seen and unseen by us.  Many churches will have orthodox Christian statement of what they believe, but what they teach and preach run contrary to those statements. Does your church’s statement of believe provide strong biblical basis? Does your church’s preaching and teaching follow that statement of beliefs? In my own church body, the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, many local churches will affirm that Book of Concord as the correct exposition of the Christian faith, but their preaching and teaching looks more like the theology of seeker sensitive American decision theology than that of the Reformation.

Paul states that in his prayers for the church in Rome he desire to visit them (Romans 1:10-13). This desire was for Paul to provide spiritual blessing to the Romans while also receiving from them as well. When Christians gather around Word and Sacrament, there is always mutual strengthen of the faith.

Paul’s obligation comes from his calling when Christ stated that “This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles … "(Acts 9:15). In Romans 1:14-16, Greeks are those who are Greek by ethnicity by the “civilized gentiles”. Non-Greeks are non-civilized by what was referred to as barbarians. The “wise” refers to the educated in Greek culture while the “foolish” are the uneducated. Since Rome is the center of the Roman world, there will be all types of Gentiles to whom the Gospel can be proclaimed.

Paul is not ashamed of the Gospel. Paul knows that many Gentiles ridicule the Gospel. At Mars Hill in Athens, Paul proclaims the Gospel to Greek philosophers. Some called him a “babbler” which is a derogatory statement for the Greek. Paul is ashamed of the Gospel because he knows the power of the Gospel first hand. Even today, the “new atheist” and the elite class in our society consider Christians to be uneducated and Christianity something to ridicule. What is our response? For Paul, he continued to proclaim Christ crucified for sins (1 Corinthians1:22-23).   Do we continue to proclaim the Gospel?

Paul now defines what the Gospel is as being the power of God for salvation to all who believes in verses 16 and 17. The Gospel is what God did and does for us and not what we do since we have no part of our own salvation. While is this not a detailed definition, it does begin Paul’s explanation of Gospel in the following parts of Roman. Paul also makes that statement that it is belief, or faith, that we need to receive that God has done. Again, Paul will farther explain what he means by this. Paul introduces the teaching that true righteousness is foreign to us, but it comes from God.

Finally, Paul ties to righteousness to faith (Romans 1:17). If righteousness comes from God and we are to have faith to receive the Gospel, then faith also must come from God, since an unrighteous person cannot live by faith. This is the only way that could Paul quote Habakkuk 2:4. Later in his life, Paul will write to the church in Ephesus, reminding them that our salvation is by God’s grace and our faith is also a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8-9). Paul will explain how faith and righteousness are tied together a little later in Romans.

Is God "Bigger Than Systematic Theology"

One of the really dumb ideas floating around Post-Modern "Christian" circles is this idea that "God is Bigger Than Your Systematic Theology" and "if you think that you can understand God then your not believing in the true God".

Here is a wonderful quote from one of the early reformers, Philip Melancthon that gives a far more Biblically faithful perspective on this matter:

Now, although all the minds of men and of angels stand in wonderment in admiration of this mystery, that God has begotten a Son and that the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, proceeds from the Father and the Son, yet we must concur in this, because, as has already been said so many times, we must believe concerning God as He has revealed Himself. The heathen wander about in their hearts seeking a god according to their own speculations; but the church knows the eternal and almighty God, our Creator, as He has revealed Himself. Although we cannot probe this mystery to the depths, yet in this life God has willed that there be at least a beginning of knowledge of this subject and that our worship be distinguished from the worship of false gods. He has given in His Word a revelation by sure testimonies. In this Word, like a fetus who draws nourishment in the womb of the mother through the umbilical cord and the organs of reproduction, we sit enclosed, drawing our knowledge of God and of life from the Word of God, so that we may worship Him as He has revealed Himself. (Loci Theologici, Vol. 1 Chap 2)

A Commercial Regarding the Existence of God

I'm passing this along as an "interesting commercial'.

Is Christianity a Life or is it a Doctrine?

An excerpt from Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen pages 21-27

But, it will be said, Christianity is a life, not a doctrine. The assertion is often made, and it has an appearance of godliness. But it is radically false, and to detect its falsity one does not even need to be a Christian. For to say that "Christianity is a life" is to make an assertion in the sphere of history. The assertion does not lie in the sphere of ideals; it is far different from saying that Christianity ought to be a life, or that the ideal religion is a life. The assertion that Christianity is a life is subject to historical investigation exactly as is the assertion that the Roman Empire under Nero was a free democracy. Possibly the Roman Empire under Nero would have been better if it had been a free democracy, but the historical question is simply whether as a matter of fact it was a free democracy or no. Christianity is an historical phenomenon, like the Roman Empire, or the Kingdom of Prussia, or the United States of America. And as an historical phenomenon it must be investigated on the basis of historical evidence.

Is it true, then, that Christianity is not a doctrine but a life? The question can be settled only by an examination of the beginnings of Christianity. Recognition of that fact does not involve any acceptance of Christian belief; it is merely a matter of common sense and common honesty. At the foundation of the life of every corporation is the incorporation paper, in which the objects of the corporation are set forth. Other objects may be vastly more desirable than those objects, but if the directors use the name and the resources of the corporation to pursue the other objects they are acting ultra vires of the corporation. So it is with Christianity. It is perfectly conceivable that the originators of the Christian movement had no right to legislate for subsequent generations but at any rate they did have an inalienable right to legislate for all generations that should choose to bear the name of "Christian." It is conceivable that Christianity may now have to be abandoned, and another religion substituted for it; but at any rate the question what Christianity is can be determined only by an examination of the beginnings of Christianity.

The beginnings of Christianity constitute a fairly definite historical phenomenon. The Christian movement originated a few days after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. It is doubtful whether anything that preceded the death of Jesus can be called Christianity. At any rate, if Christianity existed before that event, it was Christianity only in a preliminary stage. The name originated after the death of Jesus, and the thing itself was also something new. Evidently there was an important new beginning among the disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem after the crucifixion. At that time is to be placed the beginning of the remarkable movement which spread out from Jerusalem into the Gentile world--the movement which is called Christianity.

About the early stages of this movement definite historical information has been preserved in the Epistles of Paul, which are regarded by all serious historians as genuine products of the first Christian generation. The writer of the Epistles had been in direct communication with those intimate friends of Jesus who had begun the Christian movement in Jerusalem, and in the Epistles he makes it abundantly plain what the fundamental character of the movement was. But if any one fact is clear, on the basis of this evidence, it is that the Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message. It was based, not upon mere feeling, not upon a mere program of work, but upon an account of facts. In other words it was based upon doctrine.

Certainly with regard to Paul himself there should be no debate; Paul certainly was not indifferent to doctrine; on the contrary, doctrine was the very basis of his life. His devotion to doctrine did not, it is true, make him incapable of a magnificent tolerance. One notable example of such tolerance is to be found during his imprisonment at Rome, as attested by the Epistle to the Philippians. Apparently certain Christian teachers at Rome had been jealous of Paul's greatness. As long as he had been at liberty they had been obliged to take a secondary place; but now that he was in prison, they seized the supremacy. They sought to raise up affliction for Paul in his bonds; they preached Christ even of envy and strife. In short, the rival preachers made of the preaching of the gospel a means to the gratification of low personal ambition; it seems to have been about as mean a piece of business as could well be conceived. But Paul was not disturbed. "Whether in presence, or in truth," he said, "Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice" (Phil. i. 18). The way in which the preaching was being carried on was wrong, but the message itself was true; and Paul was far more interested in the content of the message than in the manner of its presentation. It is impossible to conceive a finer piece of broad-minded tolerance.

But the tolerance of Paul was not indiscriminate. He displayed no tolerance, for example, in Galatia. There, too, there were rival preachers. But Paul had no tolerance for them. "But though we," he said, "or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. i. 8). What is the reason for the difference in the apostle's attitude in the two cases? What is the reason for the broad tolerance in Rome, and the fierce anathemas in Galatia? The answer is perfectly plain. In Rome, Paul was tolerant, because there the content of the message that was being proclaimed by the rival teachers was true; in Galatia he was intolerant, because there the content of the rival message was false. In neither case did personalities have anything to do with Paul's attitude. No doubt the motives of the Judaizers in Galatia were far from pure, and in an incidental way Paul does point out their impurity. But that was not the ground of his opposition. The Judaizers no doubt were morally far from perfect, but Paul's opposition to them would have been exactly the same if they had all been angels from heaven. His opposition was based altogether upon the falsity of their teaching; they were substituting for the one true gospel a false gospel which was no gospel at all. It never occurred to Paul that a gospel might be true for one man and not for another; the blight of pragmatism had never fallen upon his soul. Paul was convinced of the objective truth of the gospel message, and devotion to that truth was the great passion of his life. Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first.

But what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and the teaching of the Judaizers? What was it that gave rise to the stupendous polemic of the Epistle to the Galatians? To the modern Church the difference would have seemed to be a mere theological subtlety. About many things the Judaizers were in perfect agreement with Paul. The Judaizers believed that Jesus was the Messiah; there is not a shadow of evidence that they objected to Paul's lofty view of the person of Christ. Without the slightest doubt, they believed that Jesus had really risen from the dead. They believed, moreover, that faith in Christ was necessary to salvation. But the trouble was, they believed that something else was also necessary; they believed that what Christ had done needed to be pieced out by the believer's own effort to keep the Law. From the modern point of view the difference would have seemed to be very slight. Paul as well as the Judaizers believed that the keeping of the law of God, in its deepest import, is inseparably connected with faith. The difference concerned only the logical--not even, perhaps, the temporal--order of three steps. Paul said that a man (1) first believes on Christ, (2) then is justified before God, (3) then immediately proceeds to keep God's law. The Judaizers said that a man (1) believes on Christ and (2) keeps the law of God the best he can, and then (3) is justified. The difference would seem to modern "practical" Christians to be a highly subtle and intangible matter, hardly worthy of consideration at all in view of the large measure of agreement in the practical realm. What a splendid cleaning up of the Gentile cities it would have been if the Judaizers had succeeded in extending to those cities the observance of the Mosaic law, even including the unfortunate ceremonial observances! Surely Paul ought to have made common cause with teachers who were so nearly in agreement with him; surely he ought to have applied to them the great principle of Christian unity.

As a matter of fact, however, Paul did nothing of the kind; and only because he (and others) did nothing of the kind does the Christian Church exist today. Paul saw very clearly that the differences between the Judaizers and himself was the differences between two entirely distinct types of religion; it was the differences between a religion of merit and a religion of grace. If Christ provides only a part of our salvation, leaving us to provide the rest, then we are still hopeless under the load of sin. For no matter how small the gap which must be bridged before salvation can be attained, the awakened conscience sees clearly that our wretched attempt at goodness is insufficient even to bridge that gap. The guilty soul enters again into the hopeless reckoning with God, to determine whether we have really done our part. And thus we groan again under the old bondage of the law. Such an attempt to piece out the work of Christ by our own merit, Paul saw clearly, is the very essence of unbelief; Christ will do everything or nothing, and the only hope is to throw ourselves unreservedly on His mercy and trust Him for all.

Paul certainly was right. The differences which divided him from the Judaizers was no mere theological subtlety, but concerned the very heart and core of the religion of Christ. "Just as I am without one plea, But that Thy blood was shed for me"-- that was what Paul was contending for in Galatia; that hymn would never have been written if the Judaizers had won. And without the thing which that hymn expresses there is no Christianity at all.

The Woman Who Would Have Discovered THE Ultimate Cure For Cancer Was Murdered Today

Jane Doe, a woman who was uniquely gifted by God with the perfect combination of intelligence, tenacity and the pure doggedness necessary to do what ever it takes to excel in science in order to conquer cancer was murdered this morning when her mother, a 21 year old college student who didn’t want her life inconvenienced by a baby, aborted her.

Jane’s murder is a major blow to humanity and her death will set the world of medical science back 50 years because Jane will not be present to make her ground breaking discovery that would have lead to a simple Cancer vaccine that would have eradicated cancer once and for all. Jane’s murder means that hundreds of millions of people around the globe will now needlessly suffer and die from cancer for many many many years to come.

Some Good Thoughts on Preaching

Compare and Contrast what John Piper is saying here in this video to Rick Warren's ideas regarding "Purpose Driven Preaching".

Purpose Driven Community Gathering - Day Two

Rick Warren Purpose Driven Critique - Is Repentance the Central Message of the New Testament?

Rick Warren Purpose Driven Critique - Does PD Preaching Have Any Good News to Offer Me?

The Relevance of Star Trek By The Numbers ***Updated***

This is the opening weekend for the new hit block buster movie, Star Trek. The reviews all say that this is a MUST see movie. The internet, radio, newspapers and television are all talking about Star Trek. Its the most relevant movie of the moment.

Because Star Trek is sooooo popular and soooo cutting edge and sooooo relevant there are already a herd of Seeker-Driven pastors stampeding to movie theaters in order to watch the movie and find a Biblical hook so that they can send out a marketing piece letting everyone in their neighborhood know that they are preaching a sermon based on Star Trek.

The assumption is that Star Trek is relevant and by preaching a sermon on Star Trek they will be able to reach out to unchurched people and meet them ‘where they are’.

But, there is one big flaw in this way of thinking.

Star Trek isn’t as relevant as you might think and I’ll prove it.

Let’s assume that Star Trek breaks all of the box office records this weekend and it eclipses The Dark Night, which hauled in $158,411,483 during its opening weekend last year.

For the sake of this exercise we’ll project an opening weekend haul of $165 million for Star Trek. That number would shatter the record and would be an amazing feat considering the fact that its opening weekend was NOT on a holiday weekend.

Now it is times for number crunching.

The average cost for a movie ticket in the United States is $7.18. With this information in hand we can determine how many people will go to the theaters to watch the most relevant movie of the moment. That number is 23 million people. This may sound like a huge number but keep in mind that there are over 300 million people living in the United States. This means that only 7.6% of the United States population think that Star Trek is soooo relevant that they had to see it on opening weekend. And we all know that box office receipts severely drop off after the opening weekend.

Now let’s come back to the pastors that mistakenly think that they are being relevant by preaching a sermon based on Star Trek.

I’ve seen the pattern repeated thousands of times in Seeker-Driven churches across America. A relevant seeker-driven pastor creates a marketing mailer that they send to all the unchurched people in their community announcing their cutting edge and relevant sermon topic or series. In this case, there will be a herd of relevant pastors spending hundreds of thousands of dollars announcing their Star Trek sermon under the false assumption that Star Trek is a relevant topic.

But in reality Star Trek is really only a relevant topic for roughly 8% to 10% of the U.S. population.

In other words, Star Trek is an irrelevant sermon topic for more than 90% of the U.S. population. When you consider the fact that planet Earth has a population over 6 Billion people then you begin to see just how grossly irrelevant a Star Trek sermon really is.

My question is why would any Christian pastors exchange the gospel message that we’ve been given, a message that applies to and addresses the #1 problem that impacts 100% of the world’s population for a message that at best is relevant to only 10% of the U.S. population?

100% of the World’s Population is born sinful by nature and hostile to the One True God and in need of a Savior.

Christ Died for the Sins of the World and whosever believes in Him will not perish when Christ returns in glory to judge both the living and the dead but have everlasting life.

In other words, Jesus Christ has left the Christian Church with a message that applies to and is relevant to every single person on the planet regardless of whether they like Star Trek or not.

Why would would Christians exchange a message that has Universal application and relevance for a message that doesn’t even come close to universal relevance?

Christian Pastors need to Preach the Gospel that we’ve been given and leave Star Trek at the theaters.

---

Update May 14th - Bad news for the relevance seekers...Star Trek's opening box office receipts ONLY totaled, $76.5 million. That means that only 10.6 million Americans (3.5%) of the U.S. Population really think that Star Trek is relevant.

Star Trek "Sermon" Giveaway Contest

Pirate Christian Radio is holding a contest. They will be giving away a copy of the book "Christless Christianity" to the first seeker-driven "pastor" who delivers a "sermon" or "bible study" based on the new Star Trek movie. PCR is also offering bonus points to any lead pastor that preaches a Star Trek sermon on Mother's Day. Click Here for Details.