A Deeper Understanding of Sanctification

More on my ongoing vacation in Lutheranism,

a place that I do like to visit,

through Eric's shared links posted at

"On the Wittenberg Trail"

Here's a topic that I always assume needs no explanation for the Protestant and the Reformed, and, then, I realize that this is a false assumption. This is a subject of great debate within many circles in Evangelical Christianity, far beyond my wildest imagination. Though I rejoice in our commonalities in Christ and know many Catholic brethren that share a deep love for Jesus and the deep love of Jesus in their hearts, on the topic of sanctification, we do not agree.

From my traditional understanding, it was just this issue of justification and sanctification that moved Martin Luther to hang his famed Ninety-Five Theses on that famed door in Wittenberg in protest of Catholic Doctrine. The Catholic church essentially sold salvation through indulgences and works, teaching that sanctification was a process of "infusion" of grace into the life of the believer over the course of his life through compliance with the law and through obedience to the clergy. Salvation depended more upon compliance with standards and works than it did with faith, but one day, Luther had an epiphany. Reading that we were saved by grace through faith and not by works or PIETY in Ephesians chapter 2, Luther realized that salvation was of God and not through man's merit nor through the merit of his works.

This is truly a miraculous thing to understand, because I believe that comprehending this in our human understanding is truly impossible. Salvation by grace through faith is impossible, and God works this miracle of impossiblity into our hearts through faith in Him! Not of works do we boast, and we don't maintain our sanctification or the process of being made holy in Christ through our own effort but by the inner work of the Holy Spirit.

I was overjoyed to read the following. I will hope that you will click on the link and read the entire passage because it is wonderful, though I especially loved the lyrical statement, copied here from that blog entry on Weedon's Blog:

On Sanctification The danger is in thinking that the holiness given you in Christ is not whole, perfect, complete. * It IS. *
It is not at all so much the case that holiness grows in you, but that you grow in holiness.
The gift is given: now we make progress in learning to live from it, so that love becomes ever more our life.

Tweet

More on Matthew 18

Thanks again to Eric's "On the Wittenberg Trail," I took notice to this post regarding the use of Matthew 18 and the ever growing trend in so many Evangelical churches to use this Scripture, designed to bring unity and foster communication between the bretheren as an invitation to discipline. Read another post from the "Cyber Stones" blog. (Apparently this isn't just a trend found only within patriarchy and Presbyterianism.)

From "Misunderstanding Matthew 18"

It is the sad reality of our synod that the most quoted passage at any casual gathering of pastors is Matthew 18. This portion of Holy Writ contains part of Our Lord's instruction on Holy Absolution. You'd think this would make me happy. It would if that was how it was quoted, but it is not. In our circles "Matthew 18" is not invoked as a gift for repentant sinners anymore than "Matthew 28" is invoked as the institution of the Office of the Holy Ministry. 

Rather it is cited as an ecclesiastical Miranda rights which if not followed to the satisfaction of the critics (and it is impossible to follow this to the satisfaction of the critics for such are the criteria that it cannot be done except by looking the other way) then the 'accused' gets off scot free, the accusation is removed - without the absolution. I know this probably sounds insane. It is insane. But such is the case in our synod at the casual level. We just want to get along. We dislike those who rock the boat. We are so fearful of debate, or disagreeing, of struggling through the issues that the precious Words of Our Lord are used as a threat and club to end discussion before it begins. If is quite likely that if you dare to question, to accuse, to complain, you will be shunned and looked down upon for "violating Matthew 18." 

Click here to read the rest of the post and the comments that follow.

This is reminiscent of another excellent blog post from November and a subject that I also addressed on this blog a few months ago as well.

From Thatmom's Blog on slander, libel, and gossip, oh my! understanding the difference between Matthew 18:15 and Galatians 2

...Several times I have been personally (and have seen others as well) admonished to go to those with whom I disagree and begin a Matthew 18 process with them. I have been asked numerous times if I did that with any of those whom I have critiqued and if I have discussed my differences with them, seeking reconciliation.... This has been a strange suggestion to me, since what I have always understood that passage of Scripture to mean is that when another brother or sister in Christ has sinned against you, you are to go to them and tell them how they did so, hoping that they will confess that sin and make it right with you... Just because someone has offended you does not mean that that person has sinned against you, no matter how angry they have made you. 

It does not mean that you can read their hearts, their motives, or assign sin to them, allowing feelings about them as a person to override the truth of God’s Word. And the sin must be worthy of taking all the way to the end process if necessary... And this brings us full circle to the reason why understanding the differences between applying Matthew 18 and Galatians 2 is so crucial within the homeschooling community. You see, those who are currently raising the subject of “online gossip and slander” of late are within the patriocentric camp. They know that they cannot win their debate in the arena of public discussion. They think if they can make a case for privately talking, one on one, where they can say anything they want, free from public accountability, they can continue to teach what they teach. Those of us who are challenging these teachings MUST keep the discussion within the sphere of public discourse, where each and every word can be seen and heard.... 

Please read the full post (without my many omissions in copying only a small portion of it) HERE.

We can use the Gospel and the Word of God to work reconciliation, but many use it as a means to browbeat the sheep into submission and compliance. God have mercy on us!

Tweet

More On Twisted Calvinism & Election As Karma

My husband and I both suffer from chronic pain and both have had suffered the effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of many of our varied experiences in life. It was highly recommended for both of us to seek help with hypnosis as an alternative to medication, especially for myself because I am allergic to NSAIDs and Aspirin, producing life threatening asthma. Both of us were unwilling to submit to much of this without more knowledge of the workings of hypnosis, so I trained as a hypnotherapist, specifically for pain management, but also to learn to self-soothe again which becomes problematic in those with PTSD. I was blessed to be permitted to certify without submitting to "regression therapy" and enjoyed the opportunity to declare my Christian views to my classmates, though I don't know how well they understood them. It was definitely a clash of worldviews!

Tweet

Sick Twist of Calvinism into Karma

As a person that tends to be very human, fallible and able to readily recognize my shortcomings (Romans Chapter 7), I strongly identified with the “total depravity” message (the first T in the TULIP mnemonic of the 5 points of Calvinism). This concept alone gave me much liberty by bringing my personal understanding of God’s providence into a better perspective.

Tweet

The Centrality of Christ and the Quest for the Best Denominational Fit

Having emerged from cultic Christianity, I embarked upon a quest that I never dreamed would be a challenge: the quest for a denomination that best fits my views as a steadfast believer in the principles of Protestantism and the Reformation. No one has a corner on truth, but this has been a great challenge for my family since learning about manipulation from the pulpit.

Not that I am recommending any denomination over any other at this point, following some recent ruminating on the problems I have encountered with many but not all Presbyterians, I found this post to be encouraging and validating. The bottom line is that our faith must be Christ centered and not on anything else. Doctrine divides, but it should never separate us from the Love of God in Christ or Christ crucified!

From "A Presbyterian Comes to Lutheranism: Why?" on Cyberbrethren:

I've been in contact recently with a Presbyterian pastor who has shared with me his deeply moving account of coming to a point where he is on the cusp of a decision about his continued membership in the Presbyterian Church. What is it all about for him? Christ!

Follow this link to read the rest.

Thanks to Eric's "On the Wittenberg Trail"

for posting this in his shared links.

Tweet

Theology and Experience

From the February 2008

"Trinity Review"

Number 274
pg 4:

The Fruit of Biblical Theology

The old paradigm taught that if you had the right teaching, you will experience God. The new paradigm says that if you experience God, you will have the right teaching. 

This may be disturbing to many who assume propositional truth must always preceed and dictate religious experience. That mindset is the product of systematic theology and has much to contribute... However, biblical theology looks to the Bible for a pattern of experience followed by proposition" (Leith Andersen, "A Church for the 21st Century").

Like the Biblical Theology movement, the "Emerging Church" movement is based on the irrational and Antichristian notion that event/experience/history someohow precede propostitional truth/theology.

The Bible alone is the Word of God.
The Trinity Foundation hereby grants permission to all readers to download, print, and distribute on paper or electronically any of its Reviews, provided that each reprint bear our copyright notice, current addresses, and telephone numbers, and provided that all such reproductions are distributed to the public without charge. The Reviews may not be sold or issued in book form, CD-ROM form, or microfiche.

Copyright (C) 1998-2008 The Trinity Foundation

Post Office 68, Unicoi, Tennessee 37692Phone: 423.743.0199 Fax: 423.743.2005

Tweet

How Does Heresy Happen?

Christians who believe that the Bible is God’s inspired and infallible Word of God believe that the instruction in the Bible is sufficient for all of our human needs and has the ability to transcend our times and culture. The difficulty presents when we try to diligently and faithfully apply the proper meaning of Scripture to the specifics of our lives today. 

At this point, without a wise, clear, broad and well-informed perspective, we could easily fall into error. How can we keep from branching off from what God teaches us in the Word into error, be it misguided, false teachings or heresy, especially concerning central and critical doctrine.

Harold O. J. Brown has this to say in Heresies (pg 150):

“The spiritual contrast between these variant views and what we now call orthodoxy lay first of all in the goal that each sought to accomplish: the heretical positions had in common a desire to understand the mystery of God; the orthodox sought to preserve the salvation Christians find in Christ.”

Intent has a great deal to do with whether we descend into heresy. If our goal is to develop and formulate a clear doctrine about a mystery, then we are branching off into dangerous territory. Intent to meet a goal dominates and governs our actions. If our approach however concerns intent to clearly discern what the Word of God teaches us about a particular issue, then we are less likely to fall into error or predispose ourselves to error. Our primary commitment must be to the preservation of the integrity of the Word of God, following a sound hermeneutic.


Paul Elliot, in Christianity and Neo-Liberalism points out several pitfalls resulting from departure from sound hermeneutics into ones that are poorly informed or very narrow in understanding. 

“First, it is not a fixed set of principles or a defined methodology for the interpretation of Scripture.” 

In our postmodern world, truth is determined by experience and meaning is imparted by the person who deems a thing truthful, so it is not an objective measure of truth. Concerning the group that Elliot discusses in his book, these religious leaders stated that as long as their group agreed on the basics of the creeds, they were willing to tolerate the inconsistencies on other levels, sacrificing objective truth in favor of what Elliot calls “artificial confessional unity.” (Pg 248-249)

“Second, notice that the primary focus of the hermeneutic of trust is not on correctly interpreting the words of Scripture at all. It focuses instead on interpreting the words of the church’s confessional standards, and on construing them in ways that are elastic enough to permit the OPC to fit diverging doctrinal views under one big confessional tent… So the hermeneutic of trust is at least one step removed from Scripture. It focuses not on the Scripture itself but on human perspectives on Scripture… It is not only significant that the hermeneutic of trust draws attention away from Scripture, but also that it draws attention to something called the “animus imponentis”, or the intention of the imposing body.” (pg 249)

Elliot goes on to point out an example where Charles Hodge (a mid 19th century seminary instructor at Princeton) argues for the use of “animus imponentis” to maintain denominational unity and prevent a type of pluralism. Elliot says

“But with all due respect to Hodge, to use the animus impotentis as the fundamental guiding principle in establishing conformity to sound doctrine is to adopt a fatally flawed benchmark… By this logic, Rome’s doctrine of justification and the Protestant doctrine of justification have equal standing. In fact, any competing doctrines that bear the stamp of approval of their respective “imposing bodies” would have equal standing. Each imposing body is after all, its own ‘community of interpretation.’” The problem with this method is that the standards will change over time.” (pg 250-252)

Elliot concludes this section stating:

“[A]t the end of the day, what is important is not what men say the Bible says, but what the Bible actually says. For that reason, our starting point in sound doctrine must never be the secondary standards of the church, but always Scripture. It is Scripture that gives meaning to the words of the confessional standards, not vice versa. The hermeneutic of trust perverts this fundamental order." (pg 254)

Tweet

Origins of the Hermeneutic of Trust

Another Excerpt from

"Christianity and Neoliberalism"

by Paul Elliott

(pg 245 -246)

The term “hermeneutic of trust” is not new, and the concept originated not in the field of theology but in the secular field of language philosophy. The “hermeneutic of trust” was popularized by the German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) in his books Truth and Method and Philosophical Hermeneutics.

Gadamer, though not a theologian himself, was a close associate of the existentialist theologian Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976), a main spokesman for modern liberal/skeptical methods of Biblical interpretation. [Host Note: Bultmann has been very influential in the development of the philosophy embraced by the Emergent Church.]

Gadamer asserted that the hermeneutic of trust applies to any area of society, not just theology. Gadamer denied the existence of objective truth. Correctly interpreting a text, he asserted, does not mean correctly understanding the original intention of the author. Rather, Gadamer argued, interpreting any text – whether it is a piece of literature, a nation’s constitution or the Bible – involves what he termed a “fusion of horizons.” In this “fusion,” a “community of interpretation” made up of scholars and other so-called experts decides what that community’s view of “truth” will be. Each participant contributes his perspectives to this mix. According to this bankrupt philosophy, a community standard of “truth” is the best that men can hope for. There is no objective truth.

[This reminds me to the Federal Vision concept of hermeneutics as an "intuitive art" versus the traditional view of a serious discipline. Is this Federal Vision "intuitive art of hermeneutics" actually an hermeneutic of trust? Hmmm.]

Tweet

More About Hermeneutics: The Grammatico-Historical Method

So how does one go about all of this?

I prefer the grammatico-historical method (also called the grammatical-historical method, depending on whom you ask) over a literal interpretation of text. 

Tweet

On Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics: "The theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural text." (American Heritage Dictionary)

How do we properly understand what the Scriptures Mean? I find the fact that the Word of God can speak to me on so many levels throughout so many years of my life one of the most wonderful things about study of the Bible. Though the foolish things confound the wise and the wise things are made simple through the Spirit, certain texts require a great deal of discipline. How do we go about determining what the Bible meant when it makes a certain statement in a particular way?

I believe that it is the great challenge of the Christian to rightly discern the truth about what the Word actually says (and means). If we use sound methods to investigate the truth, we are more likely to arrive at a sound doctrine and sound meaning. Just to put some of this into perspective, let me offer two examples of why a good hermeneutic bears importance to accurate meaning of a text. One of the more telling examples in literature came to me while attending a Catholic college as a born-again Christian. 

I took a literature class called “The Theological Quest” wherein we read a great deal of the existentialist writers as well as the Russian moralists. We read a book called “The Fall” by Albert Camus, an atheist who hated God, but I found in that book more references to Scripture than I find in most Christian books today. The class was taught by a former Baptist minister turned philosophy professor, so it was an interesting experience.

In reading Camus, the protagonist is named Jacques le Baptiste, though I doubt if I’ve spelled it correctly here, wherein the he laments the fact that he is subject to sin and subject to the Scriptural standard of righteousness. Any Evangelical Christian could pick up the symbolism: that of John the Baptist, but one without a savior to for whom to prepare the way—a man without purpose in life. Each page of the small paperback had at least three direct references to a Scripture, indicating the deeper meaning of the text. My previous knowledge and study of the Bible set me apart in that class because of my understanding, so the literature was easier to interpret and held deeper meaning. 

Most of my classmates lacked understanding of the Word and did not comprehend the meaning of the text without additional instruction from the professor and without considering informed commentaries on the book. 

 Fast forward a couple of years to a missions trip I took to Russia. On the plane ride home, I spoke with a Russian with whom I discussed the Karamazov. I loved the book, and I still refer to it as one of the best pieces of literature ever written, so complex and concerned with the deeper meaning of life. I barely started talking about the book, and this Russian gentleman explained to me how my limited understanding of Russian life made my deeper understanding of the text very difficult. The names of the characters were well chosen, and he spent a great deal of time with me, discussing why a particular name was used and the specific meaning it conveyed. I felt rather like those other students in my class where I first read Camus and Dostoevski! 

I lacked the cultural understandings that conveyed deeper meanings to the characters. (For very obvious example, if I wrote literature and I named a character Clinton or Lewinski, it would take on deeper meaning and would convey and connote meaning beyond my actual words.) Such is true when we study the Bible. When I studied Greek in seminary, I had the wonderful advantage of learning the language from a believer who grew up as an orthodox Jew. In addition to learning the language, I also learned how the Jews of the day used the Greek language from a unique and broad perspective. I developed a great appreciation for the perspective that this understanding brought to the text. 

I found that aspects of this study were much like my experience in medical research, following a logical and well-informed process of investigation so that one can have the broadest perspective and understand the most accurate information about my life’s greatest passion: the study of the Word. 

Stay tuned for a review of the principles of the grammatico-historical method of hermeneutics

Tweet

Recovering from Con Artists

From Captive Hearts, Captive Minds

by Tobias and Lalich
pg 65:

To heal from a traumatic experience of this type, it is important to understand who and what the perpetrator is. As long as there are illusions about the leader's motivation, powers and abilities, those who have been in his grip deprive themselves of an important opportunity for growth: the chance to empower themselves, to become free of the tyranny of dependency on others for their well-being, spiritual growth, and happiness.

Tweet

Persinger's "First Order Protections" for Resisting Cultic Influence PART III of III

PART III: First Order Protections

Resisting Manipulation

and

Cultic Influence

(by Michael Persinger)

SEE PART I and Part II

Things to Come …

Since the cause of [group] mania lies within the processes associated with parental dependency and the seductive pitfalls of emotional language, the potential for another epidemic is always very real. No doubt the precise details may change, but their themes and personal promises will remain. Conditions of anxiety and global apprehension—no matter how large the persons world – breed an odd composite of fantasy and fear. 

[Groups] that promise perfect prediction, cosmic order and the complete relief of uncertainty are always there with an answer. Sometimes they are called TMers, Jones’ cultists or radical Christians. Sill other times, they may start innocently but then transform from a mute conglomerate of pantheism and world brotherhood {such as the Bahai} into frantic [group] conversion. The present forms of [group-think] will soon habituate. 

[Blog host note: This was written/published circa 1980….] 

Those that are based upon novelty-jags and the stimulation associated with simple change must become more and more bizarre. Like TM, they must promise their followers more potent sources of irrational power. At some point, the credibility will be extended and the movement, except for the hard-core members, will collapse…. Movements such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and many similar cults that venerate the distant past will become reinforcing. The simplicity of the past and the dependence upon a benevolent force will be the essential themes of control. Like the atheist who prays during an airplane crisis, no one will dare take the chance…. 

As before, these odd events will be sources of anxiety and potential terror. People will report them as if they are singular prodromes to the ends to the occurrence of some great alteration in man’s future. These events will be seen as signs of an uncertain future, because of man’s ignorance of the same occurrences from times past.

from Pgs 172 - 176 "TM and Cult Mania" by Persinger, Carrey and Seuss (what a great couple of names for co-authors!) 1980

Note: The following terms were substituted in the passage: 

• "Group think" for "cult mania"
• "Group" for "cult"
• "Group follower" for "cultist"

Tweet

Persinger's "First Order Protections" for Resisting Cultic Influence PART II of III

PART II of III

Continued from PART I:

First Order Protections

.Helpful protective procedures

that will help you resist manipulation

from Michael Persinger

Consider Confounding Factors

Most successful [groups] caplitalize upon basic human behaviors. The most infrequently displayed response (due to inexperience or active suppression) of a particular generation is selected as a major sell point. For example the TM sell job tapped heavily into this [the baby-boomer] generation’s basic ignorance of the consequences of silence and relaxation.

When [group] claims are made, look for the confounding factor. In other words, attempt to determine what actual stimulus is involved that is masked or misinterpreted by the [group] leaders. Usually the confounding factor is so simple that it is easily overlooked. Never underestimate the effects of expectancy upon the interpretations of otherwise mundane private experiences.

Tweet

Persinger's "First Order Protections" for Resisting Cultic Influence PART I of III

Michael Persinger, professor of neurophysiology at Laurentian University has long studied neurophysiology and religious experience, winning the 2007 Best Speaker Award on Ontario Television’s “Big Ideas” competition. One of his earlier books concerning religious experience offers these “first order protections” for resisting religious deception – or any deception – as all types of religious or non-religious deceptions involve logical fallacy and temporary suspension of critical thought processes.

Persinger has this to say of deception and manipulative ideological groups:

Although they are obvious from hindsight, their contemporary existence is hidden cleverly within the vehicle of the day. By necessity, otherwise, they would be unattractive to present problems or rejected reflexively, each new [group] must contain a new vehicle immersed in a deceiving mass of details and sell routines. Following are some protective procedures that may be helpful. However, they are not infallible.

Tweet