Podcasts about pelagians

Divine Election Dr. Steven R. Cook (https://thinkingonscripture.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Divine-Election.pdf) Introduction      Election is a biblical teaching that every serious student of the Bible must consider at some point. It addresses issues related to God's sovereignty and human volition, sin and salvation, justice and mercy, love and faith. Given that election touches upon the infinite and eternal nature of God, it's not surprising that certain aspects of this doctrine transcend human understanding, similar to the biblical doctrines of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union.[1] God's revelation must be our guide. Though we reason through Scripture, our reasoning ability is limited, and we must learn to live with certain unresolvable theological tensions. According to Norman Geisler, “The mystery of the relationship between divine sovereignty and human free will has challenged the greatest Christian thinkers down through the centuries.”[2] Lewis Chafer states, “The doctrine of Election is a cardinal teaching of the Scriptures. Doubtless, it is attended with difficulties which are a burden upon all systems of theology alike.”[3] Warren Wiersbe states, “The mystery of divine sovereignty and human responsibility will never be solved in this life. Both are taught in the Bible (John 6:37). Both are true, and both are essential.”[4] Charles Ryrie adds, “No human mind will ever harmonize sovereignty and free will, but ignoring or downplaying one or the other in the interests of a supposed harmony will solve nothing.”[5] When discussing election with others, it's always best to maintain an attitude of love and grace, as this will generate more light than heat. Major Views on Election      Regarding election and salvation, there are varying perspectives on the roles of divine intervention and human responsibility in the process of being saved. The major views are as follows: Strict Calvinism adheres closely to the five points of Calvinism summarized by the acronym TULIP. Total depravity means people are completely unable to save themselves or even to seek God on their own due to their sinful nature. Unconditional election refers to God's choice of certain individuals for salvation, not based on any foreseen merit or action on their part but purely on His sovereign will. Limited atonement means Christ's death was intended to save only the elect, not all of humanity. Irresistible grace means that when God calls the elect to salvation, they cannot resist His will. Perseverance of the saints means that those whom God has elected and saved will persevere in faith and will not ultimately fall away. Moderate Calvinism adheres to the basic tenets of Calvinism but with some modifications or a softer interpretation. These often hold to a form of unlimited atonement that suggests Christ's atonement is sufficient for all but effective only for the elect. They're also more open to dialogue with other theological perspectives, and tend to avoid the more deterministic implications of strict Calvinism. Calminianism blends elements of Calvinism and Arminianism, seeking a middle ground concerning God's sovereignty and human volition. Calminians tend to lean toward unlimited atonement, resistible grace, God's election based on foreknowledge of who would believe, and the belief that saints can turn to a prolonged sinful lifestyle without losing their salvation. Arminianism is a theological system that emphasizes God's conditional election based on foreknowledge. Arminians see people as corrupted by sin, but able to respond to God's call to salvation. They also adhere to unlimited atonement, resistible grace, and believe Christians are able to forfeit their salvation, which means good works are necessary to retain salvation. Catholicism teaches that salvation is open to all and involves both God's grace and human cooperation. In the Catholic view, both faith and works are essential for salvation. Faith is the foundational response to God's grace, but it must be accompanied by works of love and obedience. In Catholicism, the sacraments are seen as vital means of grace. For instance, baptism is considered necessary for salvation as it washes away original sin and incorporates a person into the body of Christ. The Eucharist, penance, and other sacraments further sustain and deepen a believer's relationship with God. Pelagianism is a theological perspective considered heretical by most Christian traditions. It emphasizes human free will and denies original sin, teaching people are born morally neutral, and each person can choose to do good or evil without the necessity of divine grace. Pelagians emphasize that salvation can be achieved through human effort and moral striving, and they see God's grace is seen as helpful but not necessary for living a righteous life or achieving salvation.      The above categories are simplified presentations with detailed nuances others might seek to expand and clarify. My purpose in presenting them is to provide a basic construct of the major views. What follows is my understanding of the doctrine of election as it is taught in the Word of God. God is Sovereign      The Bible reveals God is sovereign over His creation, declaring “The LORD is King forever and ever” (Psa 10:16), and “Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps” (Psa 135:6), and “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?'” (Dan 4:35). God Himself declares, “My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isa 46:10b; cf. Psa 33:11), and this because He is the “only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tim 6:15), Who “works all things after the counsel of His will” (Eph 1:11b). All this is true; however, the Bible also reveals God sovereignly created both angels and people with intellect and volition, and has granted them a modicum of freedom to act as free moral agents. According to McChesney, God's sovereignty “is not to be viewed in any such way as to abridge the reality of the moral freedom of God's responsible creatures or to make men anything else than the arbiters of their own eternal destinies. God has seen fit to create beings with the power of choice between good and evil. He rules over them in justice and wisdom and grace.”[6]      At all times, and without external restraint, God remains in constant sovereign control, guiding His creation through history. He interferes in the affairs of mankind, and His unseen hand works behind all their activities, controlling and directing history as He wills. We know from Scripture that God possesses certain immutable attributes and that He never acts inconsistently with His nature. For example, because God is righteous, all His actions and commands are just. Because God is immutable, His moral perfections never change. Because God is eternal, He is righteous forever. Because God is omniscient, His righteous acts are always predicated on perfect knowledge. Because God is omnipotent, He is always able to execute His righteous will. And because God is love, His judgments can be merciful toward the undeserving and humble. The Bible Affirms God's Sovereignty and Human Volition      Shortly after God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1), He sovereignly chose to create mankind in His image (Gen 1:26) as finite analogues to Himself, endowed with intellectual and volitional capabilities. God's intention was that they would function as theocratic administrators to “rule” over His creation (Gen 1:26-28). When God made His decision to create people in His image, He willingly limited Himself to allow them the freedom to operate as responsible moral creatures and not mere automatons. This self-imposed restraint by God is not unusual, for He has restrained Himself in other ways. For example, every time God made a promise or covenant, He bound Himself to His Word such that He cannot do otherwise. Scripture reveals that “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” (Num 23:19). This is why, even though “we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim 2:13), and “it is impossible for God to lie” (Heb 6:18; cf., Tit 1:2).      God has given people volition and freedom to act, and He holds them accountable for their actions. As the Sovereign of the universe, God will judge everyone fairly, for “there is no partiality with God” (Rom 2:11). Peter said, “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him” (Acts 10:34-35). And Paul wrote, “For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality” (Col 3:25).      Though all mankind is fallen, being corrupted because of their sinful flesh (Rom 5:12, 6:6; 7:19-23; Gal 5:17, 19; Col 3:9), they still retain the image of God and the ability to function intellectually and volitionally (Gen 9:6; 1 Cor 11:7; Jam 3:9). This means that mankind is able, in a limited way, to understand God's general and special revelation, and to respond volitionally if they choose (Psa 19:1-2; Rom 1:18-32). Dr. Steven R. Cook   [1] For example, the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union teaches that God the Son added to Himself humanity, forever uniting His divine nature with a perfect sinless human nature, becoming the God-Man (John 1:1, 14, 18; 20:28; Col 2:9; Heb 1:8). He is eternal God (Isa 9:6; John 8:56-58; 17:5), yet He was born of a woman in time and space (Isa 7:14; Luke 1:30-35; Gal 4:4). As God, He is omniscient (Psa 139:1-6), but as a boy, He grew in knowledge (Luke 2:52). As God, He created the universe (Gen 1:1; John 1:3; Col 1:15-16), but as man, He was subject to weakness (Matt 4:2; John 4:6; 19:28). God is immortal and cannot die (1 Tim 1:17; 6:16), but as a human, Jesus could die (Matt 16:21; Rom 5:8). There were times that Jesus operated from His divine nature (Mark 2:5-12; John 8:56-58; 10:30-33), and other times from His human nature (Matt 4:2; Luke 8:22-23; John 19:28). These two natures seem incompatible, yet they cohere within Jesus. [2] Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Three: Sin, Salvation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2004), 137. [3] Lewis S. Chafer, “Biblical Theism Divine Decrees” Bibliotheca Sacra, 96 (1939): 268. [4] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 11. [5] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 359. [6] E. McChesney, “Sovereignty of God,” ed. Merrill F. Unger and R.K. Harrison, The New Unger's Bible Dictionary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988).

The post Original Sin: The Pelagians, Part 2 appeared first on Grace Church Greeley.

The post Original Sin: The Pelagians appeared first on Grace Church Greeley.

This week Dr. Jenkins begins what will be a long and involved discussion of the Pelagian controversy. This touches more than just a British monk, but questions of the soul, freewill, predestination, inherited guilt and corruption, and difference between Greek East and Latin West. Orthodox Education Conference: https://tinyurl.com/OrthodoxEducation A Perilous Realm: http://tinyurl.com/DragonsAngelsSaints

Dr. Kurt Jaros is back to discuss the historic development of Semi-Pelagianism and how that impacts our discussions on Soteriology.   For more about Kurt and his work, go to: https://veracityhill.com/   To SUPPORT this broadcast, please click here: https://soteriology101.com/support/   Subscribe to the Soteriology 101 Newsletter here: www.soteriology101.com/newsletter   Is Calvinism all Leighton talks about? https://soteriology101.com/2017/09/22/is-calvinism-all-you-talk-about/   DOWNLOAD OUR APP: LINK FOR ANDROIDS: https://play.google.com/store/apps/de... LINK FOR APPLE: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/soterio...   Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software development needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!!   To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip,” please click here: https://soteriology101.com/shop/   To listen to the audio only, be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, or one of the other podcast players found here: https://soteriology101.com/home/   For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism), please visit www.soteriology101.com   Dr. Flowers' book, “The Potter's Promise,” can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/Potters-Promis...   Dr. Flowers' book, “God's Provision for All” can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Provision...   To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: https://m.facebook.com/groups/1806702...   For updates and news, follow us at:  www.facebook/Soteriology101   Or @soteriology101 on Twitter   Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!   To learn more about other ministries and teachings from Dr. Flowers, go here: https://soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...   To become a Patreon supporter or make a one-time donation: https://soteriology101.com/support/   #LeightonFlowers #Calvinism #Theology

In episode 7, Teresa Morris and Will Wright discuss how virtue is the mean between excess and deficiency. They talk about how virtue relates to spiritual life. Teresa explains Plato's analogy of the Cave, Mumford and Sons, G.K. Chesterton, and Dr. Peter Kreeft are brought up. This conversation has a few tangents, but all of them are worthwhile. Give it a listen! Listen to episode 7 and then join us as a free or paid subscriber here at https://gooddistinctions.com/Rough TRANSCRIPT of the Video:Will Wright:Welcome back to Good Distinctions. I'm Will Wright.Teresa Morris:and I'm Teresa Morris.Will Wright:And good distinctions are...Teresa Morris:the spice of life.Will Wright:So today, Teresa, we are talking about virtue. I'm glad that you're with me because I don't have a lot of it. I'm working on it, but I would like to grow in virtue. So hopefully this conversation will be helpful to everyone that's watching. So let's dive right into it. First of all, let's define what is a virtue.Teresa Morris:Hmm. I wish the answer was as simple as just being able to give what is a particular virtue or what is the overall definition of virtue. I will give the definition of virtue that I tend to think is maybe the best one. And then perhaps we can kind of talk about why people have different opinions on why that may or may not be a good definition. So virtue was initially proposed by Aristotle and Aristotle essentially said that virtue is a habit of excellence and that it's a mean between two extremes of excess and deficiency. So his proposal was that people should be trying to live a virtuous life and where virtue falls, if you think about kind of like a line, virtue falls right in the middle. and you want to be oriented towards this kind of middle ground and you're not trying to fall to one of the other sides of excess or deficiency. So you don't want to be too much of something but you also don't want to be lacking in something or deficient in something. So virtue is kind of that middle ground of excellence that we're trying to cultivate.Will Wright:So we could say in Medio stat Virtus, which is Latin. I don't know why I know the phrase in Latin. Aristotle spoke Greek. Anyway, it means in the middle stands the virtue, right? And so that's what we're getting at. I think it's hilarious when asking a philosopher anything because you're gonna get a very philosophical answer. No, it was very beautiful. And I'm excited to unpack that. I would just like to offer. I guess the theological answer would be what's in the catechism, right? So the virtue is a habitual and firm disposition to the good.So I'm not thrilled with that definition as like the end all be all. I don't think it includes exactly what you mentioned of excellence as being the mean between excess and deficiency. But I think we should start by unpacking that real quick. So It's habitual, which means it's a habit.It's something that we have to do. And it's something that we have to habituate and make part of our routine, something that we need to practice. Later, I think we'll definitely talk about the difference between the theological virtues and the cardinal virtues and moral virtues, because there's a huge distinction to be made there. But putting a pin in that, habitual. So it needs to be habitual, but it also needs to be firm. Right, it's not wishy washy. You can't just... You know, you're walking down the road and you see a kid walking towards the street and there's a car coming and you go and you reach out your hand half-heartedly, grab the back of their shirt and say, hey, don't do that. That doesn't make you a brave person. That doesn't make you courageous. That makes you basic borderline minimum human.Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:You're not a monster.Teresa Morris:Yeah, right.Will Wright:So good for you. You know, everybody's, well, I didn't kill anybody. Like that's not a very good metric for whether you're a good person or not. But anyway, so it needs to be firm. It needs to be something that you practice every day. You wake up and you say, I'm gonna be courageous today. If there's an opportunity where I need to practice courage, I'm going to. And then disposition, so disposing ourselves towards the good, which ultimately is God, and being in accordance with natural law and the eternal law.Teresa Morris:Yeah, I think something that is is helpful about the concept of virtue is, you know, what you're saying is that it's a habit. It's a really hopeful view of morality. It's a really hopeful view of building character because it's saying that we have the capacity to improve upon ourselves. So sometimes people are like, well, I'm just not built that way. Or I'm just like not a good person. Or I'm not given when other people are given, which may or may not be true, right? Like we're all given different gifts. We're all given different upbringings that can dispose us to different virtues or not. but the proposal that virtue is a habit inherent in that idea is that you have this capacity to work on yourself and build up this habit. So it's not something that you're just gonna wake up and you're like yeah today I'm gonna be courageous and you're just gonna automatically be that way. It takes practice and it's something that requires intentionality and eventually it becomes our natural mode of being. So spoiler alert for Nicomachean ethics at the end of Nicomachean ethics, Aristotle is asking this question of like, well, how do we even get here, right? That if we can say, here's this list of virtues that we have determined are important to strive for. How do we get from point A to point B? Point A saying, I see that this is a good thing. Point B being this is integrated into my life. And what he says is you have to surround yourself with virtuous people and learn through imitations. So if I find in myself a lack of something where I'm like, I just wish that I was more honest, or I wish that I was more courageous, or I wish I understood chastity better. It's not that I have to white-knuckle my life and just force myself into those things.Will Wright:Hmm.Teresa Morris:What I should do is I should say, who do I know that lives these well. Who do I know who's really courageous? Who do I know who's really honest? Who do I know who lives chastity beautifully? And I look at how they're living and I just kind of imitate them. It's kind of like how children learn, right? It's like when we're teaching children how to speak, we're like, say, da-da, and then we're trying to get them to imitate it. That's how humans just naturally learn is we're given a model for something and we kind of like act it out until we can do that. So It's, I love the concept of building virtue as a habit because it connects us to community and it says you're not supposed to do this on your own. This idea of becoming a good person isn't solitary. You're not doing this in isolation. You do this by imitating the people around you. And it takes time because habits take time to build and that's okay. It's not something that we should feel discouraged about which I think sometimes in ethics or in just the process of becoming a good person. it's easy to get discouraged because it's like, oh my gosh, I failed again. I woke up and I made this decision to be this way and I missed the mark and virtue ethic says that's okay. Habits take time to build just like anything.Will Wright:And we will mess up. And it's not just about aiming for the good, it's about the reality that God is the greatest good and that we're in a relationship with Him. And so, when we encounter good, whether it's in ourselves or in someone else, we're encountering the spark of the divine, we're encountering the image of God in that. And so, it's not... Like you say, it's not just picking ourselves up by our bootstraps and white-knuckling it. We're not Pelagians. The Pelagian heresy is that we can will ourselves to heaven, that we don't need grace. Well, that's a huge lie. Of course we need grace. But grace builds on nature. It perfects nature, as St. Thomas says. So if that's true, and it is, then by surrounding ourselves with good people, good friends and allowing God to show us to those people. Right? Saying like, Lord, I need better friends. Like lead me to them.Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:And then allowing him to sort of put these people in our lives. At least that's been my experiences. I have these people come into my life that I never would have gone out of my way to find. And I mean, even I know we talked about this in Episode One, but like how I met, how I found myself moving from North Carolina to Phoenix was very unexpected. Well, now I know all these wonderful people. And I have a bunch of wonderful friends in North Carolina as well. And it's just beautiful. The Lord has led me through this different pathway and journey. And I know these people have made me better. But in the past, when I've had some friends who didn't always live up to virtue, didn't always have the same orientation as me towards the good and towards what is true and beautiful, I felt myself sliding backwards because I really believe that we can't be stagnant. There is no stagnation. We're either moving forward or we're moving backwards. And that's just a function of the fact that we're alive and in time. Right.Teresa Morris:Right.Will Wright:Right, the good, the virtue. So, right, if we have good friends, they will lift us up, which is what you were saying. And I think there's... lot to be said about grace building on nature and allowing God into that mix. So it's not all or nothing. I think that's kind of what I wanted to get at is for anyone listening who's thinking, okay, well, it's a habit that I need to firmly dispose myself towards. So it seems like I need to put forth effort. But then you're saying, well, it's not something that you just white-knuckle. Well, okay, then how do I do it?Well, I think it's this mystery of synergy. Between God acting and giving us grace and us cooperating and responding to that grace.Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm, definitely. And I really like what you said about how the people that you surround yourself with really affect us and that. one of the prayers that we can pray is, Lord, give me people in my life who are going to aid in my flourishing because he wants that for us. And that flourishing is something that was really important for the Greeks, this concept of eudaimonia, which is virtue is oriented towards that, that it's not existing for its own sake, it's not even existing for this consequence in society, it's existing for our own flourishing. And... that we do become like the people we surround ourselves with. Even in social psychology, people talk about how you become like the five people you spend the most amount of time with, which is why it really matters who you choose as friends. It matters who you choose to marry because you're going to become like those people. It's why I love teaching because I want to be like my students. I think that they're wonderful and I want to be more like them for the most part. And so we can't let ourselves be unaffected by the people that we are surrounded by and so that it's possible to change and to become like the people that were surrounded by. IWill Wright:It reminds me that there's a narrative to our lives that God is writing ultimately. And then there's a meta-narrative that we all fit into. There's one true story. One of my friends is a filmmaker and he talks about this a lot, that all good stories exist within the one true story, the story that God is writing, this meta-narrative, which is exactly the opposite of postmodernism. that there actually is meaning and that we can plug ourselves into that. But I've also heard, especially those who follow Carl Jung, especially like Jordan Peterson, for example, talks a lot about how we play this set of games over time. And it's really a rehearsing of behaviors to play the meta game or the meta narrative. And that's how, like what you were talking about with the kids watching. other people and figuring out how to play the game, so to speak. And he doesn't mean that in a cynical way. It's just how do I navigate my life? How do I navigate interpersonal relationships with others in an effective way where I will be flourishing?Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:And that idea of you eudaenomia that you brought up, would it be would it be acceptable in your mind to equate that? And I've made this I'll go ahead and say I've made this case. So feel free to push back. that eudaenomia, that true real blessedness, that true lasting happiness is synonymous with what Jesus is talking about in the Beatitudes.Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm. I would say so. And I think ultimately that concept, I mean like everything is fulfilled in the beatific vision, right? That like all of these ideas of happiness, flourishing, excellence are ultimately fulfilled in our experience of an encounter with Christ. And that helps us then having this sense of, oh, this is the ultimate vision for our lives. This is where ultimate fulfillment is coming from. Helps us then. orient all our other actions towards that type of excellence to say like this is this is the primary goal and So it helps order all those other things. So I would say that the Beatitudes are an orientation towards virtue and excellence because it's not just Here's here are the things that you can't do. It's not just a list of behaviors It's an orientation towards goodness and an orientation towards excellence. And I think that's what You can say this about virtue from a philosophical sense, or you could say this about virtue in a theological sense, which I think could be attributed to the Beatitudes, like you're saying, that it's not this question of what should I do, which can be a really stark view of doing ethics or just living your life, of what should I do or what should I avoid? And here's this list of things that I can and can't do, but it's who do I want to be? What type of person do I want to be?Will Wright:Hmm.Teresa Morris:And I think that's what. eudaenomia offers, I think that's what the Beatitudes offers, it's this proposal for what type of person do you want to be and it's an orientation of the heart and it's an integrated vision of how to act. It's not just I'm going to will this thing and just you know do this because I feel like I have to but it's a movement of the heart towards something good and something excellent.Will Wright:Dr. Peter Kreeft has a brilliant lecture on this, where he talks about the Beatitudes and he brings up the concept of eudaenomia, but he also brings up GK Chesterton's biography of St. Francis of Assisi. And he says that it's the line about coming out of the cave, walking on your hands, seeing the world hanging upside down and understanding dependence when we know the maker's hand, comes from an encounter with God in which we turn all of our expectations on our on its head, which is really what Jesus is saying in the Beatitudes. These are these are nuts, really. first look at them they go, what are you talking about, blessed are to the poor in spirit? I don't want to be poor in spirit, I want to be rich in spirit.Teresa Morris:Right.Will Wright:But what it's saying is no you need to be humble, you need to empty yourself in order to be filled with God. And then he walks through Peter Crave walks through the rest of the Beatitudes and shows how it's an inversion of a lot of the things that we think we want, like conquestTeresa Morris:Right.Will Wright:of nature, freedom from pain,Teresa Morris:Yeah.Will Wright:et cetera. So it's really fascinating. Incidentally,Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:Mumford and Sons the Cave is, you know, that exact line from the Chesterton biography of St. Francis of Assisi, and it's awesome. So go listen to the Cave, everyone.Teresa Morris:it's such a good song. I also thought for the longest time before I read that work by GK Chesterton, that he was talking about Plato's cave, which is my heathen philosophical viewpoint of the world,Will Wright:HaTeresa Morris:Which you can kind of say that it's both, but it really is much more the sense of Christ turns everything upside down and has, you know, this proposal of paradox for the way that Christians should live their life.Will Wright:But why couldn't it be Plato's cave?Teresa Morris:It could be. It can be both, I think. I think they're really, yeah, I mean, you walk out of the cave and you're shocked at how the world looks. You're like, oh my gosh, all these things that I thought were just shadow, like there's actually a real flower. There's a real this. And it feels like the world is upside down because it's not shadow, it's real.Will Wright:Alright, professor, I think it's time. I think we need to take the time rather to explain the cave analogy. Just a little bit, just a little bit, because people listening, I'm sure not everyone has been exposed to this. Not everybody's read the Republic. So what have you got?Teresa Morris:Okay, yeah, so there's this famous analogy in Plato's Republic where the Plato's Republic is trying to determine what it means to be a just person and it's doing that by giving this analogy of what it means to have a just city and a just city is this analogy for a person and in that he talks about uh he gives this analogy of what it means to to live a good life and what it looks like to finally understand what a good life is and to experience it. So that everyone is born into this cave and they're facing the back wall of the cave. So you're just looking at this blank wall and you're in chains and the sun is behind you on the outside of the cave. So everything that you're seeing is just a shadow. So like a dog walks by and you see a shadow of a dog or a tree is growing, you see a shadow of a tree. A bird flies by, you see a shadow of a bird. And that's what you think the world is, because that's all you're ever exposed to. And then at a certain point, someone breaks out and they leave the cave and they go outside and the sun is illuminating everything and they realize, oh my gosh, this thing that I thought was a dog, this shadow is actually a dog, this tree is actually a tree and this bird is actually a bird. And you're experiencing everything in reality and it's so much better and so much more intense than what the shadows were. And that's kind of the experience of doing philosophy is your... experiencing the really real. And so then that person goes back into the cave and they're trying to tell everyone about it and they're like, oh my gosh it's so much better out there, I promise. And you would think everyone would be like, yeah, that sounds great. Let's go. And what they actually do is they say, no, you're crazy. I don't actually want to experience that. And they stay in the cave and they actually end up killing the philosopher. So it's really not a great look for philosophers because it's sort of a sad ending. But it's this idea that reality is worth experiencing, that truth is worth experiencing and encountering, even if you're kind of put to death for it, that it's worth standing for truth, even if everyone around you doesn't think that that's worthwhile. So in the song, the reason when I was first listening to Mumford was actually my freshman year of college when I was first studying philosophy and I heard that song and I was like, this is Plato's cave. It's this experience of walking out of this cave and the world is opposite of what you thought it was. It's so different than what you had thought and it's so much better. than what you had ever dreamed it could be. And that's, I think, life of virtue and truth that can be experienced just through kind of morality and philosophy, but even more so, exponentially more so, is that experience of a life with Christ, where all of these natural inclinations or desires that I have that I could make an argument for justifying and saying, well, I can reason my way to that, this is how I should act. Christ says, sure, but I'm actually going to propose something that might maybe even seem unreasonable to you. That is really crazy. That is, you know, you should totally humble yourself and you, you know, so all these things Christ proposes is this world flipped upside down.Will Wright:Well, and how prophetic in a sense when I'd never thought about it in this context, but Jesus is wisdom incarnate. He is the word. He is the logo. So of course he was put to death, right?Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:He is like, he's coming into the cave and saying, yeah, all those shadows aren't real. Let's have the real thing, which I think you're reading of the cave. The song is very much in line with what St. Augustine would have thought. I mean, he was a big fan of Plato. He saw the world of forms as heaven as being in the mind of God and So How does that this might be a little bit tangential, but I think it's worthwhile How does that transition from that transcendence of Plato to the more eminent philosophy of Aristotle? How do you get from Plato who's the teacher to Aristotle who's the student because there's usually In the sense that you have that famous painting of Plato pointing up and Aristotle pointing down. So what's that about?Teresa Morris:Yeah, I think that Aristotle, you know, Aristotle kind of rejected this concept of the forms that were just participating in these ultimates that Plato really was proposing. And that I think upon an initial reading, in a lot of ways can sound like Christianity in some senses, which is why I think Augustine really took to that. Aristotle was a bit more focused on what does this mean for human behavior. and that he saw a tension between a proposal of absolutes and forms, and that there's a bit of a disconnect between saying here's just these objectives that we're looking at, and he was struggling to find the in-between, this kind of virtuous mean between well you can say that you know there's a there's an objective virtue or there's objective goodness, but what that looks like for an individual person might be different from person to person. So for example, he thought that there was a truth in saying, there's objective goodness, there's objective beauty, but the way that you and I are going to engage with those things is going to be different. So what it looks like for you to be courageous, we can say courageous or being courageous is a mean between. the excess of recklessness and the deficiency of cowardice. But how that's lived out in my life and your life might be different or how you might be courageous in a particular situation is going to need to be different from me. So an example of this is like, if I need to talk to, if I need to be courageous to a boss and I need to stand up for myself in a work setting, what courage might look like for me is going to be different than what it would look like for you in a work setting standing up to a boss. So it might be courageous for me to write an email standing up for myself, whereas for you, that might not be courageous. The courageous thing would be to walk into someone's office and have a conversation. So AristotleWill Wright:Hmm.Teresa Morris:saw more of a nuance, whereas Plato was much more hard-lined in these forms and were just participating in these objectives. And Aristotle kind of saw that there was a difference in how those things were lived out from person to person. So I think his sense of human behavior. and looking at individual human behavior and the cultivation of virtue in the individual, kind of accounted for, yeah, the distinct way that people can live their lives in accordance with these objective truths.Will Wright:which we would see as being in accordance with the natural law, which is our participation in the eternal law in reality as it is. SoTeresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:I don't, I don't see a huge gap in retrospect. Like obviously if you're thinking through it as Aristotle, without the light of Christ to fill in the gaps.Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:I mean, I could see the, the world of forms, for example, as being in the mind of God, butTeresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:God is simple, like divine simplicity, that he doesn't have parts and pieces and attributes. He is. Period. Right? He is, He exists as essence is existence. So if that's the case, then our participation in those perfections is a participation in reality as God made it. And ultimately in him, because in him, we live and move and have our being. So I think ultimately there their views are reconcilable, at least in my mind, to a large extent, because they show us that there is a standard, there is an objective reality. But then, I don't know, I'm kinda like, I'm thinking through this as we go, but it seems like the way that you explained Aristotle seems very subjective or relativistic. And I know that that's not true. So how would you respond to somebody who maybe is moral relativist at heart, who's who hears what you say and say, see, it's different, it's completely different. So stop trying to compare me to you and there is no standard.Teresa Morris:Yeah.Will Wright:So how would you respond to that?Teresa Morris:Yeah, I would say that there's a difference between when we're talking about goodness in a metaphysical sense, which I think you could say that Plato is kind of, when he's talking about the forms, he's kind of talking more about metaphysics and, you know, what is goodness itself, whereas Aristotle is focused on the cultivation of goodness within a person and that he thinks those two things are distinct and that they're not opposed to each other, but what it looks like to choose the good in terms of action is different than what goodness is. in this metaphysical sense. So he does think that virtue is more than just fulfilling certain roles, or it's just doing what I personally think is good. He does think that it's the acquiescence of a person towards something objective, that there is something outside of myself that I'm trying to achieve. I'm trying to be. courageous or I'm trying to be honest or whatever. And it's something beyond myself that I'm trying to then orient myself towards. So he doesn't think that the individual gets to decide what the virtue is, but that the individual gets to decide how to get there. And so he is in no way saying that society should be composed of individuals who get to determine. what is good or what virtue is because the consequence of that is just moral and coherence in societyWill Wright:Hmm.Teresa Morris:that we can't have that and Aristotle is not proposing that. But what he is proposing is that it's not insignificant how an individual's heart and will is formed to be a good person in society. That it really does matter who the individuals are. It's not just follow these set of rules. that it's a transformation of the person. So in that sense, it's subjective because it's a subjective way of living out these objective virtues. But it's not subjective or relative in the sense that you get to determine what that is. It's just that for you, how you're living it out is subjective because you personally have free will and you personally have to choose it.Will Wright:because it pertains to you as the subject. So what's the difference between subjective and relative? Because I feel like these are often conflated,Teresa Morris:they are.Will Wright:usually by people who are not moral relativists, usually people who say there is only objective truth.Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:And I met more than one person who claims this. And at first I thought to myself, well, that's absurd. Of course there's subjective truth. But then as we got talking more, I was more and more confused and I wasn't sure of myself and I was like, well, maybe it is just objective truth, but it's objective for you. Like preferences, for example, like is it true that I like pepperoni and bacon pizza? Yes. Is it true that is the only pizza to like? No. So it doesn't matter because for me, I love pepperoni and bacon pizza. And so that seems subjective in that I, the subject like this certain type of pizza. But if somebody else is looking at that and whether they know it or not, if they make that claim, you know, Will likes pepperoni and bacon pizzaObjectively, are they correct? Yes.Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:So that seems like an objective truth.Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:So I thought that was a pretty darn good argument. I didn't have a response to it. So I'd love to know.Teresa Morris:Yeah.Will Wright:I'm not a philosopher. I'm not an ethicist. So...Teresa Morris:Yeah,Will Wright:what do you say?Teresa Morris:I think that we use the term objective truth way too freely. And I think that there are objective truths and personal preferences being true in the moment isn't an objective truth. We can say right now it is objectively true. that you like your pizza however you like it. But that's not an objective truth because objective truth is unchanging. SoWill Wright:Hmm.Teresa Morris:something that is in this moment objectively true isn't an objective truth because that could change. Whereas objective truths are unchanging. So I think weWill Wright:I love that.Teresa Morris:Use that term way too freely. And I think that if we just say, we're going to reserve the term objective truth for things that are unchanging, it actually frees us to then distinguish between things that are. subjective and they can be subjectively true and something can be true and not be an objective truth. So I think that the difference between, so I think that's important. And then the difference between subjective versus relative. Subjective just means it pertains to the subject. So things that pertain to the subject can change, right? My preferences can change. But that's different than saying something is relative. Something is relative just means like It's just relative to the person and there's nothing objective that will ever be responded to. So it's just what's true for you and that's different than what's true for me or what you think is good is fine. You know, what makes you happy or what you think is beautiful or whatever is totally different. It's relative. We don't need to agree. There's no common ground. When we're talking about subjective, I really think that when we speak about the subject, it's a really sacred thing. And this is the philosophy of personalists, the philosophy of JP2. which is that the subject matters, and the subject really matters to God, that it's not just, I'm just an iteration of a human, and I just amWill Wright:Hmm.Teresa Morris:an iteration of flesh and blood, and I'm just equally loved and here I am existing, it's that God uniquely loves each of us as subjects. And Augustine actually, I think in some ways, is the first personalist in this sense because he talks about the subjective nature of the mind. that when we recognize in ourselves a desire to know other things, it leads us towards something objective, right? That I crave beauty or I crave truth, and that leads me to something objective. I go towards something else. But when the mind begins to think of itself, it's already arrived at the answer. So there's something subjective there. Nothing else can touch my mind. It's my own. And so the subject just refers to the person, the subject. and the subject can encounter something objective. The subject could choose to be relative, but those two things are totally distinct. That relative is more a concept, if you would think of like relative in relation to other people, thatWill Wright:Hmm.Teresa Morris:it's just something I think about in terms of society. Things are relative, we can't agree on anything, and there's no common ground, there's no foundation, where a subject is personal. It's what is my experience. of being oriented towards objective truths.Will Wright:I think a lot of the times we use the term relative in directly when we're talking about morality, that it's moral relativism. So one of the things that you mentioned was that objective truth doesn't change ever. I love that, it's very helpful. So how does that square up? And again, maybe this is tangential to our virtue conversation, but I think, I like it, we're gonna keep going. So how does that square up with like scientific truths? things that are observable in nature. For example, the acceleration due to gravity is such here on earth because of the mass of the earth and yada, right?Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:If we go to a different planet, gravity is gonna be a little different.Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:But those are still scientifically observable things if the mass, and really what we're saying is that the force exerted because of mass and the electromagnetic. field and all the other things that go into the, I am not a scientist, so I'm way out of my depth here, but my understanding is that the coefficients related to physics exist in such a way as to hold all things together here, but that in some far-flung part of the universe, those coefficients might be totally different, and they might even change. So it seems like a lot of the things that we observe in nature are subject to change. And of course they are because of like entropy and matter being created, not created, it's neither created nor destroyed, but it's changed. So with all of that change, of course there's gonna be a change in composition and like eventually everything's gonna, I guess explode, I don't know, or just drift further apart and go and be frozen. There's all kinds of different theories, but how do we square objective truth when we're not talking about morality with something like a scientific fact because it seems like a lot of people today being scientific See, you know all these things that we learn by science that's truth that's fact But it based on what you said about objective reality not changing that seems to not mesh up at all if that makes senseTeresa Morris:Hmm. I guess I just would not, maybe this is too simple or reductionistic of an answer, but I just don't have a problem in saying that scientific facts don't need to be categorized as objective truths. And I think it goes back to, I really tend to lean towards saying something is objectively true versus an objective truth. And I just think that perhaps they're just far fewer objective truths than maybe we think that there are. And perhaps all of those things just are things that are true in relation to God, right? That like who he is and who we are in front of him. I am a created being. That's an objective truth. That's never going to change. I am loved by my creator. That's an objective truth. That's never going to change. My creator is love itself. That's never going to change. So I think that objective truths have to do more with the nature of God and who we are in relation to him, whereas scientific facts, we can say, are facts that are currently objectively true. And that leaves room for those things to change. And I think that the tendency to identify those as objective truths is a product of the enlightenment, that the enlightenment really pushes us to only trust things that are proven and to say that something that is proven is an objective truth. And I think you can say, yeah, I can prove that this is objectively true, but that might not be true in 200 years, or it might not be true on Mars. And we can alter those things, right? What has been considered true in science 500 years ago, we're like, oh, shoot, that's not actually true. Or it's true in one circumstance and not in another. Or even just saying, you know, 50 years ago, humans can't survive on Mars. That was an objective truth. And that is going to change where it will be true to say that humans can survive on Mars. And so there's that area of scientific fact. I just don't think that we need to say that those are objective truths. I think we can say some things are objectively true and that leaves room for that to change, but we don't need to make them harden fast eternal truths.Will Wright:No, absolutely. And the reason I brought it up is because I have met so many people who are so entrenched in scientific thought, that they think there really is no other source of truth,Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:which is perhaps a product of the Enlightenment. I think it's even further back than that. But it seems like there's this deep sort of abiding sense that philosophy doesn't matter. And especially metaphysics. I mean, I've spoken to people who I went to college with, for example, who call themselves moral relativists, accept that label. One has a PhD in public health, which I think, you know, like, it would be really important for you to understand philosophy or metaphysics, but he rejects metaphysics. Like he said that in a conversation one day, he said, I don't believe that metaphysics exists.Teresa Morris:HmmWill Wright:I said, well, I don't believe that you exist. Conversation over. No, just kidding. No,Teresa Morris:This is all fakeWill Wright:it was just really hard to wrap my head around that because if we don't have good first principles, if we don't have good philosophical groundings, then there's gonna be things that we see in science where science just becomes completely relative. And I will use thatTeresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:word relative because it says, well, this is what I think. And so I'm just sort of gonna manifest the simulation of that. It'sTeresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:like looking at the wall of the cave and saying there's the reality and the shadows. So these things, like you said, that were created beings that were loved by our creator, those are unchangingTeresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:objective facts. The fact that I'm a man and you're a woman, for example, never going to change. We can try to change it. We can scientifically make all these things. This is why I think that the transgender ideology is so insidious. Is not because. of individual people sort of trying to hoodwink someone. I don't think that's the case at all. I think that they've lost the mooring of philosophy so long ago, I guess not that long ago, 10 years maybe, five, 10 years. But without that philosophical foundation, what's to stop somebody from saying, well, I feel like this, so I'm going to be it. And so I have a lot of compassion for that. I don't have a lot of compassion when it comes to some of the practical concerns that come from, especially related to children, but also adults when it comes to cross-sex hormones and genital mutilation and all these other horrible things that are happening, I think that's inexcusable. But I wonder, because I think this all pertains when we talk about virtue is, how do we approach something like that and push back in a way that's not horribly rude. We don't want to be rude, right? But we also can't back down from something that's important because I've heard a lot of people put it this way. I've heard a lot of people say, well, why do you care so much? You know, it's not it's not you. So what does it matter? And then the other person generally will respond in some iteration of, well, because I care about truth. I just feel like there's something seriously missing from that conversation. There's a huge disconnect between the two.Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:So anyway, we're probably gonna get this video pulled off of YouTube, but continue.Teresa Morris:Yeah, well I think that the one of the big pieces that's missing from all of these conversations, whether it's a conversation about morality or scientific advancement or any type of medical intervention or whatever, or just the lack of virtue in general in society, is that we've lost a sense of looking to the telos of a thing. So we have removed this teleological view of the world, which is this question of what is something made for? What is it oriented towards? And when we take that away, then really you do provide this permission to do whatever you want, because you're not oriented towards anything, and you don't know what you're made for. So if we are able to return to this teleological vision of humanity, where we recognize where we are. So even just saying, you know, here we are in 2023, what has worked for morality in the past isn't going to necessarily work today. Like it is okay to say we do need a new vision for how to integrate these objective truths. But the truth of what it means to be human has not changed and what human beings are oriented towards has not changed. But I think we've really lost that. And I thinkWill Wright:Hmm.Teresa Morris:I think that was something that the Enlightenment really just rejected was this sense of teleology and you know we're not really oriented towards anything so as long as I can prove that it exists in this moment then that's all that really matters. So this question of what is the goal and what is the purpose of every human being that exists and even to go further and to say that there is a goal and a purpose of every person because some people don't even believe that. And so asking that question first and foremost. And then when it comes to these questions of, you know, medical interventions and transitioning and whatnot, I think it's, you know, some people really are, they really care about truth and the integration of truth in society and the capacity for society to take truth seriously, even just to, you know, be able to put something in front of another person and trust that they're gonna acknowledge that that's there, right, that we've kind of lost this sense of, are we even looking at the same thing? ItWill Wright:Yeah.Teresa Morris:seems like we're not even able to acknowledge that. And that's an important, that's really important to return to a society that can acknowledge that truth exists and that we can agree on it. But also I think perhaps the part that's missing that I think this concept of virtue gives is this sense of, yeah, I care about truth, but I care about my fellow man because we belong to one another. That I'm not an isolated person, I'm made for community, I'm made for relationship. So what is causing an ache in another person, this question of, you know, Who am I? Right? Which is thisWill Wright:Hmm. Fundamental.Teresa Morris:any struggle, right? Yeah, that all of us have this question of gosh, who am I? Am I made for something? What am I made for? I want to know it. And there are all these horrible answers that society gives of, oh, well, maybe if you change this, you'll have this answer and you'll know who you are then. And so I, yes, I care about truth, but I think the deeper response is I really care about the integration of truth in the hearts of my fellow man.Will Wright:Hmm.Teresa Morris:And I want them to have an answer to this question of who am I and an answer to these struggles. And there is an answer, but what's being proposed to them is so flawed. And if we're able to say, actually this answer is present in your being, thatWill Wright:Hmm.Teresa Morris:it's ingrained in your being, you don't need to alter who you are to find this answer that it's already ingrained in your existence. which is a return to metaphysics, I think we would maybe get farther in society because just saying we care about truth, that's good, but it doesn't then look to, okay, but there's still all these people struggling to integrate it. So I think that when we really care about truth, we're also caring about the people who are hearing the truth and able to integrate it into their lives.Will Wright:Well, in a postmodern world where words only have meaning in relation to the words around them, to say, well, I care about what's true, you can have so many providers, whether it's through cowardice or through actually believing this stuff, to say, well, when I have a patient come to me who says that they are actually in point of fact, a man, even though they are biologically a woman, I have to affirm that that's truth. That's their truth. That's what they believe. And so I take them at their word. Now, nowhere in medicine or psychology since its inception have we ever accepted only what the patient says as the criteria for diagnosis, but leaving that aside, and that's a huge problem, but leaving that aside, it's so easy to sort of play this word game. So I think everything you say, I'd absolutely... excuse the pun, I would affirm that. But how do we reintroduce metaphysics into the conversation? Cause I think that's the crux of what you're saying. And I agree. That's what's missing is how do we help people see that there is an objective reality and that things do have an ontological basis in the world. I guess I should, okay, what's ontology? Let's start there. WhatTeresa Morris:Yeah.Will Wright:is an ontological reality? Ontology is one of my favorite words and it's like a will write drinking game with my friends.Teresa Morris:How many? Take a shot every time. Yeah, ontology refers to being. So an ontological view of the world is referring to the being of things. And so the fact that humans are a different type of being than God is, I have a different ontology.Will Wright:and fun words like quiddity.Teresa Morris:so, look at you.Will Wright:I love, I love, I love scholastic terminology. It's fun. Just means..Teresa Morris:It is fun.Will Wright:.. whatness, right? Like what is it? Anyway.Teresa Morris:Yep.Will Wright:Yeah. Super important though. It's cause if we don't know what a thing is, how can we even talk about it? So in a world where the majority, not even the majority, I won't make that claim where a lot of people are rejecting philosophical principles and metaphysics. How can we talk about anything in an intelligent way? So anyway, sorry for that digression, so going back to that first question I asked, how do we reinsert metaphysics back into the conversation in an intelligible way?Teresa Morris:Yeah. Well, what's interesting is like I kind of think metaphysics is sneaking into Social consciousness a little bit if you look at this movement of spirituality You know even just like new age things people are recognizing that there's something beyond the physical going on Even though their answer to that, you know, like astrology or whatever is incorrect There is this desire that people are recognizing in themselves that they're more than just the physical world and that there's something to being human beyond just my physical reality. And I think that's a really beautiful and a really hopeful thing that people are kind of getting into these, really spiritual views of the world. Even if you just look at psychology, psychology is so big right now on how the body retains memories of our experiences. There's something metaphysical to that. where there's something beyond what I'm currently experiencing that my body might be remembering and physically encountering that isn't actually happening to me right now. That's a crazy proposal, but that's in a lot of modern psychology, which just brings us back to this idea that there's something beyond myself. There's something beyond just the fact that I have a body. So I think that... that desire to understand the world in a metaphysical sense, that desire to know that there's something beyond just this is already really present in social consciousness. And I think that's very hopeful. So I think taking that desire, helping people name what that is, right? It's not just like, oh, I want to be able to predict my life three months from now, or I think it's fun to ask people what sign you are. but that there's actually a true desire where that's coming from and saying, name that desire. What is it? What are you really seeking? And once people can name it, then we can kind of start proposing a true response to it. But I think that metaphysics, that view of reality is already sneaking back in. I think you can only stay stuck in a purely materialistic viewpoint for so long before the human... gets tired of it and says, I know there's something more. And so that knowledge and that seeking is already present. And I think that we can just say, okay, yeah, cool. That's great. You're there. You're recognizing this desire. Let's name that and let's orient ourselves to perhaps a more fulfilling answer.Will Wright:Well, even the new atheists who were so popular in the late 90s, early 2000s, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, have gone completely relativistic at this point. I mean, Richard Dawkins being a quite adept biologist, a horrible philosopher. I mean, the God delusion is full of ridiculous things.Teresa Morris:Oh yeah, it's so bad.Will Wright:My favorite one in that is when he says that, I mean, because I mentioned divine simplicity earlier. He gets God completely wrong because he says, look at all the biodiversity. So God must be the most complex being there is. And it's like, no, you're going the wrong way, homie. You go the other direction. He's the most simple being. And that's just basic metaphysics, but he can't wrap his head around it. But now a lot of the things he's putting out there are just completely relativistic. And so I think you're dead right on that. Like you can't live in that materialist naturalist view without doing severe harm to your mind. And I mean that in a very real sense, I mean that literally. Because if we look, like you were saying with the psychological research recently, there's been a lot of work in neuroscience towards what is consciousness.Teresa Morris:Right?Will Wright:And they've made little to no headway over decades because they never will, because the mind is bigger than the brain, come to find out. So it's fascinating that from a scientific standpoint, it's sort of affirming what we've always held. Like for example, the hylomorphic reality of body and soul, that we are more than just our bodies and that our mind is more than just our brains. It's more than just chemicals firing. Cause with the new age things, I have some students who would wear crystals and things like this. And I had a conversation with one girl one day, If you're listening to this, you know who you are and you know, I love you She was like, well, you know, they give off energy.Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:And the girl next to her goes, that's b******t. You know what she said? Anyway, she was like, that's ridiculous. No way. Come on, the rocks. And I'm like, Yeah, I was gonna say the same thing. And she was like, well, I feel different when I'm, I feel like there's forces around me that are working on me and doing different things in my life. I'm like, yeah, those might be demons. So can you be careful?Teresa Morris:Yeah, be careful.Will Wright:It's not always demons, but there are supernatural forces at work. Angels and demons do exist.Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:Um, you know, God is real and actually trying to reach her heart. Um, so I told her, I said to her that night, uh, I said that night, I want you to go home and I want you to take off the crystals and just ask God to be present to you in a way that you'll understand that's it. And then just, just maybe lie in bed and just be ready to, to listen. And, uh, she came back a couple of days later and, um, We're back in class in his guitar class, so we weren't doing much of anything. And whatever. Anyway, we wereTeresa Morris:Shout out to Guitar Class.Will Wright:it's a great class. They learned so many things about guitar, but it afforded us time to talk. Anyway, so she didn't have all of her crystal stuff on, andTeresa Morris:Hmm.Will Wright:I was like, what? What's going on with that? And she said, well, God talked to me, so I... I think I shouldn't wear these crystal things anymore because they'reTeresa Morris:I guess.Will Wright:probably not good for me and they're probably just rocks. And I said, that'sTeresa Morris:Aw.Will Wright:awesome. But then that led to another conversation about, you know, the Catholic church teaches what is true. And then the girl who was saying that it's ridiculous that rocks have energy was saying, well, I'm only really Catholic because my parents are Catholic. And how do I know that any of this is true? Everybody else has different religious beliefs. But anyway, all of that to say.Teresa Morris:Good question.Will Wright:in these great conversations, what never came up was the idea that God did not exist. What never came up was the idea that the supernatural didn't exist. Well, that's huge. And so, just to affirm what you were saying, I'm seeing that as well, especially with the teens, is that the idea of atheism is just completely foreign to them. Now, whether that's a pseudo-like neo-paganism, or new age stuff, whatever. I find that very optimistic and heartening as well, because the Catholic Church is really good at evangelizing pagans.Teresa Morris:Yeah,Will Wright:It's kind of our thing, it'sTeresa Morris:historically,Will Wright:what we do. SoTeresa Morris:yeah.Will Wright:I think we need to step it up on that. And like you say,Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm.Will Wright:propose the truth, give words to what people are already experiencing. I love that approach. Because if we just keep fighting... I mean, basically we'd be fighting the culture war until we die.Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm. Right.Will Wright:Um, which I'm not sure what you think about this, but I, I find the culture war to be completely tedious.Teresa Morris:Yeah, and largely unaffected. LikeWill Wright:Hmm.Teresa Morris:I think that we're not really making a ton of headway on it. And it's also, it can I think lead to a lot of naval gazing. We can talk about this at a different time, but I think it can become,Will Wright:No,Teresa Morris:we've become out own gods. I think, if we just are like, yeah, our mission in life is to engage in the culture war, it's like, well then that's about me and how I'm. I'm changing the culture and it's not about, am I actually trusting that Christ can transform someone's heart and actually propose Christ to them and not just constantly be battling sets of ideas and whatnot. But yeah, I think it's so true, I found this as well in teaching younger generations that it's so fascinating because I feel like when I was being taught in high school, there was this huge battle against atheistic ideas. And it's just, we don't really have that now. That there really is, they have this sense of there's something beyond themselves and they are very spiritual. And I think that that's, yeah, it's super hopeful. And even the idea that, you know, like she has these rocks, like she wants something. physical like Catholicism understands that too. That's why we have the Eucharist because Christ is like I get that you guys need physical things like you guys really thrive being able to touch something like you're embodied persons and you know God knows that and he doesn't discount that and how he encounters us so even that you know I think there's something sweet in you know people who want to you know be touching crystals and stuff that there's this sense of yeah I'm embodied and my connection to the divine is somehow through something physical too. And the Eucharist gives that response that, yeah, that's okay. That's actually a really beautiful desire and Christ meets that desire. Yeah,Will Wright:The Catholic, uh, thinker, Louis Bouyer, I paraphrasing him because I don't remember the exact quote, but he said that if the church is only invisible, then that's not the church. And I, I love that because it shows just how embodied Catholicism is, whether it's the Eucharist or whether it's sacramentals or beautiful churches, uh, or God awful modernist concrete buildings that still have the mass offered in them. Um, you know, that's showing that embodiment can go both ways, but it's, it's so utterly true that we are body and soul, uh, like Peter Kreeft says, we're in sold bodies or we're embodied souls. Either way you slice it. We have both. Right. Um, he also makes the interesting, uh, sort of a realization that if we are bodies without souls, then we're zombies. And if we're souls without bodies, then we're ghosts.Teresa Morris:It does, yeah.Will Wright:So, you know, I don't want to be a zombie or a ghost. I'd prefer to be a full real life human being.Teresa Morris:Person, yeah.Will Wright:So practically, tangibly living this out, just kind of returning to this idea of virtue as the mean between two extremes. Let's, because we're nearing around an hour. So let's end by walking through practically with a couple of examples, what this would look like. But before we do that, I just want to make one caveat on the theological virtues, because I think that's really, really important distinction for us and a lot of people don't understand this. The theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity are God's life dwelling within us. We receive them as an indwelling in baptism. Before baptism, they're working around us because God is wooing us to the sacraments. He's drawing us to himself, but we receive them in our soul. as an outpouring of the Holy Spirit in baptism and then amplified and elevated in confirmation But those gifts of faith to know the faith to know the things of God what is revealed hope to the sure and certain hope of heaven if we are Friends of God and doing what he says following his commandments as Jesus says and then charity Which is the only one that will remain in the end is the very love of God the glue that holds all things together the ground of being itself Faith, hope and charity are not something that you and I can grow in on our own. We cannot practice them like we do the rest of the virtues. They are a gift to be used or squandered. And the way that we increase in them is by asking for more of them. So if we use those gifts that we've been given of faith, hope and charity well, and we ask God for a greater share in His divine life, and we're living life for virtue, then He'll give us more faith, hope and charity. And this can keep going forever. And this is the growth in holiness. But the other virtues, the cardinal virtues so-called, because cardine means hinge in Latin, so all the other virtues hinge on temperance, justice, fortitude, and prudence. And those four cardinal virtues sort of are something that we can work on. We are able to intentionally enter into them daily, habitually, firmly. Disposing ourselves to the good and working on them and all of the moral virtues Sort of come underneath those. So like for example justice has a sub virtue, which is piety which has another sub virtue, which is patriotism or Love of father and mother so like the cardinal virtues are here and then all the moral virtues sort of branch off from those So I feel like that's super important to just at least mention is the theological virtues. We can't grow in them on our own We receive more of them, we ask for more of them. But when it comes to the cardinal virtues and the moral virtues, let's just walk through a couple of examples of those. So generosity, for example, what would the excess and deficiency of generosity be?Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm. Yeah, so again, like generosity is this mean between two extremes. So it's like this middle ground. So the access of generosity would be, you know, giving way too much of your time, having no boundaries, giving, giving too much of your time or your belongings or whatever. And, and, and yeah, being overly giving the deficiency would be like scrupulosity, like you're not giving anything, you're being stingy. And so you want this middle ground of an adequate understanding of what you can give and giving adequately from that place. One thing I do want to mention, even as I'm talking about this, it's easy to talk about excess and deficiency by saying an excess is too much of something, a deficiency is not enough. But when we're looking at virtue as a mean between these extremes, the mean, it's the same concept as in math where it's an average of something. And if something's an average, you cannot max it out. So you can't actually have too much of an average. That doesn't make sense. So I'm using these terms of like, you're being too generous, you're not being generous enough. But if you're actually virtuous, it's not possible to be too virtuous because you're already in the realm of a mean. So it's actually not possible to be too generous or too courageous or too kind that if you actually are in a place where it's no longer generosity, it's not actually that it's too generous, it's something else entirely.Will Wright:Well, and that goes back to what you were saying about it being a subjective instantiation of virtue, right? That it's going to depend on the circumstances. So to give a little bit more flesh to the generosity thing, if I have $10 that I'm making on a given day and I owe $5 to pay my bills and house my family and I have to pay $2 for food, obviously this is like pre-Biden's America. Um, sorry, was that too political? Anyway. let's say inflationTeresa Morris:Timestamp.Will Wright:before terrible inflation anyway. So $5 for housing, $2 for food, and then I've got $3 leftover and say I give $2 of that to the church for tithing and $1 to feed a homeless person who I see on the way home. That would be well ordered because I'm paying my bills. I'm fulfilling my duties as afather and husband, right? Now, if I'm going home and I, take my $10 and I give all of it to that homeless person I encountered on the way home, that's not generosity. That's that'sfoolish. Thatwould be the deficient. That would be the excess, right? It's nolonger generosity, because I'm actually not fulfilling my duty to my family.Teresa Morris:Right.Will Wright:I'm not paying my bills, which are just I'm not feeding my family, which is my obligation. So I think that that's theright way to look at it is what you're saying is that That's no longer generosity. That's something else entirely.Teresa Morris:Right.Will Wright:That's extravagance in a sense.Teresa Morris:Yeah, which then goes back to this point about what type of person do I want to be? It's not just this set of rules of this is what I should do in these circumstances. It's who am I, right? So if someone is a father and a husband, there are certain duties that come with that. And so it's not just, you know, whereas if that was me, you know, if as a single person, I have more capacity to, you know, give to people in need because I don't have these corresponding duties to the type person that I'm currently called to be. So again, it is the subjective sense of things, but when you're subjectively living it, you have to look at who am I called to be in this moment or in this season of my life and what are the duties that come with that. I think another example that I love giving, which I think is kind of fun is, I think it's Aquinas talks about pleasantness being the virtue corresponding to like playing games. or sports, which I think could also be sportsman-like conduct is sort of the virtue. And so if you have too much of that, if you're in excess, that would be something like being a pushover. You're not actually competing and it's not really fun because you're just letting people walk all over you and you're not really being competitive, you're not trying. The deficiency of that would be something like unsportsman-like conduct or being a bully and your entire goal is just to dominate. and to win and you're not actually engaging in healthy competition. So that's a fun one too if you just think about playing a sport or being in competitions at work or whatever that's fun and you know when it's pleasant and you know when you're like I just don't want to be around this person. This has become something else entirely. We're not actually engaging as persons andit's no longer pleasant because people aren't being, aren't conducting themselves well. So that's also a fun one.Will Wright:Yeah, there's a lot of moral virtues. There's actually quite a few. So we can go through 18 of these and still not be done. So I think we've kind of hit the main points. But as a kind of final thought, I would just say, you know, because there's so many, we can't intentionally focus on all of them.So what's the best strategy to grow in virtue? Because it needs to be something that's intentional. We're striving for excellence. But we also don't want to go to the access of even that, right? Of wanting to grow in virtue. This idea of, I guess that would be fortitude, maybe even prudence, temperance. Really it's all of them, justice.Teresa Morris:Two million.Will Wright:I mean, all the cardinal virtues come into play in what I'm suggesting here. So what's a, what's a practical way that we can move forward in a life of virtue?Teresa Morris:Mm-hmm. One of the things I always talk to my students about when I'm first introducing this idea because it can it can seem either overwhelming or super exciting where you're like, oh my gosh Yeah, I really want to be a virtuous person and then it can become sort of a self-help thing where it's like I got to change my whole life and you know, I'm gonna be I'm gonna dominate I'm gonna be like the best virtuous personWill Wright:Be the best version of yourself... Sorry... Hate that phrase. Anyway, we're not talking about that right now. I feel like every conversation video I'm dunking on some famous Catholic person. I'm sorry, Matthew KellyTeresa Morris:We l

This is part 16 of the Early Church History class. Jerome and Augustine are two of the most influential Latin Christians of the first millennium of Christianity. This episode will introduce you to their lives, personalities, and some of their most important ideas. You'll see how significantly asceticism affected their lifestyles as well as how their particular take on Christianity came to set the norm for Roman Catholic Christianity. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtNF5-rvmwU&list=PLN9jFDsS3QV2lk3B0I7Pa77hfwKJm1SRI&index=16&pp=iAQB —— Links —— More Restitutio resources on Christian history See other classes here Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— Jerome's Life (347-419) Actual name: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus Excellent Latin education, highly intelligent Learned Greek and Hebrew Lived as a hermit in the Syrian desert 382-385 - served as secretary to Pope Damasus I, bishop of Rome Jerome's Asceticism Believed everyone should be celibate Worked a lot with wealthy widows from the senatorial class and their daughters Thought the only benefit from marriage was the production of more virgins After Paula's daughter Blaesilla died, he moved to Bethlehem. Spent his time engaging in controversies by letter, translating the Bible and other literature into Latin, and writing commentaries on scripture Jerome's Writings Though deeply influenced by classical literature, especially Cicero, he advocated reading only the Bible and Christian literature. Worked on the Vulgate (382-405) Became the dominant Latin Bible for the Roman Catholic Church from 600 onwards; though in Jerome's day, many still preferred a translation of the Septuagint (including Augustine) Translated Origen's On First Principles, Pachomius' Rule, and Eusebius' Historical Chronicle into Latin Lives of Illustrious Men provides short biographies of many early Christians. Commentaries on many books of the Bible Augustine's Early Life (354-430) Grew up in North Africa with a Christian mother, Monica, and a pagan father, Patrick Had an excellent education in Carthage Particularly influenced by Cicero's dialogues, especially his Hortensius Became a teacher of rhetoric in Rome, then Milan Augustine's Sexual Life Stealing pears as a teenager “I was burning to find satisfaction… I ran wild in the shadowy jungle of erotic adventures.” (Confessions 2.1.1)[1] At Carthage, he said, “All around me hissed a cauldron of illicit loves.” (Confessions 3.1.1) Took a concubine from a lower class and lived with her for 13 years and had a son with her, Adeodatus His mother convinced him to send his concubine away so he could be eligible to marry a well-born woman. Couldn't live chastely in the interval and took another concubine Augustine's Journey to Christianity Had encountered the scriptures but said they “seemed to me unworthy in comparison with the dignity of Cicero” (Confessions 3.5.9) Became a Manichaean for 9 years Believed in Astrology for a long while Found great satisfaction in Neo-Platonism, especially the writings of Plotinus and Porphyry Checked out Bishop Ambrose just to listen to his rhetoric and was impressed Heard a voice saying, “Pick up and read [tolle, lege]” and opened to Romans 13.13-14 387 - Ambrose baptized Augustine and Adeodatus Augustine's Bishopric (395-430) Became bishop of Hippo Regius and served for 35 years Preached regularly, held court twice a week, counselled people Engaged in many controversies with Manichaeans, Donatists, Pelagians, and pagans. Augustine's Writings Wrote approximately five million words Confessions: an autobiography City of God: responds to Alaric's sack of Rome in 410 as well as lays out extensive interpretation of the Bible and key doctrines On the Trinity: defended the Trinity and explained it philosophically Also, many letters, commentaries, and treatises Augustine's Thought Original sin passed down a corrupted nature incapable of doing good. God predestined the elect to be saved. The elect go to heaven to live eternally. The damned go to hell to be tormented eternally. Augustine's Influence Probably the most influential Christian of the first millennium Codified Catholic doctrine that held sway throughout the Middle Ages Martin Luther was himself an Augustinian monk, and the Reformation was largely a return to Augustinian Christianity. Review Jerome and Augustine were influential Christians who shaped Christianity in the fifth century. Both received excellent educations and voluntarily chose ascetic, celibate lifestyles. Both were influenced by Origen, especially his allegorical hermeneutic. Jerome's translation of the Bible into Latin from Hebrew and Greek--the Vulgate--became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. Augustine had a fraught and lengthy battle with lust that eventually led him to celibacy. Augustine was a Manichean, a believer in astrology, and a Neo-Platonist before he became a Christian. Augustine battled Manicheans, Donatists, Pelagians, and Pagans throughout his career. He advocated original sin, infant baptism, eternal life in heaven, eternal torment in hell, predestination of the elect, and celibate clergy. More than anyone else in the first thousand years, Augustine's thought influenced Roman Catholic doctrine. To a degree, the Reformation itself was a return to Augustinian Christianity. [1] All quotes from Confessions from Augustine of Hippo, Confessions, trans. Henry Chadwick (New York: Oxford, 1998).

Who's Running the Verbs of Grace? In this episode, we discuss Augustine's defense of God's grace against the Pelagians, with a healthy dose of Reformation theology added for seasoning. — SHOW NOTES: Augustine - On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15061.htm  SUPPORT 1517 Podcast Network https://www.1517.org/podcasts/ Support the work of 1517 http://1517.org/give Warrior Priest Gym & Podcast https://thewarriorpriestpodcast.wordpress.com St John's Lutheran Church (Webster, MN) - FB Live Bible Study Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/356667039608511 Gillespie's Sermons and Catechesis: https://stjohnrandomlake.org/church/media/ Gillespie Coffee https://gillespie.coffee Gillespie Media https://gillespie.media Tin Foil Haloes https://t.me/bannedpastors CONTACT and FOLLOW BannedBooks@1517.org Facebook Twitter SUBSCRIBE YouTube Rumble Odysee Apple Podcasts Spotify Stitcher Overcast Google Play TuneIn Radio iHeartRadio

“I still recall the catechism lessons in which the Papacy was explained to me, its divine institution, its powers, its mission. My heart of a child (I was about nine years old) was filled with admiration, with rapture, with enthusiasm: I had found the ideal to which I would dedicate my whole life. From then to now, my love for this ideal has only grown. And I pray to Our Lady that she ever increase it in me, until my dying breath. I desire that the last act of my intellect may be an act of faith in the Papacy; that my last act of love may be an act of love for the Papacy. Thus, in fact, I would die in the peace of the elect, well united to Mary my Mother, and through her to Jesus, my God, my King and my excellent Redeemer.” https://www.pliniocorreadeoliveira.info/UKCR_0601_credo_ecclesiam.htm The bond of obedience to the successor of Peter, which we will never break, which we venerate in the most profound depths of our soul and to which we tribute our highest love, this bond we kiss at the very moment in which, overwhelmed with sorrow, we affirm our position. And on our knees, respectfully looking to the figure of H.H the Pope Paul VI, we express all our fidelity to the Papacy.In this filial act we say to the Pastor of Pastors: Our soul is yours, our life is yours. Order us to do whatever you desire. Only do not order us to do nothing in face of the attacking red wolf. To this, our conscience is opposed.-Declaration of Resistance to the Vatican OstpolitikIt is well known that Pope Pius IX, who later became a great Pope, was liberal in the first phase of his pontificate. There were no liberal errors in his documents, but he adopted a series of very liberal attitudes.At that time, Italy was divided into many small kingdoms, principates and free cities that made up the colorful, picturesque, efficient and stable Italy that we admire. The revolutionaries, however, had a plan to unify Italy and destroy those organic cells. They supported the liberal Pope and used to shout in the streets Viva Pio IX! as a rallying cry for the anarquists, socialists, members of the Mafia and Camorra, and others affiliated to the sect of Mazzini [the leader of the Carbonari, an Italian Masonry]. The cry - Viva Pio IX! - became therefore a symbol of the liberal and Masonic campaign to unify Italy by combating those organic small thrones.https://traditioninaction.org/SOD/j234sd_ChairPeter_01_18.html without a tribute of filial devotion and unrestricted obedience to the “sweet Christ on earth,” the pillar and infallible foundation of the Truth….“Where the Church is, there is Christ; where Peter is, there is the Church”. It is then to the Holy Father that we direct our love, our enthusiasm, our dedication….We have not the slightest doubt in our heart about any of the theses that constitute this work. Nevertheless, we subject them unrestrictedly to the judgment of the Vicar of Christ and are disposed to renounce immediately any one of them if it depart even slightly from the teaching of the Holy Church, our Mother, the Ark of Salvation, and the Gate of Heaven.-RCRSt. Leo the Great, who reigned as Pope from 440 to 461, was one of the greatest Popes of History. He fought against numerous heresies that agitated the Church, principally against the Manicheans and Pelagians. In 452 he faced Attila and convinced the scourge of God and his Huns not to attack Rome and to leave Italy. He was also able to thwart the destruction of Rome by Genseric three years later.https://traditioninaction.org/SOD/j016sdSt.LeoGreat4-11.htm Adrian Social MediaIG: @ffonzeTwitter: @AdrianFonzeFacebook: Adrian FonsecaYouTube: Adrian Fonseca YouTube: Catholic Conversations

Bible Study Don't just take our word for it . . . take His! We would encourage you to spend time examining the following Scriptures that shaped this sermon: James 4:8; Luke 15:11–32. Sermon Application How have figures throughout history read this parable as evidence that God does not require costly forgiveness for sin? What is the significance of the placement of this parable next to the preceding two parables? Sam quoted a study on Pelagius which says: “The Pelagians [his followers] simply could not imagine that God could be radically unlike the social elites of their day.” In what ways might the church today be vulnerable to the same error? What is the difference between the son's speech in Luke 15:18–19 and Luke 15:21? With whose perspective may the Holy Spirit be leading you to identify—the younger son or the elder son? Is it challenging to see God relate the way He chooses to the “other brother”? Why? Questions? Do you have a question about today's sermon? Email Sam Fornecker (SFornecker@StAndrews.Church).

Dr. Paulson addresses Augustine's turn toward prayer. In prayer, Augustine finds a means of avoiding the justification by the works of the Pelagians. Dr. Paulson demonstrates how this form of prayer is captive to the law. Support the Show 1517 Podcasts Outlaw God on Apple Podcasts

For the next several episodes, Dr. Paulson will focus on Augustine. This introductory episode lays the groundwork for understanding Augustine's emphasis on grace and his charge against the Pelagians. However, Dr. Paulson also reveals that Augustine did not go far enough. Support the Show 1517 Podcasts Outlaw God on Apple Podcasts

Part 2 in this wonderful series When postwar American business was a vast sea of gray flannel suits and tasteful ties, a few unorthodox individuals were not so quietly shifting the paradigm toward the breezier, Google-ier workplace of today. These change agents include a raft of idealistic social scientists as well as nonacademics, like labor organizer Saul Alinsky, who pioneered the use of shareholder activism to open Kodak's doors to more African Americans. Alinsky, who was literally willing to smash dishes to get attention, was the embodiment of the activist principle that behaving badly is sometimes necessary because, in the words of the civil-rights anthem, “The nice ways always fail.” Today's guest uses religious terms to title each of the chapters of his book— “Monastics,” “Pelagians,”“Mystics,” and so forth. At first that seems an odd choice for a study of modern corporations and other secular institutions. But he is insightful to do so. Like the heretic whose rejection of religious orthodoxy might send him to the pyre, our guest's organizational heretic “is someone who sees a truth that contradicts the conventional wisdom of the institution to which he or she belongs—and who remains loyal to both entities, to the institution and the new truth.” The person who is willing to make a great sacrifice to change an institution he or she loves is a hero as well as a heretic because, our guest writes, “the future of industrial society depends on our ability to transcend the destructive management of the past, and build a better kind of business.” We welcome the author of “The Age of Heretics: A History of the Radical Thinkers Who Reinvented Corporate Management” and the earlier subtitle was Heroes, Outlaws, and the Forerunners of Corporate Change, Art Kleiner.

When postwar American business was a vast sea of grey flannel suits and tasteful ties, a few unorthodox individuals were not so quietly shifting the paradigm toward the breezier, Google-ier workplace of today. These change agents include a raft of idealistic social scientists as well as nonacademics, like labour organizer Saul Alinsky, who pioneered the use of shareholder activism to open Kodak's doors to more African Americans. Alinsky, who was literally willing to smash dishes to get attention, was the embodiment of the activist principle that behaving badly is sometimes necessary because, in the words of the civil-rights anthem, “The nice ways always fail.” Today's guest uses religious terms to title each of the chapters of his book— “Monastics,” “Pelagians,” Mystics,” and so forth. At first, that seems an odd choice for a study of modern corporations and other secular institutions. But he is insightful to do so. Like the heretic whose rejection of religious orthodoxy might send him to the pyre, our guest's organizational heretic “is someone who sees a truth that contradicts the conventional wisdom of the institution to which he or she belongs—and who remains loyal to both entities, to the institution and the new truth.” The person who is willing to make a great sacrifice to change an institution he or she loves is a hero as well as a heretic because, our guest writes, “the future of industrial society depends on our ability to transcend the destructive management of the past, and build a better kind of business.” We welcome the author of “The Age of Heretics: A History of the Radical Thinkers Who Reinvented Corporate Management” and the earlier subtitle was Heroes, Outlaws, and the Forerunners of Corporate Change, Art Kleiner. More about Art here: https://wiseadvoc8.com

A new MP3 sermon from The GraceLife Pulpit is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: The Pelagians Subtitle: A Survey of Heresies Speaker: Phil Johnson Broadcaster: The GraceLife Pulpit Event: Sunday Service Date: 10/29/2000 Length: 54 min.

https---www.thegracelifepulpit.com-

https---www.thegracelifepulpit.com-

https---www.thegracelifepulpit.com-

Belgic Confession 15- Original Sin--We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race. It is a corruption of all nature-an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother's womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. --It is therefore so vile and enormous in God's sight that it is enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or wholly uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as though from a contaminated spring. --Nevertheless, it is not imputed to God's children for their condemnation but is forgiven by his grace and mercy-not to put them to sleep but so that the awareness of this corruption might often make believers groan as they long to be set free from the -body of this death.- Therefore we reject the error of the Pelagians who say that this sin is nothing else than a matter of imitation.

ST. AUGUSTINE Bishop of Hippo, Doctor of the Church (A.D. 430)-Saint Augustine was born in 354 A.D. in Tagaste, a small town near Hippo in what is now Algeria. His father, Pat-Rees-yous, was a pagan and of a violent disposition; but through the example and prudent conduct of his wife, Saint Monica, Patricius was baptized before his death.As a child, Augustine’s mother instructed him in the Christian religion and taught him how to pray. Falling dangerously ill, he desired to be baptized and his mother got everything ready for it to happen. Suddenly though, he grew better, and the baptism was put off.Augustine's father wanted him to become a man of learning and cared very little about his character. He went to Carthage in 370 AD when he was only 17 to study rhetoric with eagerness and pleasure; but his motives were driven by vanity and ambition, and he enjoyed loose living way too much.In Carthage, he had a relationship with a woman (to whom he remained faithful until he sent her away 15 years later). She bore him a son, Adeo-dat-us, in 372. He switched his studies to philosophy and the search for truth and studied the Scriptures, but from a subjective angle. He was offended with their simplicity, and could not relish their humility or penetrate the spirit of their meaning. He became seduced by Manichaeism - a combination of paganism and philosophy. "I sought with pride", he confessed, "what only humility could make me find. Fool that I was, I left the nest, imagining myself able to fly; and I fell to the ground."For nine years he had his own schools of rhetoric and grammar in Tagaste and Carthage, while his devoted mother, Saint Monica, spurred on by the assurance of a holy bishop that "the son of so many tears could not perish", never ceased by prayer and gentle persuasion to try to bring him to conversion and reform.In 383 he secretly departed to Rome, lest his mother should prevent him from going to the big city. There he opened a school for rhetoric, and then was appointed by the government as a teacher in Milan, where his mother, and his friend Alipius joined him. It was in Milan where Saint Augustine came under the influence of Saint Ambrose the bishop; he began to go to his sermons, not to profit but to gratify his curiosity and to enjoy the eloquence. Eventually, he found the sermons of St Ambrose to be more meaningful than his adopted heresie. He began to read the New Testament, especially the writings of Saint Paul. In the same time, the mother of his son went back to Africa leaving the child behind.Saint Augustine's spiritual, moral and intellectual struggle went on. He was convinced of the truth of Christianity, but his will was weaker than the worldly temptations that surrounded him. Thus he delayed his return to Christ for many months. "Soon,” St Augustine would say to himself “in a little while, I shall make up my mind, but not right now". In his half desires of conversion he was accustomed to beg of God the grace of chastity, but in some measure afraid of being heard too soon. He realized that his problem was a moral one. The Divine truth for which he was seeking would never be his unless he first overcame his weakness.Soon after, Pon-tit-ian, an African, came to visit Saint Augustine and his friend Alipius. He told them about two men who had been suddenly turned to the service of God by reading about the life of Saint Anthony. His words had a powerful influence on the mind of Saint Augustine. "What are we doing,” Augustine asked of Alipius “to let the unlearned seize Heaven by force, whilst we with all our knowledge remain behind, cowardly and heartless, wallowing in our sins? Because they have outstripped us and gone before, are we ashamed to follow them? is it not more shameful to not follow?"He rushed to the garden, with tears in his eyes, threw himself on the grass under a fig tree and reproached himself bitterly crying out:"O Lord, how long? Will it be tomorrow? Why not now? Why not put an end to shame this very hour?"As he spoke these words he heard a child's voice singing "Tolle lege! Tolle lege!" (which translates, Take up and read! Take up and read!). He remembered that Saint Anthony was converted from the world by hearing a single verse. He took up Saint Paul's epistles and read the first chapter that met his eyes: "Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.." (Romans 13:13-14)When he told Alipius what he had experienced, he took the book and read, he found the next words to be: 14:1 Receive one who is weak in the faith," and applied it to himself and joined his friend in his resolution.This high point in the conversion of Saint Augustine took place in September of 386, when he was 32 years old. He, his son Adeodatus and Alipius were baptized by Saint Ambrose on Easter the following year in the presence of mother, Saint Monica. Knowing her prayers had been answered, she gave up her spirit shortly thereafter. Saint Augustine prayed:"Too late, have I loved Thee, O Beauty so ancient and so new, too late have I loved Thee! Thou wast with me, and I was not with Thee; I was abroad, running after those beauties which Thou hast made; those things which could have no being but in Thee kept me away from Thee. Thou hast called, Thou hast cried out, and hast pierced my deafness. Thou hast enlightened, Thou hast shone forth, and my blindness is dispelled. I have tasted Thee, and am hungry of Thee. Thou hast touched me, and I am afire with the desire of thy embraces."From that time, Saint Augustine went back to Tagaste, his native city, where he lived for three years with his friends and shared a life of prayer, study and poverty. All things were in common and distributed according to everyone's needs. In 391 they ordained him as an assistant to Valerius, Bishop of Hippo, and he had to move to that city.He established a monastery in his house, living with Saints Alipius, Evodius and Possidius and others according to the rule of the holy Apostles. St Valerius who had a speach impediment appointed Saint Augustine to preach in his presence and he has not interrupted the course of his sermons until his death (nearly 400 sermons). He eventually succeeded St Valerius as the Bishop of Hippo and founded a community of religious women and his sister became the first "abbes. He used the revenues of his church in relieving the poor and in redeeming the captives. Like another Moses or Saint Paul, he said to his people: "I do not want to be saved without you. What shall I desire? What shall I say? Why am I a bishop? Why am I in the world? Only to live in Jesus Christ: but to live in Him with you. This is my passion, my honor, my glory, my joy and my riches." Through his 35 years as a bishop of Hippo, Saint Augustine had to defend the faith against many heresies. He opposed the Donatists, the Pelagians, and the Alarians. Saint Augustine calmly resigned his spirit into the hands of God on August 28, 430, after having lived 76 years and spent almost 40 of them in the labors of the ministry. Among his greatest work is the 15 volume "On the City of God" which took him 30 years to write, and his "Confessions".Lessons from this storyThe life and conversion of St Augustine is an example of how the prayers of one can save another, as well as a lesson to us that God is never done with us - unto our dying breathe is gates of heaven open to those who call. But what can we take from this story and apply to our daily life? Perhaps it is this, and I paraphrase St Matthew the Poor from his book “Orthodox Prayer Life”; we do not know at what stage God is working with others. Perhaps this person is on their way up and will encounter a great fall, while others have fallen and God is picking them back up. We judge by our one dimensional perception of others, without seeing the multiple dimensional support God has for all. Never give up on praying for others, but equally, never give up being honest with yourself and judging your own actions so that you may learn and grow more in Christ. PrayerLord, help us to pray for others that they may taste the sweet joy of Your presence in their life and forgive us of our many faults that we may know them, learn from them and be stronger in You. May the prayers and supplications of Saint Augustine be with us all. Amen.

Happy Shelter in Place Day, Friends! I find myself living in the part of Central California right now that has been essentially shut down for the next 22 days, and our Shelter in Place order just went into effect about an hour ago. These are strange, strange times! So – sometimes people ask me how it’s going doing a daily podcast. I can tell you that each episode takes just a little under 3 hours from start to finish, which includes writing the episode, recording it, editing it in Audacity, and entering all of the pertinent information into a WordPress and Libsyn post. Longer episodes take longer, shorter episodes can be around 2 hours of time. Last night was one of the later nights for the show. One of my daughters wanted to watch a show with me, and I’ll take just about any excuse I can to spend time with them, so we watched a show together, which began after midnight. Then I wrote a fairly long pastoral email to the congregation of the church I pastor about the coronavirus pandemic. When I say fairly long, I mean over 1800 words, so about 6 pages worth. We’re in California, and on a virtual lock-down, so hopefully they had a little extra time to read. One of the problems being in a church that is pastored by somebody who fancies himself as a writer is that you can get very long emails from time to time. If you are a leader at the church I pastor, you got a 2100 word email from me AND an 1800 word email from me within the space of 4 days. I should repent in sackcloth and ashes for that, I suppose, but these are trying times we live in right now, filled with dangers like novel viruses, lack of toilet paper, and novel-length emails from pastors. ANYWAY, the point of what I was trying to say earlier before I rambled was that I didn’t start WRITING the podcast until around 3AM. Fortunately, I had some great material from pastor David Platt to use, so I didn’t have to write a ton of original material myself. It was, however, one of the few times since I began this daily podcast in January that I kind of just wanted to go to bed, and not spend 2 hours or so on a podcast. HOWEVER – when I got to the point of recording it, and I got to the part where I was just reading the Scriptures into the microphone, that’s when I noticed something that happens practically every time I do the podcast: THE WORD OF GOD ENCOURAGED ME. It gave me HOPE. It built me up. It elevated my mood. Almost every time I record this show, I come away encouraged. Not because I like recording and editing a podcast – that can get a little tedious…but because the WORD of God is powerful, and supernatural, and it just builds me up in faith, because faith comes by HEARING THE WORD OF GOD. I just wanted to share that with you as a benefit. You can get that same benefit – without the 2-3 hours of writing, recording and editing by simply READING (or listening!) to the WORD OF GOD! If you haven’t done so yet, allow me to encourage you to listen to the other half of today’s episode – episode #78 – I split today’s show into two parts so it wouldn’t be too long. In today’s reading, we encounter the story of the woman caught in adultery, known to scholars as the Pericope Adulterae. Many scholars, including many evangelical ones, consider this passage to be a later edition to the New Testament, and in most modern Bibles, this part of John is set apart to show doubt about the passage. So – what’s going on here, and was this story original to John’s Gospel, or was it a later edition?             The Pericope Adulterae, found in John 7:53-8:11, is surrounded by more controversy and conjecture than any other New Testament Passage with the possible exception of the ending of Mark. The authorship and placement of this pericope has been hotly debated at least since the fifth century, and there are still scholars lined up on opposite sides of the issues surrounding this passage.             Attempting to extract meaning and application from this passage is almost meaningless without first wrestling with the genuineness of the text and the mass of evidence for and against it. The issue is simple to grasp – if this pericope is a genuine and accurate happening in the life of Jesus, then it carries just as much weight as the rest of the New Testament. Conversely, if the passage is a later edition with no basis in fact (i.e. it never happened) then the passage is notable only for its historical value and the question of how it became inserted into many manuscripts of the New Testament.        Though it will be argued that there is no way to be certain of the historicity of this passage, the preponderance of the evidence points to it being a genuine happening in the life of Jesus, and as such it does have application in the modern church and it can inform how we live and interact with each other. Summary of the Passage             7:53-8:2 The Pericope Adulterae begins with a somewhat awkward[1] transition from the previous narrative. The stage is set here; Jesus has spent the night at the Mount of Olives and dawn finds Him mingling with the crowd near the temple courts. His very presence attracts a crowd and notably (for the fourth Gospel)[2] Jesus sits down to teach them.             8:3-8:6a As Jesus is teaching the people, The scribes and Pharisees bring in a woman and stand her in front of the crowd. They explain to Jesus that the woman was caught in the act of committing adultery, and (on the surface) they present her to Jesus for judgment. The question is, should the woman be stoned in accordance with the law of Moses? The text informs us that this question is a trap for Jesus, a classic catch 22, there is no clear way that Jesus can give a verdict here without opening Himself up to some basis for accusation, either in the eyes of the Roman authorities, or the people.             8:6b-8:9 Perplexingly, Jesus doesn’t answer their questions immediately, indeed, He never gives them the verdict. Instead, He leans over and writes on the ground. The accusers persist in their questioning, and Jesus finally responds with His classic retort, challenging any one of the accusers without sin to be the one that casts the first stone. Though we don’t know how much time passed after Jesus’ challenge, one can almost be assured of an awkward silence, punctuated by occasional stones hitting the soft earth as they fall from the hands of the accusers. Beginning with the eldest among them, the scribes and Pharisees melt away into the crowd.             8:10-8:11 Jesus and the accused woman are left as the center of attention. He initiates dialogue her, asking the obvious questions – where is everybody? Is no one left to condemn? Upon her acknowledgment that they have all left, Jesus also refuses to condemn the woman, but warns her to leave behind her life of sin. Controversy and Canonicity: Contra Johannine             This Pericope is a wonderful piece of literature; very moving and dramatic. Jesus cleverly meets the challenge of the scribes and Pharisees without compromising and without falling into a trap, and the woman caught in sin is given a second chance to repent. It’s a powerful story, but is it genuine? Did it really happen? If it did really happen, why is there so much evidence against it being an original part of the gospel of John? A survey of the evidence for and against genuineness is presented below.             The majority of New Testament scholars are fairly adamant that the Pericope Adulterae is non-Johannine in origin. The ancient manuscript evidence is indeed stacked against this Pericope. Bruce Metzger  points out that all major early Greek manuscripts omit the Pericope, including our oldest and most respected early manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus,        p66 and p75.[3] Though some Old Latin manuscripts include the Pericope, many omit it as well, and the early Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts do not contain the passage[4]. Codex Bezae is the only major Greek manuscript prior to the 8th century that this pericope appears in, and Bezae is known for its many interpolations. In fact, Metzger states,                         “No other manuscript has so many and such remarkable variations from     what is usually taken to be the New Testament Text. Codex Bezae’s special            characteristic is the free addition (and occasional omission) of words, sentences      and even incidences.”[5]                         Further manuscript evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope is the variety of places it is attached in some of the manuscripts that do contain it. In some manuscripts, it appears after John 7:36, in some after John 7:44, some as an addition at the end of John’s gospel, some after Luke 21:28, and some even after Luke 24:53.[6] Though the number of manuscripts that displace this pericope is not overwhelming, the mere fact of its varied appearance in even a few manuscripts tends to cast doubt on the concreteness of its location after John 7:52.             The final bit of manuscript evidence is the unusually high number of textual variants found in the manuscripts that do contain the pericope. Gary Burge points out that line per line, these twelve verses contain more textual variants across the manuscript tradition than almost any other passage of scripture. [7]             There is also much patristic evidence, especially in the east, stacked against the passage. This pericope is not mentioned by any Greek Father until Euthymius Zigabenus in the 12th century and isn’t found in the writings of the early Fathers in the west either. Thus, it is omitted by Origen, Clement, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril and Chrysostom,[8] even in writings where it would seem to be an appropriate resource for them to use. While Zane Hodges tries to make the case that the absence of the Pericope in these church fathers constitutes an argument from silence, and thus proves nothing[9], the fact of the matter is that this is more empirical evidence stacked against the pericope, and it adds weight to the non-Johannine argument.             While the manuscript evidence would seem to be the greatest evidence against the Pericope, there are also suspicious grammatical and contextual features of the text. Statistical analysis of the text has claimed to show several features which “prove” its non Johannine nature. Vern Poythress has examined the grammatical use of the conjunctions “de”, “oun”, “kai”, and “asyndeton” in the Gospel of John, and developed some general rules that John appears to follow. Upon examination of the adulteress pericope, it would appear that there are enough variations in its use of conjunctions (compared with the rest of John) to allow Poythress to conclude that this Pericope is not written by John.[10]             Further grammatical evidence focuses on the words that are used in the passage. Bryant and Krause point out that approximately nine percent, or 15 of the words used in this pericope do not occur elsewhere in the gospel, the highest percentage for a passage of this size in John[11]. The Mount of Olives, The scribes, and the phrase “early morning” are not found anywhere else in the gospel of John, but all are somewhat common in the synoptic gospels. In addition, only here in John is Jesus addressed as teacher.             While some of these unique words can be explained by the nature of the story, as well as the semi-technical judicial language employed, there are still a high frequency of unique words and constructs here compared with the rest of John.             Finally, there is contextual evidence that seems to indicate this pericope is out of place. Borchert[12] and many others believe that the text disrupts the flow of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative. Many point out its similarity in time and setting to Luke 21:37-38, and (as mentioned above) some manuscripts place the passage right after verse 38 because it seems to be a better fit. It is also true that the flow of the text from 7:52 to 8:12 is smooth and uninterrupted when this passage is removed, but of course, that could be said of many passages! Controversy and Canonicity: Pro Johannine             Most scholars believe the evidence against the Pericope Adulterae is overwhelming, but there is much positive evidence for the ancientness of this event, and even some evidence that would seem to indicate the text is Johannine and not at all out of place.             The strongest evidence for the veracity and Johannine nature of the Pericope comes from the manuscripts and church fathers of the west. Several Old Latin manuscripts do in fact contain the Pericope. Hodges argues valiantly that the absence of the passage in our earliest and most reliable manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 and p75) is due to those manuscripts being of a proto-Alexandrian origin, and thus likely coming from the same (ancient) exemplar, one which had the passage intentionally excised.[13] He posits that the Pericope was removed from some texts very early (before 200), but that the passage was quite possibly in the original autograph.             The Patristic evidence for the Pericope is surprisingly strong in the west. Several church fathers in the fourth and fifth century mention the text, beginning with Pacian of Barcelona, and including Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Jerome and Augustine. Jerome and Augustine in particular add much to the pro Johannine side of the argument, providing significant ancient evidence and speculation on the passage.             Jerome includes the Pericope Adulterae in his Latin Vulgate translation of the scriptures, thus cementing its future acceptance among the Catholic church. In his Dialogue against the Pelagians, Jerome makes a very intriguing reference to this passage,                         “In the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.”[14]             This comment is very significant in considering the Pericope Adulterae, and would seem to stand as the strongest pro-Johannine evidence available. As Hodges points out[15], Jerome was well traveled, and would have had a wide exposure to both Greek and Latin texts, many of which were older than any that has survived to this day. Jerome’s statement should carry much more weight with modern New Testament textual scholars than it appears it does.             Augustine goes even further than Jerome does in his commentary on the passage, acknowledging the already existing controversy over the passage and offering a reason for it’s removal from some manuscripts,                         “Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity  in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who said  ‘sin no more’ had granted permission to sin.” [16]             While Augustine’s hermeneutical approach to the passage contains a common mistake (Jesus did not specifically forgive the adulterous woman), his observation is very relevant and offers an intriguing possible explanation for the manuscript problems (and textual variances) associated with this passage. Hodges further quotes Ambrose who makes a similar suggestion to Augustine’s – that the passage is a stumbling block.             The contextual argument against this pericope is perhaps the easiest to answer. While many commentators have pointed out the “disruption” of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative that this pericope seems to effect, Allison Trites convincingly argues the opposite; the entire passage fits into the overall theme of controversy in John 1-12.[17] Other contextual clues could be seen to indicate the proper placement of this passage. For one, it would seem that the story is a great illustration of John 3:17, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (John 3:17, NIV)             The Pericope can also be seen in a literary sense as a response to the question posed in John 7:26, “Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ?” (John 7:26, NIV)             While much has been made of the grammatical analysis of this pericope, specifically focusing on what is considered non Johannine grammar, there has been some grammatical work on the passage that offers different conclusions. Alan Johnson has used some of the existent grammatical statistical methods on other, non disputed passages of John, and concluded that some of those would be considered non Johannine based on the very same methodology used on the Pericope Adulterae. In addition, he also points out several grammatical features in this passage that are consistent with the rest of John, including the use of “de”, “touto” and “legein” [18]             My own grammatical analysis of the passage has produced some interesting results, further casting doubt on the ability of statistical grammatical analysis to effectively determine canonicity and authorship questions. The phrase “meketi amartane” (no longer sin, or stop sinning) only occurs here in the pericope and in John 5:14, where Jesus likewise instructs the paralytic to stop sinning. “ina ecosin” (that they might) is a phrase found only in verse six, and John 17:13. “Kai palin” (and again) in verse 8 is found six other times in John but only once in Luke. Finally, the phrase “eis ten gen” (in the earth) from verse 6 is found 23 times in the New Testament, 5 are in John, and 12 are in Revelation – so of the 23 times that phrase is used, 17 times it is Johannine. That analysis might be used to impress upon some a level of certainty that John did write this passage, but in fact, in the final analysis it doesn’t add much to the argument one way or the other – except to possibly refute those who use statistical grammatical analysis to “prove” that this Pericope is non-Johannine.             A thorough survey of the evidence reveals one thing quite clearly: the authorship and position of the Pericope Adulterae is not an easy issue to decide. It is perplexing and frustrating to see the certainty that is exhibited by many scholars on both sides of this issue. Bruce Metzger, Phillip Comfort, Kurt Aland, Raymond Brown, George Beasley-Murray, Leon Morris and many others all make absolute statements on the Pericope and point to overwhelming evidence that it is either non-canonical or non Johannine. Beasley-Murray goes so far as to write, “It is universally agreed by textual critics of the Greek NT that this passage was not part of the Fourth Gospel in its original form.”[19] What an outrageous and misleading statement! On the other hand, there are a few scholars (Elmer Towns, some scholars in the King James only camp, and several Dallas Theological Seminary professors) who are equally adamant that this passage is certainly genuine, and right where it belongs in the New Testament. The fact is that the best and most irrefutable evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope Adulterae is its lack of attestation in many of our earliest and best surviving manuscripts. When this manuscript evidence is considered in light of Jerome’s quote above on all of the Greek and Old Latin manuscripts he saw that contained the Pericope (and likely were older than most that we have now) we have a clear conundrum, one that cannot be fairly answered without new evidence coming to light.             Thankfully, one thing is agreed upon by most N.T. scholars – this pericope is very old[20] and very likely to be an accurate event in the life of Jesus. Thus Metzger writes that John 7:53-8:11, “has all the earmarks of historical veracity”[21], and Raymond Brown writes, “There is nothing in the story itself, or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus.”[22]             If this Pericope is in fact a genuine event in the ministry of Jesus – how is it that it is absent in so many early Biblical texts? To put the issue another way, Phillip W. Comfort offers a list of suspect passages in the Textus Receptus, including the Pericope Adulterae. He challenges those who would argue for the inclusion of these questionable passages to, “come up with good arguments as to why scribes (in the early centuries) would have purposely excised these passages.”[23] Gary Burge proposes an interesting, though improvable suggestion that answers both questions: the Pericope Adulterae text was excised from some early manuscripts for theological reasons. Burge points to the unbiblical Doctrine of Penance, as articulated by early church fathers like Tertullian, Clement and Cyprian. Sexual sins in the eyes of many of the early church fathers were very grave, and in some cases unforgivable.[24]  In light of that, it is conceivable that this passage was removed, under the impression that it was or too light on a sin, or in fear (As Augustine suggests above) that it would give others license to sin without fear of reprisal. It is also a possibility that the text is a real happening in the life of Jesus that never was put into the gospels because of the fear listed above (or for another reason – as John says, if everything Jesus did was written down, the world couldn’t contain the books!) A Deeper Look at the Text We now turn our attention back to the text itself, and from the perspective that it is a genuine happening, and is placed in the appropriate place in the text. Examining this passage in its literary context, we see that Jesus’ ministry, previously marked by amazing miracles and healings at the time of the adulterous pericope had become quite controversial. Jesus’ teachings were very challenging, and He even lost some disciples because of them.             In the events leading up to the encounter, Jesus brothers urge Him to go the Feast of Tabernacles, and he temporarily declined, only to come later and begin to interact with the people. As He teaches, many people believe in Him, and many don’t – causing arguments and strife. The temple guards are sent to arrest Jesus, but they themselves become arrested by His words and fail to complete their job. The Pharisees and other religious leaders meet in anger, considering what to do and finding no solution. It is directly after this that the incident with the adulterous woman happens.             The Old Testament, in Deuteronomy 22 states, “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.” (Deuteronomy 22:24, NIV) Leviticus 20 states similarly, “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10, NIV) These were the laws of Moses referred to in vs. 5 of this passage. Curiously, there is no mention of the man that was with the woman – this has led many to conclude that the situation was a set up from the beginning, (i.e. the woman was also “trapped”) The scribes and Pharisees, therefore, were wanting Jesus to rule on a case that was flawed from the beginning – they were asking Him to incompletely apply the law of Moses to this situation.             This was merely another attempt by the religious leaders to put Jesus in a position where there is no good way out. A similar incident occurs in Matthew 22 (and the other Synoptics): Jesus is asked whether it is right to pay taxes to Caesar, if He answers yes, then the crowds would get angry with Him, if He answers no, then He risks making enemies of the Roman leaders. Also, Jesus uses the same technique against the religious leaders in Matthew 21 when asked who gave Him his authority, His return question, was John’s Baptism from heaven or not, could not be answered in such a way as to not cause the leaders problems.  In this particular instance, if Jesus were to “rule” that the woman should be stoned, He would run afoul of Roman laws against mob violence[25] and if He let the woman off the hook, then He would be countermanding the Law of Moses.             The response of Jesus to this dilemma, certainly knowing the religious leader’s hearts and motives, is very interesting: He merely stoops down and writes on the ground. Much ink has been wasted trying to determine what exactly it was that Jesus wrote in the ground. Beasley-Murray offers a good list of past suggestions: Was He writing out His decision in the case before verbally announcing it? Was he writing out a passage from Exodus that warns against supporting a wicked man as a malicious witness? Was He writing in the dust to remind the scribes of Jeremiah’s words, “Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust, because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water.” (Jeremiah 17:13, NIV).[26] I prefer Raymond Brown’s proposal; that Jesus was merely doodling[27], possibly to consider how to handle the situation wisely, possibly in prayer. The fact is that what Jesus wrote has not been recorded, so it clearly was only an important issue for the exact time the incident took place, if even then.             By suggesting that the one who is without sin cast the first stone, Jesus brilliantly defuses the situation. It’s very possible He could be referring to Deuteronomy 17, which prescribes that nobody should be put to death on the testimony of just one witness, and that the witnesses should be the first one to cast the stone. Is Jesus pointing to the possibility of the corruption of the witnesses here – understanding that the woman, though guilty, was caught in an elaborate set up, and thus invalidating the “prosecution’s” case against her, or is He articulating a more basic principle – if you are sinless you can participate in her stoning? This is a difficult question to answer; Stephen James argues somewhat convincingly that what Jesus means by “without sin” in this context is that their case must be presented without evil motives, and in accordance with the law of Moses (how many witnesses to the act were there, more than one? What of the man?) The religious leaders knew their motives weren’t correct, and therefore left the scene.[28]             It is also important to point out here that in defusing the scene the way He did, Jesus did not abrogate the Law of Moses, nor did He completely uphold it – He chose a third, an option that leaves open the question of whether those laws were still applicable in His mind.             The incident ends with Jesus challenging the woman to go and leave her life of sin. Modern and ancient preachers and commentators alike have written or preached that Jesus actually forgave the woman – this is not the case – Jesus did not explicitly forgive her as recorded in the text, He simply chose not to condemn her, and exhorted her to also stop sinning. Application             If we accept the hypothesis that this Pericope is an accurate and genuine happening, then how does it apply today? Did it abolish the death penalty, as many have argued? Did it usher in an age of more leniency on sin? What sort of standard is Jesus setting for those who would be in a position to judge or pronounce punishment over another? While it is very important to not draw doctrine out of a narrative that doesn’t explicitly indicate doctrinal things, this text can still go beyond being a beautiful story of the mercy and wisdom of Jesus and find application in our modern setting.             The first application to consider is what this story says about the death penalty, if anything. As Stephen James points out, many (including John Howard Yoder, Dwight Erricson, Lewis Smedes, G.H. Clark, Charles H. Milligan etc) have used this passage to argue for the abolishment of the death penalty.[29] A careful reading of the text will clearly show that Jesus does not abolish the death penalty, indeed, He doesn’t even address the issue. Thus, both opponents and proponents of capital punishment will need to look in other places to justify their beliefs.             I believe the real modern application of this passage is found in Jesus’ challenge to the religious leaders, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7 NIV) There seems to be a profound connection to this principle and the plank-eye principle that Jesus articulates in Luke 6 – in order to help remove the speck from your brother’s eye, you must first remove the plank from your own. The principle is this, that we should judge and purify ourselves, worrying less about the bad things we see in other people – until our own issues are dealt with – then we will see clearly to help others out. The principle is not advocating merely minding your own business – it is advocating personal holiness that can lead to corporate holiness when we help and challenge each other in right heart and attitude. The Pharisees and scribes were not at all interested in the principle behind the Mosaic laws they were urging Jesus to rule on (i.e. purge the evil from among you), they were just interested in accomplishing their own agendas. The church today cries out for those who would walk in holiness and near the heart of God to the point where we can see clearly enough to help our brothers out with the specks in their eyes, and we can pass judgments rightly. Conclusion                         An objective look at the Pericope Adulterae, its context, its grammar and its manuscript history leads one to the conclusion that this passage has been rightly seen as controversial through the ages. There is not the kind of overwhelming evidence that is needed for dogmatic statements regarding the authorship and canonicity of John 7:53-8:11 either for or against. There is substantial evidence, however, to demonstrate that this text represents a genuine and accurate event in the life of Jesus, and as such it can inform the modern believer about the nature of Jesus and the importance of holiness in the realm of judgment.                 [1] Somewhat awkward, but not completely out of place – see below.             [2] Some scholars point out that Jesus sitting and teaching is a common feature of the Synoptic Gospels, and cite it as further proof of the Non-Johannine authorship of the Pericope – see John 6:3, however for another instance of Jesus sitting down among the people. Borchert, Gerald The New American Commentary Volume 25A: John 1-11. (electronic edition) Logos LibrarySystem (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996)                 [3] For a full list of the major Greek manuscripts that omit this pericope, see: Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 219-220                 [4] Brown, Raymond E.  John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29.  Garden City:   Doubleday, 1982, 335                 [5] Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption           and Restoration, Third Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 50                 [6] The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration p. xxix                 [7] Burge, Gary M. “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 no.2), 144                 [8] “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 142             [9] Hodges, Zane C. “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” (Bibliotheca Sacra 136 no. 544 (October, 1979), 329                 [10] Poythress, Vern S. “Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions” (Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 2 Fall 1984), 362             [11] Bryant, Beauford H. and Krause, Mark S. John. The College Press NIV Commentary. (Joplin: College Press, 1998)             [12] Borchert, Gerald – John 1-11 The New American Commentary. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996)                 [13] “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 323                 [14] As quoted in “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 330                 [15] “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 330                 [16] As quoted in  “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 331                 [17] Trites, Allison A. “The Woman Taken in Adultery” (Bibliotheca Sacra 131 no. 522 April, 1974) 138-144             [18] Johnson, Alan F. “A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society (IX Spring, 1966) 91-96                 [19] Beasley-Murray, George R. The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical                 Commentary.  (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1999.)                 [20] Raymond Brown quotes Eusebius, who in turn quotes Papias writing near the time of the Apostles about a woman who was brought before Jesus accused of many sins. Brown also mentions the 3rd century Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum, which gives clear reference to the events of the Pericope Adulterae which indicates that 2nd century Syria knew of the narrative. John 1-11, p. 335                 [21] Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 220                 [22] John 1-11, p. 335                 [23] Comfort, Phillip W. Encountering the Manuscripts  (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2005) p.99                 [24] “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” pages 146-148                 [25] John 1-11 The New American Commentary                 [26] The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical Commentary                  [27] John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29 p. 334             [28] James, Stephen A. “The Adulteress And The Death Penalty.” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 no. 1 March, 1979) pages 49-50. [29] “The Adulteress And The Death Penalty.” Pages 45-46

Happy Shelter in Place Day, Friends! I find myself living in the part of Central California right now that has been essentially shut down for the next 22 days, and our Shelter in Place order just went into effect about an hour ago. These are strange, strange times! So – sometimes people ask me how it’s going doing a daily podcast. I can tell you that each episode takes just a little under 3 hours from start to finish, which includes writing the episode, recording it, editing it in Audacity, and entering all of the pertinent information into a WordPress and Libsyn post. Longer episodes take longer, shorter episodes can be around 2 hours of time. Last night was one of the later nights for the show. One of my daughters wanted to watch a show with me, and I’ll take just about any excuse I can to spend time with them, so we watched a show together, which began after midnight. Then I wrote a fairly long pastoral email to the congregation of the church I pastor about the coronavirus pandemic. When I say fairly long, I mean over 1800 words, so about 6 pages worth. We’re in California, and on a virtual lock-down, so hopefully they had a little extra time to read. One of the problems being in a church that is pastored by somebody who fancies himself as a writer is that you can get very long emails from time to time. If you are a leader at the church I pastor, you got a 2100 word email from me AND an 1800 word email from me within the space of 4 days. I should repent in sackcloth and ashes for that, I suppose, but these are trying times we live in right now, filled with dangers like novel viruses, lack of toilet paper, and novel-length emails from pastors. ANYWAY, the point of what I was trying to say earlier before I rambled was that I didn’t start WRITING the podcast until around 3AM. Fortunately, I had some great material from pastor David Platt to use, so I didn’t have to write a ton of original material myself. It was, however, one of the few times since I began this daily podcast in January that I kind of just wanted to go to bed, and not spend 2 hours or so on a podcast. HOWEVER – when I got to the point of recording it, and I got to the part where I was just reading the Scriptures into the microphone, that’s when I noticed something that happens practically every time I do the podcast: THE WORD OF GOD ENCOURAGED ME. It gave me HOPE. It built me up. It elevated my mood. Almost every time I record this show, I come away encouraged. Not because I like recording and editing a podcast – that can get a little tedious…but because the WORD of God is powerful, and supernatural, and it just builds me up in faith, because faith comes by HEARING THE WORD OF GOD. I just wanted to share that with you as a benefit. You can get that same benefit – without the 2-3 hours of writing, recording and editing by simply READING (or listening!) to the WORD OF GOD! If you haven’t done so yet, allow me to encourage you to listen to the other half of today’s episode – episode #78 – I split today’s show into two parts so it wouldn’t be too long. In today’s reading, we encounter the story of the woman caught in adultery, known to scholars as the Pericope Adulterae. Many scholars, including many evangelical ones, consider this passage to be a later edition to the New Testament, and in most modern Bibles, this part of John is set apart to show doubt about the passage. So – what’s going on here, and was this story original to John’s Gospel, or was it a later edition?             The Pericope Adulterae, found in John 7:53-8:11, is surrounded by more controversy and conjecture than any other New Testament Passage with the possible exception of the ending of Mark. The authorship and placement of this pericope has been hotly debated at least since the fifth century, and there are still scholars lined up on opposite sides of the issues surrounding this passage.             Attempting to extract meaning and application from this passage is almost meaningless without first wrestling with the genuineness of the text and the mass of evidence for and against it. The issue is simple to grasp – if this pericope is a genuine and accurate happening in the life of Jesus, then it carries just as much weight as the rest of the New Testament. Conversely, if the passage is a later edition with no basis in fact (i.e. it never happened) then the passage is notable only for its historical value and the question of how it became inserted into many manuscripts of the New Testament.        Though it will be argued that there is no way to be certain of the historicity of this passage, the preponderance of the evidence points to it being a genuine happening in the life of Jesus, and as such it does have application in the modern church and it can inform how we live and interact with each other. Summary of the Passage             7:53-8:2 The Pericope Adulterae begins with a somewhat awkward[1] transition from the previous narrative. The stage is set here; Jesus has spent the night at the Mount of Olives and dawn finds Him mingling with the crowd near the temple courts. His very presence attracts a crowd and notably (for the fourth Gospel)[2] Jesus sits down to teach them.             8:3-8:6a As Jesus is teaching the people, The scribes and Pharisees bring in a woman and stand her in front of the crowd. They explain to Jesus that the woman was caught in the act of committing adultery, and (on the surface) they present her to Jesus for judgment. The question is, should the woman be stoned in accordance with the law of Moses? The text informs us that this question is a trap for Jesus, a classic catch 22, there is no clear way that Jesus can give a verdict here without opening Himself up to some basis for accusation, either in the eyes of the Roman authorities, or the people.             8:6b-8:9 Perplexingly, Jesus doesn’t answer their questions immediately, indeed, He never gives them the verdict. Instead, He leans over and writes on the ground. The accusers persist in their questioning, and Jesus finally responds with His classic retort, challenging any one of the accusers without sin to be the one that casts the first stone. Though we don’t know how much time passed after Jesus’ challenge, one can almost be assured of an awkward silence, punctuated by occasional stones hitting the soft earth as they fall from the hands of the accusers. Beginning with the eldest among them, the scribes and Pharisees melt away into the crowd.             8:10-8:11 Jesus and the accused woman are left as the center of attention. He initiates dialogue her, asking the obvious questions – where is everybody? Is no one left to condemn? Upon her acknowledgment that they have all left, Jesus also refuses to condemn the woman, but warns her to leave behind her life of sin. Controversy and Canonicity: Contra Johannine             This Pericope is a wonderful piece of literature; very moving and dramatic. Jesus cleverly meets the challenge of the scribes and Pharisees without compromising and without falling into a trap, and the woman caught in sin is given a second chance to repent. It’s a powerful story, but is it genuine? Did it really happen? If it did really happen, why is there so much evidence against it being an original part of the gospel of John? A survey of the evidence for and against genuineness is presented below.             The majority of New Testament scholars are fairly adamant that the Pericope Adulterae is non-Johannine in origin. The ancient manuscript evidence is indeed stacked against this Pericope. Bruce Metzger  points out that all major early Greek manuscripts omit the Pericope, including our oldest and most respected early manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus,        p66 and p75.[3] Though some Old Latin manuscripts include the Pericope, many omit it as well, and the early Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts do not contain the passage[4]. Codex Bezae is the only major Greek manuscript prior to the 8th century that this pericope appears in, and Bezae is known for its many interpolations. In fact, Metzger states,                         “No other manuscript has so many and such remarkable variations from     what is usually taken to be the New Testament Text. Codex Bezae’s special            characteristic is the free addition (and occasional omission) of words, sentences      and even incidences.”[5]                         Further manuscript evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope is the variety of places it is attached in some of the manuscripts that do contain it. In some manuscripts, it appears after John 7:36, in some after John 7:44, some as an addition at the end of John’s gospel, some after Luke 21:28, and some even after Luke 24:53.[6] Though the number of manuscripts that displace this pericope is not overwhelming, the mere fact of its varied appearance in even a few manuscripts tends to cast doubt on the concreteness of its location after John 7:52.             The final bit of manuscript evidence is the unusually high number of textual variants found in the manuscripts that do contain the pericope. Gary Burge points out that line per line, these twelve verses contain more textual variants across the manuscript tradition than almost any other passage of scripture. [7]             There is also much patristic evidence, especially in the east, stacked against the passage. This pericope is not mentioned by any Greek Father until Euthymius Zigabenus in the 12th century and isn’t found in the writings of the early Fathers in the west either. Thus, it is omitted by Origen, Clement, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril and Chrysostom,[8] even in writings where it would seem to be an appropriate resource for them to use. While Zane Hodges tries to make the case that the absence of the Pericope in these church fathers constitutes an argument from silence, and thus proves nothing[9], the fact of the matter is that this is more empirical evidence stacked against the pericope, and it adds weight to the non-Johannine argument.             While the manuscript evidence would seem to be the greatest evidence against the Pericope, there are also suspicious grammatical and contextual features of the text. Statistical analysis of the text has claimed to show several features which “prove” its non Johannine nature. Vern Poythress has examined the grammatical use of the conjunctions “de”, “oun”, “kai”, and “asyndeton” in the Gospel of John, and developed some general rules that John appears to follow. Upon examination of the adulteress pericope, it would appear that there are enough variations in its use of conjunctions (compared with the rest of John) to allow Poythress to conclude that this Pericope is not written by John.[10]             Further grammatical evidence focuses on the words that are used in the passage. Bryant and Krause point out that approximately nine percent, or 15 of the words used in this pericope do not occur elsewhere in the gospel, the highest percentage for a passage of this size in John[11]. The Mount of Olives, The scribes, and the phrase “early morning” are not found anywhere else in the gospel of John, but all are somewhat common in the synoptic gospels. In addition, only here in John is Jesus addressed as teacher.             While some of these unique words can be explained by the nature of the story, as well as the semi-technical judicial language employed, there are still a high frequency of unique words and constructs here compared with the rest of John.             Finally, there is contextual evidence that seems to indicate this pericope is out of place. Borchert[12] and many others believe that the text disrupts the flow of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative. Many point out its similarity in time and setting to Luke 21:37-38, and (as mentioned above) some manuscripts place the passage right after verse 38 because it seems to be a better fit. It is also true that the flow of the text from 7:52 to 8:12 is smooth and uninterrupted when this passage is removed, but of course, that could be said of many passages! Controversy and Canonicity: Pro Johannine             Most scholars believe the evidence against the Pericope Adulterae is overwhelming, but there is much positive evidence for the ancientness of this event, and even some evidence that would seem to indicate the text is Johannine and not at all out of place.             The strongest evidence for the veracity and Johannine nature of the Pericope comes from the manuscripts and church fathers of the west. Several Old Latin manuscripts do in fact contain the Pericope. Hodges argues valiantly that the absence of the passage in our earliest and most reliable manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 and p75) is due to those manuscripts being of a proto-Alexandrian origin, and thus likely coming from the same (ancient) exemplar, one which had the passage intentionally excised.[13] He posits that the Pericope was removed from some texts very early (before 200), but that the passage was quite possibly in the original autograph.             The Patristic evidence for the Pericope is surprisingly strong in the west. Several church fathers in the fourth and fifth century mention the text, beginning with Pacian of Barcelona, and including Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Jerome and Augustine. Jerome and Augustine in particular add much to the pro Johannine side of the argument, providing significant ancient evidence and speculation on the passage.             Jerome includes the Pericope Adulterae in his Latin Vulgate translation of the scriptures, thus cementing its future acceptance among the Catholic church. In his Dialogue against the Pelagians, Jerome makes a very intriguing reference to this passage,                         “In the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.”[14]             This comment is very significant in considering the Pericope Adulterae, and would seem to stand as the strongest pro-Johannine evidence available. As Hodges points out[15], Jerome was well traveled, and would have had a wide exposure to both Greek and Latin texts, many of which were older than any that has survived to this day. Jerome’s statement should carry much more weight with modern New Testament textual scholars than it appears it does.             Augustine goes even further than Jerome does in his commentary on the passage, acknowledging the already existing controversy over the passage and offering a reason for it’s removal from some manuscripts,                         “Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity  in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who said  ‘sin no more’ had granted permission to sin.” [16]             While Augustine’s hermeneutical approach to the passage contains a common mistake (Jesus did not specifically forgive the adulterous woman), his observation is very relevant and offers an intriguing possible explanation for the manuscript problems (and textual variances) associated with this passage. Hodges further quotes Ambrose who makes a similar suggestion to Augustine’s – that the passage is a stumbling block.             The contextual argument against this pericope is perhaps the easiest to answer. While many commentators have pointed out the “disruption” of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative that this pericope seems to effect, Allison Trites convincingly argues the opposite; the entire passage fits into the overall theme of controversy in John 1-12.[17] Other contextual clues could be seen to indicate the proper placement of this passage. For one, it would seem that the story is a great illustration of John 3:17, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (John 3:17, NIV)             The Pericope can also be seen in a literary sense as a response to the question posed in John 7:26, “Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ?” (John 7:26, NIV)             While much has been made of the grammatical analysis of this pericope, specifically focusing on what is considered non Johannine grammar, there has been some grammatical work on the passage that offers different conclusions. Alan Johnson has used some of the existent grammatical statistical methods on other, non disputed passages of John, and concluded that some of those would be considered non Johannine based on the very same methodology used on the Pericope Adulterae. In addition, he also points out several grammatical features in this passage that are consistent with the rest of John, including the use of “de”, “touto” and “legein” [18]             My own grammatical analysis of the passage has produced some interesting results, further casting doubt on the ability of statistical grammatical analysis to effectively determine canonicity and authorship questions. The phrase “meketi amartane” (no longer sin, or stop sinning) only occurs here in the pericope and in John 5:14, where Jesus likewise instructs the paralytic to stop sinning. “ina ecosin” (that they might) is a phrase found only in verse six, and John 17:13. “Kai palin” (and again) in verse 8 is found six other times in John but only once in Luke. Finally, the phrase “eis ten gen” (in the earth) from verse 6 is found 23 times in the New Testament, 5 are in John, and 12 are in Revelation – so of the 23 times that phrase is used, 17 times it is Johannine. That analysis might be used to impress upon some a level of certainty that John did write this passage, but in fact, in the final analysis it doesn’t add much to the argument one way or the other – except to possibly refute those who use statistical grammatical analysis to “prove” that this Pericope is non-Johannine.             A thorough survey of the evidence reveals one thing quite clearly: the authorship and position of the Pericope Adulterae is not an easy issue to decide. It is perplexing and frustrating to see the certainty that is exhibited by many scholars on both sides of this issue. Bruce Metzger, Phillip Comfort, Kurt Aland, Raymond Brown, George Beasley-Murray, Leon Morris and many others all make absolute statements on the Pericope and point to overwhelming evidence that it is either non-canonical or non Johannine. Beasley-Murray goes so far as to write, “It is universally agreed by textual critics of the Greek NT that this passage was not part of the Fourth Gospel in its original form.”[19] What an outrageous and misleading statement! On the other hand, there are a few scholars (Elmer Towns, some scholars in the King James only camp, and several Dallas Theological Seminary professors) who are equally adamant that this passage is certainly genuine, and right where it belongs in the New Testament. The fact is that the best and most irrefutable evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope Adulterae is its lack of attestation in many of our earliest and best surviving manuscripts. When this manuscript evidence is considered in light of Jerome’s quote above on all of the Greek and Old Latin manuscripts he saw that contained the Pericope (and likely were older than most that we have now) we have a clear conundrum, one that cannot be fairly answered without new evidence coming to light.             Thankfully, one thing is agreed upon by most N.T. scholars – this pericope is very old[20] and very likely to be an accurate event in the life of Jesus. Thus Metzger writes that John 7:53-8:11, “has all the earmarks of historical veracity”[21], and Raymond Brown writes, “There is nothing in the story itself, or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus.”[22]             If this Pericope is in fact a genuine event in the ministry of Jesus – how is it that it is absent in so many early Biblical texts? To put the issue another way, Phillip W. Comfort offers a list of suspect passages in the Textus Receptus, including the Pericope Adulterae. He challenges those who would argue for the inclusion of these questionable passages to, “come up with good arguments as to why scribes (in the early centuries) would have purposely excised these passages.”[23] Gary Burge proposes an interesting, though improvable suggestion that answers both questions: the Pericope Adulterae text was excised from some early manuscripts for theological reasons. Burge points to the unbiblical Doctrine of Penance, as articulated by early church fathers like Tertullian, Clement and Cyprian. Sexual sins in the eyes of many of the early church fathers were very grave, and in some cases unforgivable.[24]  In light of that, it is conceivable that this passage was removed, under the impression that it was or too light on a sin, or in fear (As Augustine suggests above) that it would give others license to sin without fear of reprisal. It is also a possibility that the text is a real happening in the life of Jesus that never was put into the gospels because of the fear listed above (or for another reason – as John says, if everything Jesus did was written down, the world couldn’t contain the books!) A Deeper Look at the Text We now turn our attention back to the text itself, and from the perspective that it is a genuine happening, and is placed in the appropriate place in the text. Examining this passage in its literary context, we see that Jesus’ ministry, previously marked by amazing miracles and healings at the time of the adulterous pericope had become quite controversial. Jesus’ teachings were very challenging, and He even lost some disciples because of them.             In the events leading up to the encounter, Jesus brothers urge Him to go the Feast of Tabernacles, and he temporarily declined, only to come later and begin to interact with the people. As He teaches, many people believe in Him, and many don’t – causing arguments and strife. The temple guards are sent to arrest Jesus, but they themselves become arrested by His words and fail to complete their job. The Pharisees and other religious leaders meet in anger, considering what to do and finding no solution. It is directly after this that the incident with the adulterous woman happens.             The Old Testament, in Deuteronomy 22 states, “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.” (Deuteronomy 22:24, NIV) Leviticus 20 states similarly, “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10, NIV) These were the laws of Moses referred to in vs. 5 of this passage. Curiously, there is no mention of the man that was with the woman – this has led many to conclude that the situation was a set up from the beginning, (i.e. the woman was also “trapped”) The scribes and Pharisees, therefore, were wanting Jesus to rule on a case that was flawed from the beginning – they were asking Him to incompletely apply the law of Moses to this situation.             This was merely another attempt by the religious leaders to put Jesus in a position where there is no good way out. A similar incident occurs in Matthew 22 (and the other Synoptics): Jesus is asked whether it is right to pay taxes to Caesar, if He answers yes, then the crowds would get angry with Him, if He answers no, then He risks making enemies of the Roman leaders. Also, Jesus uses the same technique against the religious leaders in Matthew 21 when asked who gave Him his authority, His return question, was John’s Baptism from heaven or not, could not be answered in such a way as to not cause the leaders problems.  In this particular instance, if Jesus were to “rule” that the woman should be stoned, He would run afoul of Roman laws against mob violence[25] and if He let the woman off the hook, then He would be countermanding the Law of Moses.             The response of Jesus to this dilemma, certainly knowing the religious leader’s hearts and motives, is very interesting: He merely stoops down and writes on the ground. Much ink has been wasted trying to determine what exactly it was that Jesus wrote in the ground. Beasley-Murray offers a good list of past suggestions: Was He writing out His decision in the case before verbally announcing it? Was he writing out a passage from Exodus that warns against supporting a wicked man as a malicious witness? Was He writing in the dust to remind the scribes of Jeremiah’s words, “Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust, because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water.” (Jeremiah 17:13, NIV).[26] I prefer Raymond Brown’s proposal; that Jesus was merely doodling[27], possibly to consider how to handle the situation wisely, possibly in prayer. The fact is that what Jesus wrote has not been recorded, so it clearly was only an important issue for the exact time the incident took place, if even then.             By suggesting that the one who is without sin cast the first stone, Jesus brilliantly defuses the situation. It’s very possible He could be referring to Deuteronomy 17, which prescribes that nobody should be put to death on the testimony of just one witness, and that the witnesses should be the first one to cast the stone. Is Jesus pointing to the possibility of the corruption of the witnesses here – understanding that the woman, though guilty, was caught in an elaborate set up, and thus invalidating the “prosecution’s” case against her, or is He articulating a more basic principle – if you are sinless you can participate in her stoning? This is a difficult question to answer; Stephen James argues somewhat convincingly that what Jesus means by “without sin” in this context is that their case must be presented without evil motives, and in accordance with the law of Moses (how many witnesses to the act were there, more than one? What of the man?) The religious leaders knew their motives weren’t correct, and therefore left the scene.[28]             It is also important to point out here that in defusing the scene the way He did, Jesus did not abrogate the Law of Moses, nor did He completely uphold it – He chose a third, an option that leaves open the question of whether those laws were still applicable in His mind.             The incident ends with Jesus challenging the woman to go and leave her life of sin. Modern and ancient preachers and commentators alike have written or preached that Jesus actually forgave the woman – this is not the case – Jesus did not explicitly forgive her as recorded in the text, He simply chose not to condemn her, and exhorted her to also stop sinning. Application             If we accept the hypothesis that this Pericope is an accurate and genuine happening, then how does it apply today? Did it abolish the death penalty, as many have argued? Did it usher in an age of more leniency on sin? What sort of standard is Jesus setting for those who would be in a position to judge or pronounce punishment over another? While it is very important to not draw doctrine out of a narrative that doesn’t explicitly indicate doctrinal things, this text can still go beyond being a beautiful story of the mercy and wisdom of Jesus and find application in our modern setting.             The first application to consider is what this story says about the death penalty, if anything. As Stephen James points out, many (including John Howard Yoder, Dwight Erricson, Lewis Smedes, G.H. Clark, Charles H. Milligan etc) have used this passage to argue for the abolishment of the death penalty.[29] A careful reading of the text will clearly show that Jesus does not abolish the death penalty, indeed, He doesn’t even address the issue. Thus, both opponents and proponents of capital punishment will need to look in other places to justify their beliefs.             I believe the real modern application of this passage is found in Jesus’ challenge to the religious leaders, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7 NIV) There seems to be a profound connection to this principle and the plank-eye principle that Jesus articulates in Luke 6 – in order to help remove the speck from your brother’s eye, you must first remove the plank from your own. The principle is this, that we should judge and purify ourselves, worrying less about the bad things we see in other people – until our own issues are dealt with – then we will see clearly to help others out. The principle is not advocating merely minding your own business – it is advocating personal holiness that can lead to corporate holiness when we help and challenge each other in right heart and attitude. The Pharisees and scribes were not at all interested in the principle behind the Mosaic laws they were urging Jesus to rule on (i.e. purge the evil from among you), they were just interested in accomplishing their own agendas. The church today cries out for those who would walk in holiness and near the heart of God to the point where we can see clearly enough to help our brothers out with the specks in their eyes, and we can pass judgments rightly. Conclusion                         An objective look at the Pericope Adulterae, its context, its grammar and its manuscript history leads one to the conclusion that this passage has been rightly seen as controversial through the ages. There is not the kind of overwhelming evidence that is needed for dogmatic statements regarding the authorship and canonicity of John 7:53-8:11 either for or against. There is substantial evidence, however, to demonstrate that this text represents a genuine and accurate event in the life of Jesus, and as such it can inform the modern believer about the nature of Jesus and the importance of holiness in the realm of judgment.                 [1] Somewhat awkward, but not completely out of place – see below.             [2] Some scholars point out that Jesus sitting and teaching is a common feature of the Synoptic Gospels, and cite it as further proof of the Non-Johannine authorship of the Pericope – see John 6:3, however for another instance of Jesus sitting down among the people. Borchert, Gerald The New American Commentary Volume 25A: John 1-11. (electronic edition) Logos LibrarySystem (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996)                 [3] For a full list of the major Greek manuscripts that omit this pericope, see: Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 219-220                 [4] Brown, Raymond E.  John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29.  Garden City:   Doubleday, 1982, 335                 [5] Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption           and Restoration, Third Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 50                 [6] The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration p. xxix                 [7] Burge, Gary M. “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 no.2), 144                 [8] “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 142             [9] Hodges, Zane C. “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” (Bibliotheca Sacra 136 no. 544 (October, 1979), 329                 [10] Poythress, Vern S. “Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions” (Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 2 Fall 1984), 362             [11] Bryant, Beauford H. and Krause, Mark S. John. The College Press NIV Commentary. (Joplin: College Press, 1998)             [12] Borchert, Gerald – John 1-11 The New American Commentary. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996)                 [13] “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 323                 [14] As quoted in “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 330                 [15] “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 330                 [16] As quoted in  “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 331                 [17] Trites, Allison A. “The Woman Taken in Adultery” (Bibliotheca Sacra 131 no. 522 April, 1974) 138-144             [18] Johnson, Alan F. “A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society (IX Spring, 1966) 91-96                 [19] Beasley-Murray, George R. The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical                 Commentary.  (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1999.)                 [20] Raymond Brown quotes Eusebius, who in turn quotes Papias writing near the time of the Apostles about a woman who was brought before Jesus accused of many sins. Brown also mentions the 3rd century Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum, which gives clear reference to the events of the Pericope Adulterae which indicates that 2nd century Syria knew of the narrative. John 1-11, p. 335                 [21] Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 220                 [22] John 1-11, p. 335                 [23] Comfort, Phillip W. Encountering the Manuscripts  (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2005) p.99                 [24] “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” pages 146-148                 [25] John 1-11 The New American Commentary                 [26] The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical Commentary                  [27] John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29 p. 334             [28] James, Stephen A. “The Adulteress And The Death Penalty.” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 no. 1 March, 1979) pages 49-50. [29] “The Adulteress And The Death Penalty.” Pages 45-46

What’s the difference between the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians? Where do we see these teachings now? What is your role in salvation? Who are considered dry bones? How does our language affect how we understand our theology? Dr. Kevin Armbrust, Director of Editorial for LCMS Communications, and Peter Slayton, Social Media Manager for the LCMS, join host Rev. Sean Smith to discuss the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, Article II: of Free Will in the Book of Concord.

Doctrine matters! Well, of course it does! What you believe and why you believe it effects and influences every aspect of your life. To pretend otherwise is to, well, pretend otherwise. The passage of Romans we just studied (i.e. Romans 1-5) and the passage we're about to begin (i.e. ch. 6-8) teach and solidify several truths. Among these truths are the "ordo slutis" (the order of salvation), original sin (as a concept), original grace (as a reality), confession, faith, and baptism as parts of the plan of salvation. Paul also addresses the reality of sin, the responsibility of being saved, the ongoing struggle with sin, and the power of the Holy Spirit. But before moving on to these it is important to acknowledge the significant differences between two opposing views. Augustinian-Calvinism The differences between Augustinian-Calvinism (aka Reformed theology) and non-Calvinist theology (i.e. historical/traditional theology) is proof that doctrine matters. Several of the key components of T.U.L.I.P. - the self-applied acronym of Reformed theology's principle doctrines - are found in Romans. At least that is what Calvinists would have us believe. Problem is, the concepts are in fact there, just not in the way they think they are. The Bible actually teaches the contrary of T.U.L.I.P. (Acquired Partial Depravity, Conditional Election, Unlimited Atonement, Resistible Grace, & Assurance By Faith). Another problem with Augustinian-Calvinism is found in its philosophical roots. That is, where the concepts of theistic determinism (i.e. T.U.L.I.P.) actually come from. For example, Stoicism, Gnoticism, Neoplatonism, & Manichaeism - all identified by the church as heresies prior to Augustine - each teach one or more of Reformed theology's foundational concepts. When confronted with various questions from the Pelagians, Augustine reverted to his prior teaching and understanding that was rooted in these false teachings. Additionally, Augustinian-Calvinism's presuppositional definitions can be found in these philosophies as well. The fact is that the theology of Augustinian-Calvinism requires eisegetical interpretation of Scripture (as opposed of exegetical). Meaning, the foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism is built on sand ( cf. Matthew 24-27). Ultimately, sound systematic theology is only as good as its foundation. Think Leaning Tower of Pisa. Doctrine Matters Unless you're completely new to this podcast, then you're fully aware that I am not a Calvinist. My goal in going through Romans is first to establish sound doctrine and second to refute (or at least point out) false doctrine. In this episode I briefly discuss the prominent differences between Augustinian-Calvinism and the biblical view. For more detailed discussion I refer you to the resources listed below. __________________________________________ Study Romans From The Beginning By Clicking Here ******** ADDITIONAL RESOURCES THAT ADDRESS AUGUSTINIAN-CALVINISM The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism - Wilson (book) Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to 'non-Free Free Will': A Comprehensive Methodology (Studien Und Texte Zu Antike Und Christentum / Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity) Wilson (book) Soteriology 101 - Dr. Leighton Flowers' website Soteriology 101 - YouTube Channel Was Augustine The First To Introduce "Calvinism" Into The Church? (Flowers & Wilson) Did The Early Church Fathers Teach "Calvinism"? (Flowers & Wilson) Was "Calvinism"Introduced By Augustine? Calvinism In A Nutshell (Cottrell) Did the Early Christian Fathers Teach Calvinism? (Cottrell)

For more from Douglas Wilson visit dougwils.com and canonpress.com! 

For more from Douglas Wilson visit dougwils.com and canonpress.com! 

The best named pope of them all, and he has to take care of the Pelagians!

In this episode, Gillespie and Riley read St. Augustine’s response to the Pelagians, who used his earlier writings against him, about misrepresentation concerning the effect of baptism. Our Text: ST. AUGUSTINE - Against Two Letters of the Pelagians (Book III) (Misrepresentation Concerning the Effect of Baptism) Show Notes:  Pelagius & Pelagians Semipelagianism — Questions? Comments? Show Ideas? Send them to us at BannedBooks@1517legacy.com. Please subscribe, rate, and review the show in Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/banned-books-podcast/id1370993639?mt=2. We’re proud to be part of 1517 Podcasts, a network of shows dedicated to delivering Christ-centered content through weekly, monthly, and seasonal audio platforms. Our podcasts cover a multitude of content, from Christian doctrine, apologetics, cultural engagement, and powerful preaching. Find out more at 1517. And as always, don't forget Gillespie's coffee for your caffeinated needs and especially the 1517 Reformation Roast

Pelagians-b-gon! In this episode, Pastor Eric Brown and Thomas Lemke read through Paul’s Christocentric counter-argument against the Judaizers. In the Backwards Life, Pastor Brown discusses heavenly rewards. This episode covers Galatians 2:15-3:6. If you have questions you’d like answered send them via our Contact Page or post them on The Gospeled Boldly Facebook page. Please rate and review our show on iTunes. Click […] Copyright Higher Things®, Higher Things - Dare to be Lutheran. Support the work of Higher Things.

Overview of Augustine’s dispute with the Pelagians. Any relevance for today? What is the gospel?

Sections 1. Absurd fictions of opponents first refuted, and then certain passages of Scripture explained. Answer by a negative. Confirmation of the answer. 2. Another absurdity of Aristotle and Pelagius. Answer by a distinction. Answer fortified by passages from Augustine, and supported by the authority of an Apostle. 3. Third absurdity borrowed from the words of Chrysostom. Answer by a negative. 4. Fourth absurdity urged of old by the Pelagians. Answer from the works of Augustine. Illustrated by the testimony of our Saviour. Another answer, which explains the use of exhortations. 5. A third answer, which contains a fuller explanation of the second. Objection to the previous answers. Objection refuted. Summary of the previous answers.  

In the last two Dividing Line programs, Dr. James White, confronts the Traditionalist statement of SBC by attempting to redefine Federal Headship. He also confronts Dr. David Allen's accusation of his "Hyperisms."  In doing so he admits that he and other Calvinists (JD Hall) have been wrong ("muddle headed") to label us Pelagians.  I'm glad that Dr. White has recognized his error. Let's discuss! To join Professor Leighton Flowers and others in a discussion please visit www.soteriology101.com

I. The Importance of Spiritual Leadership So what makes a Godly spiritual leader? There is a big industry around answering that question. The industry involves the writing of books, the putting on of conferences, various other materials that you can buy, church leadership out of a box, amen. It's just incredible. So the question in front of such an industry is, what makes a successful church leader? What are you looking for in a successful... Whenever you see that word successful, be afraid, be very afraid, when it's connected to that topic. But what is it? John Maxwell has made a living answering that question, that name may not be familiar to many of you, but it's familiar to me. And I once got a set of... They were tapes back then, that's what they did back then. Tapes. You guys remember tapes? Cassette tapes. I'm not talking 8tracks, cassette tapes, on a senior pastor profile. And he was listing out various character traits of a senior pastor. Let me just give you as much a snippet of this as I can stomach communicating. And you'll get a sense of it. "He needs to be charismatic in personality and style. No one wants a friend that makes them feel bad about themselves. The moment you can get people to think more about themselves, you have developed charisma. A senior pastor needs to have showmanship without showing off." I hope I'm not talking myself out of a job here, but I'm going to keep going, "An item needs to be done in a way that's above average, unique, special, memorable, classy." Classy. Look that up in your concordance, see if you can find classy in the Bible. "A senior pastor needs to be a pied piper of people." By the way, isn't that like a story of a kidnapper of kids? I think that's a bad story, isn't it? I'm digressing again and again. I'm just going to read this. "A person that people enjoy following because of his charisma, his charm, his personal magnetism. A senior pastor needs a winning smile, a sense of humor, a charming personality. Ideally, a senior pastor will present himself well physically, he should be in shape and attractive." By the way, let me know when that goes and I'll retire. No, I won't. Let's keep going, "He needs to be confident. When you begin to have a true real confidence about yourself," Oh boy, how do I even say those words? Self-confidence that means trusting in yourself, doesn't it? Okay, let's keep going, "The people will begin to have confidence in you. In other words, confidence breeds confidence. A senior pastor should develop some area of high achievement and base his confidence on that skill set. He needs to be a good communicator. Senior pastor needs to have a good media presence, he must be a salesman, he must be able to sell snowballs to Eskimos. He must be able to close the deal, cause the crowd to march in a certain direction. He must be able to move people emotionally, from where they are to where the pastor wants them to be." That's about it, friends, that's all I can handle. So much for John Maxwell. The longer I listened to those tapes I was yearning, begging, desiring a single scripture verse, somewhere. Because friends that just isn't biblical. And he's not the only one. There are lots of books that basically what they do is they plunder the secular corporate world for principles, leadership principles, Fortune 500 companies, that kind of thing, Amazon.com, Google.com, Ben and Jerry's, Walmart. Try to find what works out there in the secular world and just make a key critical assumption that those same principles will work well in the church. That is a faulty assumption. And as a matter of fact, Jesus challenged that very assumption in Matthew Chapter 20. You remember that time when James and John sought to get close to Jesus and angle for a position in the kingdom, you remember the coming kingdom. Grant that we may sit at your right and your left. And so the other 10 were indignant with the two, not because of the whole approach, but that they hadn't thought of it first, I think. And that James and John had the inside track now on those positions of privilege. So Jesus drew them aside, all of them. And He said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave-- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." For Jesus, then the center piece of true spiritual leadership was self-sacrifice for the good of the people. For the good of the flock really. Ultimately though, stepping aside from that passage, I think good leadership, Godly leadership is influence, it's the ability to change hearts and influence people to obey God. I think that's what it is. And you're going to do that, I'm speaking truthfully now from the Scripture, you're going to do that by the ministry of the Word and by your own obedience to the Word, by your own example. So that's what God's given leaders to be leaders, they are to influence others for Christ by means of the ministry of the Word and their own godly obedience to the Word, their example. This is absolutely vital in the church, every member of the church is fighting just in mortal combat with the world, the flesh, and the devil for the health of their souls. And so the Bible frequently portrays the people of God as a flock, as sheep who need a shepherd. Or as we believe shepherds. We must have godly shepherds. We must have Godly spiritual leaders. We cannot be left on our own. II. Remembering and Imitating Past Leaders (vs. 7) Now, this passage in Hebrews (13:7-9 and 13:17-19) is not so much about identifying Godly leaders, but about what to do when you have them. And specifically how to follow them. In my opinion, it breaks into two sections. They're separated by other verses. So I'm putting together by this concept of leadership, basically, effectively verse 7 and verse 17. Verse 7, speaking I think about dead leaders, those that have gone before us, who have finished their race and have had an influence in our lives to remember them. And then verse 17, living leaders, the ones you have right now. So that's essentially what we're looking at today. And the passage is about how to follow them, how to be... How to get the most out of their leadership, how to get the most out of their influence for the health of your own souls. And perhaps a secondary theme would be, how to be one yourself, I think. So the future generations will want to follow your godly example. So I think that's all wrapped up in this as well. So look at verse 7, "Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you, consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith." So, who are these leaders? I've already tipped my hand a bit. These leaders, I think, are leaders that have gone before, they're no longer leading, they're dead. The reason I get that is, there's a past tense here, a tense of the verb. They spoke the word of God to you in the past. Even if they're not dead, even if they've moved on out of your life, you no longer have them on a daily basis, speaking the Word of God into your lives. And their way of life. Their life is now completed. We'll talk about the Greek word that gives me a sense that they're dead. It's this word escape. NIV translates it: "Outcome." Starting with the Mind: Remember them, Consider them But basically you are to consider them. And it starts with the mind, "Remember them and consider them. Do you see those words? These are thinking words. The way you get the most out of your leaders is to think about them, it's a battle of the mind. And so simply just stepping away from this for just a moment, Christians are to lead thoughtful lives, you're to be thinkers. Your minds are to be active all the time. And in this space, in this space here, in verse 7, we're told to remember leaders and consider them. We're going to be thinking. Here we come to one of my favorite topics there is in the Christian life, and that's church history. That we should make the most of church history, that we should study those who went before us, and try to find out how they lived. These Godly leaders that went before us, and to imitate them, ultimately, to esteem them. Now, the author is not wanting us to go too far in all of this as some have done. We are to esteem them, we are to hold them in reverence, we are to study them for the purpose of imitation. But we are not to worship them. In the Medieval Catholic church, there was a cult of saints. The departed, the Saints had gone before. And basically, in the medieval Catholic system they divided the members of the church into two categories, there were saints and sinners, and so if you were a saint, you went straight to Heaven, voted there by the College of Cardinals. But if you were an ordinary Christian you were going to purgatory. So it's a two-tier system. Now, the saints that went before would get special jobs, some of them anyway, up in heaven, they could become the patron saint of this or that or the other. There are three great categories of patron saints, there is the patron saint of a certain problem that you may have. There's the patron saint of a certain occupation you may have, and there are patron saints of locations, geographical locations. That's how it all worked. I'm not going to go on… I have long lists of various saints and what they did. It's like going to the right department in the federal government. And so you would go to the patron saint of snake bites, poisonous reptile bites. I'm not going to tell you his name, but there is one. Or the patron saint of Durham England. I looked up, there's not one for Durham, North Carolina, as far as I know, but perhaps Saint Cuthbert can do double duty on all the Durhams that there are. So that's the saint of geographical locations, or of bakers, or engineers. I looked up that one too. There is a patron saint of engineers. I frankly think this is just thinly veiled polytheism, is all it is. It's just polytheism. You go to a certain god or goddess who had a certain responsibility in a certain area and they looked after it for you. It got even worse, because there was a whole calendar, a church calendar around feast sub-saints, and they would be honored in specific ways in certain days, even with pilgrimages to certain shrines, where parts of their dead bodies were like skulls and finger bones, perhaps in glass cases, and you could reverence them, not worship just veneration, so they were told. I'm not sure if the average peasant knew the difference, I believe, and I think you do too, that the author to Hebrews would be horrified at that. That's not healthy church history, not at all. It's not what the author had in mind. Rather, it's just a healthy understanding of what went before you, so you can learn the lessons of these godly men and women, and learn lessons from their lives, and imitate them. So we're supposed to remember who they were, and how they poured into our lives. So it could be even someone in your own life who's now moved on. A godly parent, a mother or a father. A role model, a pastor, who years ago a poured into your life. Remember them, think about them, consider how they lived. For me, it's just the glorious chain of church history. It goes even beyond. We have brothers and sisters that lived centuries before us, and by reading good historical accounts of their lives, we can be inspired and motivated. I would urge you to do it. Become basically familiar with the Roman martyrs, what went on during the first few centuries after Christ, and how people laid down their lives, like Polycarp, who was martyred in Smyrna. And just an incredible account of his life Eusebius gives us. And Augustine, a great theological church father, and how his thinking affected the centuries that followed, his debates with the Pelagius. Who the Pelagians were, what the danger was there. Athanasius, who fought against the Arians, and that's just Jehovah's Witness doctrine, that Jesus is a created being. I mean, just to know church history, and to study and to realize what a royal family, we belong to. And how... And it's inspired me when I've gone through challenging times in my own ministry that I would elevate to the name of suffering, to then look at people who really suffered, the ones that bled and died for our faith, the ones that bled and died so we can have a Bible to read, like William Tyndale. And they were willing to suffer and die, rather than to give up on points of doctrine. They fought for the faith. They earnestly contended for it so they could pass it on pure to the next generation. Remember them and consider, he says, the outcome of their way of life. Now that's NIV's translation. The Greek word is escape. Consider there escape, as the way it's translated in 1 Corinthians 10, how God, when you're tempted, will not tempt you beyond what you can bear but in the middle of the temptation will make a way of escape for you. Get out of it, right? I'm longing for escape from all temptation, amen. Let's escape from it all. Well, there's only one way to do that. In that case, as Paul says that you would have to leave this world. Well, they left this world. That's why I think he's talking about dead leaders. And so, they're gone, they left, and that's why they're especially vital to us. The ones that are still living are vulnerable, they might disappoint you, actually. Pray that they wont. We'll get to that at the end. But they're still in the fight. And some of us have had our hearts broken by leaders who didn't finish their race well, but these people did, they ran and ran and ran and ran and then they hit the finish line and they won, they won. So look at that. They ran their race with endurance right to the end. Paul said to Timothy, "I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure…" Same idea, it's time for me to leave. I fought the good fight, I finished the race, I've kept the faith, now imitate me." That's what he's saying. And so, we go from thinking here, remember or consider, we go to imitation. Mimoúmai is the Greek verb from which we get mimeograph or mimic or mime, means to imitate, to follow examples. So these leaders are in heaven. They have fought the good fight, they finished the race, and they were welcomed by God Almighty into heaven. "Well done, good and faithful servant." Welcomed in. They don't need anything from you. They have received far better commendation than you have the ability to give them. They don't need anything, they're fine. Just fine, thank you very much. This is for your benefit that you honor them for your benefit. Why? So that you'll repent from weakness and sins and run better, and fight better, and imitate their lives. Imitate their faith. And some day, you also will be someone worthy of emulation, worthy of imitation, because you fought well, you ran well, and you ran right to the finish line. How many kings are there in the Bible in First, Second Kings, Chronicles, who started well but didn't end well? There's a handful of them. I don't want to be one of those. I don't want to be like that, I don't want you to be like that, I don't want you to run well today, but not run well 10 years from now. Now, we can't control 10 years from now, each day has enough trouble of its own, but run well today, today. So that someone can imitate you. You can say to them, "Be imitators of me as I am of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:1. Or as Paul says, "Join with others in following my example brothers. And take note of those who live according to the pattern of Christian life that we gave you." And as he said in Chapter 4, Philippians 4, "Whatever you've learned or received or heard from me..." That's doctrine, "Or seen in me..." That's example, "Put it into practice and the God of peace will be with you…" Oh, for a generation of leaders will say something like that. That takes courage to say that, doesn't it? But we need those kind of leaders. Christian life is both taught and caught. Not just one or the other. There's a pattern of doctrine, there's a pattern of living, and there's some things that you really can only learn by example. I think being a godly husband or a godly wife is best learned, I think, by example. Learning By Example I think the scriptures are there to instruct us, but then as someone lives it out, it just comes to life and you can see what it means, what it means to be a godly husband or a godly wife, an older woman who can commend to the younger women what it means to be a godly, submissive, helper suitable for your husband. Or what it means to be a Christ-like husband to your wife. It's just demeanor, facial expression, stuff happens and people can watch how you react. How to suffer well in persecution. Paul commended his own example in that, he said to Timothy, "You saw what happened to me in Antioch, I can't even illustrate the kind of persecutions I endured. You saw how I lived, now do the same thing when you suffer." How to witness. I think witnessing, I think, is learned very well by example. Follow me, let's go share the gospel and just watch. How to get in a conversation with a total stranger, how to turn that conversation from general things to more personal things. How to get to the Gospel, somewhere he didn't want to go when you began talking. But you're there at the end, because you led there in a very sweet, loving way. How do you do that? Well, some of it is just by role modeling, just learn how to do it. These things are learned, I think, by godly examples. And we need that, how to pray, how to intercede for others. Just as well, the disciples are watching Jesus pray it's like, "Teach us to pray like that." Just watching it and listening to it. And so application for us, are you doing just simply what the verse says? Are you thinking about the people who poured into your lives, the ones who are role models for you, are you thinking about what they did in your lives? And are you imitating their example? And are you studying church history, to learn those that went before that can pour into your life still by their writings and by what was written about them. Are you learning their example so you can imitate their faith and have their outcome? And are you living in such a way, like in that Steve Green song, may all who come behind us find us faithful, may the foot steps of our lives be worth following. As people are up in the attic of our lives and rummaging through the closet of our lives and seeing mementos. Are they seeing a life of faithfulness to Jesus, that's worth emulation? Very convicting, isn't it? I want to be a role model the rest of my life. And I don't want there to be any skeletons in the closet. I don't want anybody to rummage and find anything. I just want to live a godly holy life, right through. So that's what he's saying to do. III. Understanding the Only Unchangeable Leader: Jesus Christ (vs. 8) Verse 8, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Oh, how glorious is that verse? Our unchanging God, our unchanging savior. But the question that's in front of me is why is this verse here? This is something an exegete asks, other people don't ask it, they just stick it on a 3 by 5 card, or on a poster, or a piece of Christian stationary. Amen, Hallelujah, put it there, it's a great verse. But I'm asking a harder question. Why is it between verses 7 and verses 9? Why is it here? Maybe it's just like the book of Proverbs and there's no good reason, it's just here, but I don't think so. I think there is a connection and there's a flow here. I don't think he's getting at the idea of the deity of Christ and the fact that as God Jesus never changes, that is true, it's a marvelous truth. The unchanging deity of Christ. The same yesterday and today and forever. He can never be a better savior to you than he is right now. He will never improve, he cannot get worse, he's the unchanging God. Still less do I think that it could be used the way some charismatics used this verse to say, that Jesus does the same thing in every case that he did back then, that kind of thing. I don't think that argument works. I'm not a cessationist, I don't think you can find biblical arguments for the ending of the sign gifts, I'm talking about speaking in tongues, prophecy, healings, miracles, those kinds of things. I don't believe in cessationism from scripture. But I just like to use the Bible properly. And that's not what this verse is saying, it doesn't even work. Okay, the way the argument goes, Jesus gave the power to drive out demons, and to heal the sick, and raise the dead, to his apostles, right there in Matthew 10. And so He does, He's the same yesterday, and today and forever, and so we should have the same power today. Well, you've missed some key steps, some key steps are missing, I'm not going to go into all of them. Just like if you were to look at, I think in Matthew 10:5, the beginning of that whole commissioning, he said, "Do not go to the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans." Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today and forever, so we need to not go to any Gentile towns or enter any village of the Samaritans. Well, we know that that was temporary, don't you know that that was temporary? We are to go into all the world and preach to every Gentile town, we're to go into Samaria, etcetera. So you just need to be a little more careful thinking about your acts to Jesus. That's not what this verse is teaching. Why is it here? Okay. Well, verse 7 is talking about Godly leaders. What is verse nine talking about? "Do not be carried away by false teaching." You see that? This verse bridges between those two. Jesus is the ultimate Shepherd of the church. He never changes, His doctrine never changes, the Gospel never changes. So don't accept new teachers that come with strange diverse doctrines. That's what I think the author is doing here. Be willing to stand up and to realize that Jesus Christ is the same, Jesus is the ultimate Shepherd of the church, the elders are merely under shepherds, under Jesus. 1 Peter 5 teachers this, "Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers." 1 Peter 5:2, and then 1 Peter 5:4, "When the Chief Shepherd appears, then you'll receive the crown." So what does that imply? We're not the chief shepherd, we're under shepherds. Elders are. He is the true leader of the church, and he cannot die. All of those leaders in verse 7, they all die at some point, just like all the priests in the old covenant, they all die. Jesus will never die. And he is the true leader, the true role model, the true example in every generation unchanging, I think that's what the author is getting at here. When I think of this, I think of the vision that the elderly, Apostle John had on the island of Patmos, of the glorified resurrected Jesus. Marvelous image that is, in a long white robe, the golden sash around his chest. Head and hair white like wool, his eyes like blazing fire, his feet like burnished bronze, and He's moving through the seven golden lamp stands, and those lamb stands represent individual local churches, and he's ministering to those individual local churches. He is the Chief Shepherd of each individual local church. How powerful is that image? Jesus is the only Shepherd that's been here since 1845, here at FBC. Only one. Through every generation it's been Jesus, the same yesterday, today and forever. It's his flock that he bought with His blood, none of the elders shed their blood for the flock, it is His church. And I think that's what the author is giving us here. And so just for application, just thank Jesus daily for His shepherding work in the church, that He's shepherding yesterday, today, forever, always the same. And as he shepherds you just think this way, if he loved me yesterday, he'll love me today, and if he'll love me today, he'll love me forever. It is an everlasting love that he's loved me with and he'll never stop. He's the same in loving me and shepherding me. And marvel at the security of his unchanging leadership, his doctor never changes, His love of the Church never changes, he is a good shepherd in every generation, tending his flock around the world. IV. Understanding the Threat of False Leaders (vs. 9) Understand also, in verse 9, the threat of false leaders. I'm not going to do all of verse 9 today, but just part of it, I'm going to talk more about it God willing, next time. And in Verse 9 it says, "Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings, it is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods," et cetera. I'm going to talk more about strengthening by grace next time. But I just want to talk here about the constant threat of false doctrine, false teachers. The church is to be the pillar and foundation of the truth. We're told in 1 Timothy. In every generation, however, there are false teachers who come to assault the very life of the church, the very life blood of the church by false doctrine. And to try to move the church from its secure position. So the danger here is false doctrine, which the writer calls "strange teachings" or "diverse and foreign doctrines" would be a translation. So diverse to get the sense of varied or mixed. And so the opposite of that would be the perfectly integrated doctrine of the Bible, it's perfectly integrated. The Bible fits together perfectly, it comes from one mind, the mind of God, it's beautiful how the Bible speaks of one truth, ultimately Christ, to us with a unified voice. Different human authors, different eras in which the Bible books were written, but this unified, consistent, integrated doctrine. But here comes these diverse doctrines. Varied, and strange, alien, alien. It reminds me of John 10 where Jesus says, He's the good shepherd, and the sheep listen to His voice and they will not follow the voice of another. They recognize, "Now, that's a strange voice, I don't go there." You just have an instinct, you have an anointing and you know the truth when you hear it. Because you are a truly children of God. And so beware of false doctrines, listen and test everything. Don't be carried away, it says, it talks about being carried away. I get the image of some desert raiders, that come in from the desert on horseback and just ride through the camp and sweep off with hostages, carrying away weak people, carried away by false doctrine. Another image more nautical I guess, is in Ephesians 4:14, talks about us no longer being "infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching, and by the cunning and crafty-ness of men and their deceitful scheming." So that's instability, or just easily moved away by false doctrine. Rather than a good ministry is rooting and establishing people in the Word of God so they're not easily moved. They're not infants anymore, they've grown up, they're mature now, they can identify false doctrine, and not be easily moved by it. It's a constant warning in the New Testament, concerning this. As I've said before, three great assaults on the church and every generation, worldliness, persecution, and false doctrine. These are the three great satanic attacks. Of the three false doctrine is the most serious. And so, there are warnings again and again, the apostle Paul to... In his farewell address to the Ephesians elders in Acts 20, he says, "I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number, men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So, be on your guard. Remember that for three years, I never stopped warning each of you, night and day, with tears." From your own number, savage wolves will grow up not sparing the flock. 2 Peter 2:1-2, "There will be false teachers among you secretly introducing destructive heresies. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute." 2 Peter 3:17, "Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position." So the secure position comes from good teaching from the scripture, Be on your guard against false teachers so you don't get swept away. Same image here. 2 John 9-10, "Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God, does not have God. Whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him." It's a warning here. And so instead, it's good for us to be strengthened by the doctrine of grace. Now, I'm going to defer most of my comments about the strengthening to next time. It's a sweet teaching. It's better to be strengthened by grace than by food, amen. Next time, next time. Oh no, he's going to preach about food, I don't know about... Is that a whole sermon on food? Well, not a whole sermon, but a portion of a sermon on food. But here it's contrasting the doctrines of grace and this Jewish legalism that's talking about the meat sacrifice to God, the... Our altar, and we have an altar that's been established by Christ, and so he's talking about Jewish legalists here, I think. And what they did is they basically said, "You have to obey the law of Moses, you have to be circumcised, and you have to follow all of the laws and regulations, or you'll be lost." And so he says, "No, we've got a Gospel of grace. We've got a Gospel of grace, and the grace is contrasted with works, grace versus works. Romans 11:6 makes that clear contrast. If it is by grace, then it's no longer by works. If it were, grace would no longer be grace. So we have a gospel of grace, hallelujah. If you're an unbeliever, if you're lost, if you're outside Christ, I think God brought you here for the next minute or two. Listen. The gospel of grace, what is grace? Grace is a determination inside the heart of God to do you eternal good even though you deserve eternal condemnation. That's what grace is. From that determination of God flows out all kinds of good stuff. And that grace came before the foundation of the world, this grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. So that brings you right into the doctrine of predestination or election. These are the doctrines of grace, so they're called. And by grace, God has chosen to be gracious to sinners who do not deserve anything but his wrath, and he knows them by name and they are elect. And by grace, he sent his son in the world, and His Son shed His blood for them. He died in their place to take away the wrath of God, and by grace. He was raised on the third day for our justification. And He has given us this gospel message that is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes, not by works, but by simple faith in Jesus. If you just trust in Jesus as the Son of God, and you put your trust in Him, all of your sins will be forgiven. Taken from you, laid on Jesus, and you will not go to hell, but instead live for ever and ever. It's good to be strengthened by grace, a man to have that message. The doctrine of grace strengthen you and those whom God for new He predestined not just to start, but to finish to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first born among many brothers and those He predestined, He also called, and those He called, He also justified. And all of those that get justified are going to get glorified, amen. Not one will be lost. It's good to be strengthened by that and not by legalism. So don't be carried away by diverse and strange teachings, that mix human legalism together with the true gospel. V. Submitting to Godly Leaders (vs. 17) Now, I want you to skip ahead in your Scripture there to Verse 17. We've been talking in verse 7 about dead leaders, those who have gone before, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever, and the danger, the ongoing threat of false doctrine. Look at verse 17, "Obey your leaders, and submit to their authority, they keep watch over you as men who must give an account, obey them so that their work will be a joy not a burden. For that would be of no advantage to you." Well, friends, this is a very straight forward command. It's not hard to understand what it says. Obey and submit. These are the words, the word obey means do what's commanded, Submit really has to do with an arraying of yourself under someone, because they have been given a position of God-ordained authority, that's what it means. So submit always, always has connection to a position of God-ordained authority, always. And so, fundamentally here, those who have been put in authority submit to them and obey them. Well, who is it talking about? Well, these leaders, I don't believe are government leaders, and they're not the dead leaders, church leaders of Verse 7, they're living, because it's an ongoing issue in Verse 17. They're not government leaders in Romans 13, who ruled by the sword, and the laws for wicked, evil doers and law breakers and all that. Not for the upright. So they have the sword. Rulers with the sword hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong, it's not talking about that here. These are spiritual leaders, these are shepherds of souls, these are shepherds, these are people who will give an account for your soul. These are elders in the church. The elders are established as spiritual leaders, they're are shepherds of souls, they keep watch over your souls, they give an account on Judgment Day for your soul for your spiritual health. They are established in spiritual authority by Jesus Christ himself, Christ raises up these men to lead His church under his overall authority. As we mentioned a moment ago, He's the Chief Shepherd, they merely the under shepherds, as we understand a church government, these leaders are men, who are set apart as elders, in a plurality, it's, "Obey your leaders," there's a plural here. And they're given a dual responsibility of teaching and leadership, of setting godly course of leadership, administering the ministries of the church. They are men and not women, because in 1 Timothy 2, Paul says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over man, she must be silent." And in the very next chapter, he gives the description of the Office of elder, and the requirements. Those requirements are spiritual in nature. You're not going to find that Fortune 500 Forbes stuff, in 1 Timothy 3 or Titus 1, you're going to find spiritual criteria. And it's not... The church isn't led at that point by committees, committees of the willing, maybe some of you in the past have served on the nominating committee, do you guys remember the nominating committee and the job of making phone calls to people, those committees? And you've got the committees of the willing, and those people get plugged and chugged into certain slots and it's all very troublesome, for me ultimately, because it's not biblical. Instead, you have 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, spiritual requirements for elders and they lead the church. These are those who must teach and preach the Word of God, manage the affairs of the church to make decisions for the successful growth of the church numerically and in spiritual maturity. Now, what is the nature of this obedience, and the nature of this submission? Well, first, it's not blind, implicit obedience such as demanded by tyrants or by cult leaders. Such blind and total submission to the authority of a man in a church office, characterize the fallacy, the error, the heresy of the papacy, of the Pope. Of this one individual, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, so he was called. I don't believe in that, it's not that kind of submission. And neither is it blind, total obedience to the commands of a spiritual leader, like in a cult, like years ago, Jim Jones and The Peoples Temple who went down to South America, and they all drank the purple Kool-Aid and died. And from that point on, drinking the Kool-Aid kind of entered our popular culture. What it meant is blindly follow some leader to your own destruction. I'm not going to do that, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid, say, I'm not following that. Rather this obedience is to be reasonable, spiritual, based on the word of God. Fundamentally, the leadership of elders is a leadership that's based on the word of God, as they are able to marshal biblical arguments for what they're saying through sound, clear, acts of Jesus, they are to be followed. Frankly, it's going on right now, every time that I get up to preach, I seek to explain the text clearly phrase by phrase, so that you can see that this is what the text is saying. So that's the kind of leadership that must go on. It's reasonable, and it's based on the Word of God. The Apostle Paul was delighted, I think. It was Luke that wrote it, but it was Paul I think that had a delight in the Bereans who took the things that Paul preached on the Old Testament and scoured the text to see if they were so. So, it's not that kind of blind implicit obedience, neither is it obedience in areas that have nothing to do with the office of elder. Again, the papacy is to blame here where they would go and make commands, like the Pope would demand that a king or a prince or a judge kneel to him and render judgments or do certain things in his secular realm. Again, it's not that kind of obedience. Rather it's in line with what Jesus gave us in the great commission. "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me," said Jesus, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." And here it is, "Teaching them to obey everything I have commanded." So there has to be a submission to those that do that teaching or you can't obey the commands. So it's as you marshal the commands of Jesus and say, "Jesus is telling us to do this from the Word of God," that's the essence of the leadership. Christ is commanding this of us. So submission to elders should be plainly seen to be submission to Christ as He has revealed it in His word, not apart from it. The authority of elders is a teaching and explaining, it's really an exegetical authority, it's based on scripture. As the passages are explained the elders, proving the people something Christ wants them to do. Now again, it's servant leadership, not lording it over those entrusted but rather serving as an example. It says in 1 Peter 5, as Jesus already told us in Matthew 20, servant leadership. And it must be humble leadership, not seeking trappings of honor and glory and prestige. As Jesus talked about the scribes and Pharisees who loved the place of honor at the banquets and the most important seats of the synagogues. They'd love to be greeted in the market places and have me call them, "Rabbi." Please don't call me Rabbi. One of you has an exemption to that because he always does it in humor, but think about it. I don't know if I want to keep being called Rabbi. Obedience and submission are in the context, so we believe, of congregational polity. What do I mean by that? Polity is just government, church government. We as Baptists are Congregationalists. What that means is, there is no, at the human level, no higher authority to make rulings or judgements, for the life of a local church, than the local church itself. So there's no bishop or archbishop, there's no structure like a corporate structure or governmental structure or structure in the army. The buck stops here with the local church, the proof of that's in Matthew 18, on church discipline. When the church disciplines, that's it, there's nothing else, there's no court of higher appeals. So, we are Congregationalists, and the elders do their leading in a congregational structure. Therefore the elders are identified by and established in their position by the congregation, by democratic processes, by vote. They can't have their position apart from that Congregational establishment. Furthermore, the congregation alone has the right to remove them from their office for sin reasons of doctrine or life. So that's how they get established in congregation polity. How then does the congregation follow them? Well, as long as the elder has been duly established by the congregation, the elders, I'll keep it in plural, and they have not sinned and they're carrying out their ministry faithfully, it's then the church's responsibility as they continue to assess the life and the doctrine, passively. Passively assess. Does it seem Biblical? They seem like they're leading well, plausibly biblical, we'll get to that in a minute, to follow the leadership, to obey and submit. That's what the text says, doesn't it? So what do I mean by passive. And what do I mean by plausible? Well, passive is like the analogy of passive sonar versus active sonar in a submarine. So passive sonar is just lots of listening, but no ping going out. No ping going out. So it's not really Godly or loving for people to say, "I'm watching you to be sure you're not a heretic. So don't be one today, Pastor." Amen, thank you, thank you, keep praying for that. It's about as pleasing as going to someone's house and saying, "I'm watching you too to be sure you don't commit adultery." Look, I know that that kind of needs to go on, but we do that more passively, don't we? Just kind of observe, and if you see indications, where there's smoke there's fire, then you pursue them, but if there's no smoke there may not be any fire, just follow. Does that make sense? So there has to be an ongoing Berean searching, but frankly, I think the more likely failure mode is not that heresy will be preached in a good church, but that people will harden their hearts against the good doctrine and not obey it. And that goes for the preacher too frankly, because Christianity is a lot easier to teach than it is to live. But that's the more likely failure mode. So as long as the elders are leading plausibly biblically, what does that mean? It's not on the text, is it? No, it's not. I don't think the word plausible... Actually, the word plausible is in Colossians in one of the translations, but plausible means it seems like it may be, okay. Alright, why do I have to use that language? Because friends we're all messed up, we're messed up. I'm messed up, you're messed up, we're all messed up. Okay? The elders are messed up, they're Roman 7 people. The followers are messed up, they're Roman 7 people. An issue arises in life of the church, people have different perspectives, they disagree, right? Distrust yourselves first. Okay, just be humble and distrust yourselves. The elder should do the same. Right? Look at the scripture on the issue, listen to the arguments, if it's in the arrangement of biblical plausibility, wonder if perhaps you may be wrong. Iron sharpens iron, you go to the elders you make your case, they listen. You make your case, they listen, you share your scriptures. But as long as it's plausibly biblical, ultimately, you have to follow if you can. If you can't, you probably need to leave the church, because it's such a high issue of commitment to you that you think that the elders have gone un-Biblical on you, and you have that freedom to do that. But fundamentally, in humility, you just say, "It's possible I may be wrong. Teach me, instruct me, let my heart be changed by the Word of God." So that's the best I can make of all this. How do Romans 7 elders lead Romans 7 people? It's the best that we can do. The elders need to be making their cases biblically, we know very well that there are areas, gray areas of controversy, Romans 14 talks about that. VI. Understanding the Burdens of Godly Leadership (vs. 17) So what are the burdens of Godly leadership? There are many, look at the verse again. "Obey your leaders and submit to them. For they are keeping watch over your souls. As those who have to give an account. Let them do this with joy, and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you." So what do Godly leaders do for you? Well, they shepherd, or literally it says, lose sleep over your souls, lose sleep over your souls. The images of a shepherd that stays awake all night long because the wolves do their work at night, and if he goes to sleep for even an hour, he may lose the third of his flock. And so physically, in real life, what it means is a constant awareness and attentiveness and a self-sacrifice to do the church good, to shepherd souls. Because the world, the flesh and the devil are assaulting the flock all the time, assaulting the flock. And so the shepherd's, the elder's job is to shepherd them and to pray for them and to encourage them and to fight against the discouragement of the devil, and the temptations that pull. And to pray for you and to lead you and teach you and love you and correct you if needed, or rebuke or warn you if needed, whatever is needed. And how valuable is that? Do you want that done for you? Do you want shepherds to watch over you? If you say, "I can go it on my own." Oh, if any man thinks he stands take heed lest he fall, you need good shepherds. So, it's valuable. Good elders that know the spiritual condition of the people, the state of their walk with Christ, the sins they struggle with, the state of their marriages, their family life, their discouragements, their successes. In general, how they're doing financially, if materialism is gripping their lifestyles, variety of things. How is it going? And look what the text says, they will have to give an account. I said to BFL class this morning, I said that this is one of the scariest verses in the Bible for me as a pastor, as an elder. I'm going to have to in some sense, give an account to Jesus for you, for my shepherding of this flock. I don't know what that means, but I know at least it means, from 1 Corinthians 3 that I have to build on the foundation that was handed to me with gold and silver and costly stones, good, solid doctrine. All nine elders of FBC will have to bear that level of scrutiny giving an account to Jesus for our ministries. I have to give an account, it's very serious. My life, my doctrine, my shepherding. So they watch over your souls as those who must give an account. Let them do it with joy and not with groaning. This has been the greatest journey of my life, I think, in Christ. The move from groaning to joy of shepherding this church. It is a joy to be your under-shepherd. And I want to say along with that, one of the greatest joys of my life is to do it with these other eight men. They're great men. I love them. I love being with them. So it's a delight to shepherd you, and because... The reason it's a delight to shepherd you is because of your spiritual health, in your growth, the fact that you love the Lord, you love His word, you're seeking to be obedient, you're missions minded, you're evangelistic, because of your prayer lives. No, you're not perfect, we're not either. But that's what makes it a joy. From your willing glad submission to Christ really ultimately and seeing that played out in your life. That's what makes it a joy. So the spiritual health of the church is what makes it a joy, the lack of spiritual health in specific spots or generally is what makes it a burden. So church members who are willingly following sins in their lives and the ways of this world make it a burden. Church members who are argumentative and complaining, who fight the elders and oppose them, and slander them and talk against their decisions, make it a burden, not a joy. Church members who are lazy and who frequently miss church to follow personal pursuits, or who don't challenge themselves to grow, make it a burden and not a joy. Church members who increasingly drift away from Christ, as seen in their marriages, their conversations, they're spending habits or their church attendance, make it a burden, not a joy. So simply put, elders who enjoy their ministry are a great blessing to the church. The joy of the elders in shepherding you, is one of the most precious commodities of your spiritual life. Why do I say that? Well, you have to just keep thinking through what happens. Simply put, it would be of no advantage to you to make elder-ing or leading a burden to the men who do it. Why? Because they'll stop doing it. So elders who struggle with rebellious and sinful sheep either grow disillusioned and discourage and leave the ministry entirely, or they go to another church, or the rebellious faction is strong enough politically to vote them out. In the third case, that church is on a short route to apostasy. It's happened locally, recently. Okay. For the congregation is responsible for its own leaders ultimately. And when you vote godly men out, you take a short route to apostasy. 2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine, and instead to suit their own desires they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." So whenever it is that I die or whatever, you guys are responsible for the next leaders. You see what I'm saying? You're responsible. Please be sure that the man is faithful. Amen. That he preaches the word, that he is an expositor. You know what that means now. Alright. Bible, verse by verse, clear. Do you realize that 5%, I think, the number is 5%, 5% of the men that began a career in ministry, retire as ministers. Wow. I teach at Southeastern. How'd you like me to get up in front of a class of 30, and say, "I just want you to know, statistically, 5% of you will end up retiring in the end, you'll make it straight through a fruitful, healthy, ministry and retires as pastors, 5% of you. That's not many in a class of 30. Is that... Not many, my math brain is turned off right now, this is my liberal arts brain so I don't know. 95% attrition? Do you see the devil in that? And it's not all for one reason, their own sins are part of it. But it's just a constant assault, assault, assault, assault. And discouragement just rises. So it'd be a burden if it's a burden to the elders, it's no advantage to the Church, because they just leave, and that would be of no advantage to you. Now, there are godly reasons to leave. I mean, people can leave and go to other good ministries, and I understand that. I'm just talking about the expulsive force that causes them to want to leave, that's all. They should leave regretfully. Amen. They should leave reluctantly. They should leave a fruitful ministry being called to a different calling. You see what I'm saying? Not because there was some kind of repulsive force that caused them to go. VII. Praying for Godly Leaders (vs. 18-19) And so therefore you ought to be praying for your leaders. Look at verses 18-19, "Pray for us. We are sure that we have a clear conscience, and desire to live honorably in every way." So in other words, we are passing our own test. We know ultimately the test is by God. And He's the only one that can make that final test, but our conscience is clear, we're living honorably. Pray for us, that we would continue to do so, pray for us that we would keep on fighting the good fight of the faith and being holy. But the overwhelming responsibilities and pressures, one of the best things that you can do for your elders is pray for them. Pray for their walks with Christ, so that they would keep a clear conscience, and live honorably in every way. Pray for them to preach and teach the truth in accordance with the Word of God, pray for their leadership, that it will be humble, Christ-like servant leadership, saturated in biblical truth. Pray that the church will follow that leadership. Pray that the elders will delight in their ministry, pray that the elders will evangelize boldly and clearly, and fruitfully and set a good example for the flock. Pray that Christ will be glorified in the leadership of FBC. Close with me in prayer.

This edition of Radical Grace Radio is the beginning of a re-release of four programs that began with an episode that goes into Justification and Propitiation.  If I were to take a microphone with me right now out on the street and ask Christians how important the forgiveness of sins is to the Christian Faith, I’m certain that nearly all them would agree that it is most important.  But if I were to ask this same group of Christians how is it that God forgiving sins amounts to salvation, there would be all kinds of answers.  The problem with many of the answers is that too often what is said is that salvation comes from either us having cleaned up our act, or that we’ve quote “believed” unquote, and that these things are the conditions we must meet in order to stand before the Holy and Righteous God.  On the one hand there are people who teach that Salvation comes from obeying the law and that obedience is rewarded by God with Salvation, while on the other hand more Christians would teach that it’s by faith that we are saved and that only by believing in Jesus Christ can salvation come to the sinner.  But both of these definitions amount to the same thing.  On the one hand people who teach Works, called Pelagians, are obviously teaching that we can manipulate God by obeying his law, as if we could ever hold our many works over God that he would have to owe us something in return.   But, all too often the opposite teaching, that we are saved by faith, is stated like this:  If you believe God and believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, that’s ALL you have to do to be saved, as if you can manipulate God by performing the ONE work that God will accept.  But scripture teaches us that no one will be justified by works before God.  So what gives?The Bible talks about “salvation” in a different way, in terms of being “justified”.  Indeed, the Apostle Paul talks about how God “Justifies the wicked”.  But again, we have to be careful, because a lot people would say, “oh, I know what Justified means.  “Just as if I’d never sinned”.  Well, in this program, as always, we refuse to talk down to people, but rather would tell them the truth the way the truth really is.  To be Justified is something more than just forgiveness.  Wicked, constantly sinful people need more than forgiveness to make it to heaven, and that’s what we’re going to talk about on this edition of Radical Grace Radio.   Visit Matthew Pancake's Facebook http://www.facebook.com/matthew.pancake Visit Pastor Gary Held's Facebook http://www.facebook.com/garyheld Visit our Website www.RadicalGraceRadio.com    

This episode is titled, “Jerome.”By his mid-30's, Jerome was probably the greatest Christian scholar of his time. He's one of the greatest figures in the history of Bible translation, spending 3 decades producing a Latin version that would be the standard for a thousand years. But Jerome was no bookish egghead. He longed for the hermetic life we considered in the previous episode & often exhibited a sour disposition that showered his opponents with biting sarcasm and brutal invective.His given name was Eusebius Hieronymus Sophronius and was born in 345 to wealthy Christian parents either in Aquileia in NE Italy or across the Adriatic in Dalmatia.At about 15, Jerome and a friend went to Rome to study Rhetoric & Philosophy. He engaged with abandon many of the immoral escapades of his fellow students, then followed up these debaucheries with intense self-loathing. To appease his conscience, he visited the graves & tombs of the martyrs and saints in Rome's extensive catacombs. Jerome later said the darkness & terror he found there seemed an appropriate warning for the hell he knew his soul was destined for.This tender conscience is interesting in light of his initial skepticism about Christianity. That skepticism began to thaw when he realized what he was experiencing was the conviction of the Holy Spirit. His mind could not hold out against his heart and he was eventually converted. At  19, he was baptized.He then moved to Trier in Gaul where he took up theological studies & began making copies of commentaries & doctrinal works for wealthy patrons.Jerome then returned to Aquileia, where he settled in to the church community and made many friends.Several of these accompanied him when he set out in 373 on a journey thru Thrace and Asia Minor to northern Syria. At Antioch, 2 of his companions died and he became seriously ill. During this illnesses, he had a vision that led him to lay aside his studies in the classics and devote himself to God. He plunged into a deep study of the Bible, under the guidance of a church leader at Antioch named Apollinaris. This Apollinaris was later labeled a heretic for his unorthodox views on Christ. He was one of several at this time trying to work out how to understand and express the nature of Jesus; was He God, Man or both? And if both, how are we to understand these two natures operating within the One, Jesus?  Apollinaris said Jesus had a human body & soul, but that his mind was divine. This view, creatively called Apollinarianism, was declared heretical at the Council of Constantinople in 381, though the church had pretty well dispensed with it as a viable view of Christ back in 362 at a Synod in Alexandria, presided over by our friend Athanasius.While in Antioch & as a fallout of his illness & the loss of his friends, Jerome was seized with a desire to live an ascetic life as a hermit. He retreated to the wilderness southwest of Antioch, already well-populated by fellow-hermits. Jerome spent his isolation in more study and writing. He began learning Hebrew under the tutelage of a converted Jew; and kept in correspondence with the Jewish Christians of Antioch. He obtained a copy of the Gospels in Hebrew, fragments of which are preserved in his notes. Jerome translated parts of this into Greek.Returning to Antioch in 379, he was ordained by Paulinus, whom you'll remember was the bishop of the Nicaean congregation there. This is the Bishop & church supported by Rome when the Arian church in Antioch was taken over a new also-Nicaean Bishop named Meletius. Instead of the 2 churches merging because the cause of their division was now removed, they became the political frontlines in the battle for supremacy between Rome & Constantinople.Recognizing Jerome's skill as a scholar, Bishop Paulinus rushed to ordain Jerome as a priest, but the monk would only accept it on the condition he'd never have to carry out priestly functions. Instead, Jerome plunged himself into his studies, especially in Scripture. He attended lectures, examined parchments, and interviewed teachers and theologians.He went to Constantinople to pursue a study of the Scriptures under Gregory of Nazianzus. He spent 2 years there, then was asked by Paulinus back in Antioch to accompany him to Rome so the whole issue over who the rightful bishop in Antioch was. Paulinus knew Jerome would make a mighty addition to his side. Indeed he did, and Pope Damasus I was so impressed with Jerome, he persuaded him to stay in Rome. For the next 3 years, Jerome became something of a celebrity at Rome. He took a prominent place in most of the pope's councils. At one point his influence over the pope was so great he had the audacity to say, “Damasus is my mouth.”He began a revision of the Latin Bible based on the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. He also updated the Book of Psalms that prior to that time had been based on the Septuagint; a Greek translation of Hebrew.In Rome, he was surrounded by a circle of well-born and well-educated women, including some from the noblest patrician families. They were moved by Jerome's asceticism & began to emulate his example of worldly forbearance. This did NOT endear him to the rather secular clergy in Rome who enjoyed the attention of such lovely, rich and available women. But Jerome's messing with their fun didn't end there. He offended their pleasure-loving ways with his sharp tongue and blunt criticism. As one historian puts it, “He detested most of the Romans and did not apologize for detesting them.” He mocked the clerics' lack of charity, their ignorance & overweening vanity. The men of the time were inordinately fond of beards, so Jerome mused, “If there is any holiness in a beard, nobody is holier than a goat!”Soon after the death of his patron, Pope Damasus in December 384, Jerome was forced to leave Rome after an inquiry brought up allegations he'd had an improper relationship with a wealthy widow named Paula.This wasn't the only charge against him. More serious was the death of one of the young women who'd sought to follow his ascetic lifestyle, due to poor health caused by the rigors he demanded she follow. Everyone could see how her health declined for the 4 months she followed Jerome's lead. Most Romans were outraged for his causing the premature death of such a lively & lovely young woman, and at his insistence her mother ought not mourn her daughter's death. When he criticized her grief as excessive, the Romans said he was heartless.So in August 385, he left Rome for good and returned to Antioch, accompanied by his brother and several friends, followed a little later by the widow Paula & her daughter. The pilgrims, joined by Bishop Paulinus of Antioch, visited Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Galilee, then went to Egypt, home to the great heroes of the ascetic life.Late in the Summer of 388 he returned to Israel. A wealthy student of Jerome's founded a monastery in Bethlehem for him to administer. This monastery included 3 cloisters for women and a hostel for pilgrims.It was there he spent his last 34 years.  He finished his greatest contribution, begun in 382 at Pope Damasus's instruction: A translation of the Bible into Latin.The problem wasn't that there wasn't a Latin Bible; the problem was that there were so many! They varied widely in accuracy. Damasus had said, “If we're to pin our faith to the Latin texts, it's for our opponents to tell us which, for there are almost as many forms as there are copies. If, on the other hand, we are to glean the truth from a comparison of many, why not go back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by inaccurate translators, and the blundering alterations of confident but ignorant critics, and, further, all that has been inserted or changed by copyists more asleep than awake?”At first, Jerome worked from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. But then he established a precedent for later translators: the Old Testament would have to be translated from the original Hebrew. In his quest for accuracy, he learned Hebrew & consulted Jewish rabbis and scholars.One of the biggest differences he saw between the Septuagint and the original Hebrew was that the Jews did not include the books now known as the Apocrypha in their canon of Holy Scripture. Though he felt obligated to include them, Jerome made it clear while they might be considered “church-books” they were not inspired, canonical books.After 23 years, Jerome completed his translation, which Christians used for more than 1,000 years, and in 1546 the Council of Trent declared it the only authentic Latin text of the Scriptures.What marked this Bible as unique was Jerome's use of the everyday, street Latin of the times, rather than the more archaic classical Latin of the scholars. Academics & clergy decried it as vulgar, but it became hugely popular. The Latin Vulgate, as it was called, became the main Bible of the Roman church for the next millennium.Jerome's work was so widely revered that until the Reformation, scholars worked from the Vulgate. It would be another thousand years till translators worked directly from the Greek manuscripts of the NT. The Vulgate ensured that Latin, rather than Greek, would be the Western church's language, resulting centuries later in a liturgy & Bible lay people couldn't understand—precisely the opposite of Jerome's original intention. It's also why many scientific names & terms are drawn from Latin, rather than Greek which was the language of the scholars until the appearance of the Vulgate.The Latin Bible wasn't the only thing Jerome worked on while in Bethlehem. He also produced several commentaries, a catalogue of Christian authors, and a response to the challenge of the Pelagians, an aberrant teaching we'll take a look at in a future episode. To this period also belonged most of Jerome's polemics, his denunciations of works and people Jerome deemed dangerous. He produced a tract on the threat of some of Origen's errors. He denounced Bishop John of Jerusalem and others, including some one-time friends.Some of Jerome's writings contained provocative views on moral issues. When I say provocative, I'm being generous; they were aberrant at best and at points verged on heretical. All this came of his extreme asceticism. While the monasticism he embraced allowed him to produce a huge volume of work, his feverish advocacy of strict discipline was nothing less than legalistic extremism. He insisted on abstinence from a normal diet, employment, & even marital sex. His positions were so extreme in this regard, even other ascetics called him radical.As far as we know, none of Jerome's works were lost to the centuries. There are a few medieval manuscripts that mark his work in translating the Bible. Various 16th C collections are the earliest extant copies of his writings. Through the years, Jerome has been a favorite subject for artists, especially Italian Renaissance painters.He died at Bethlehem at the end of September of 420.

This Episode is simply titled “Leo”While there'd been several bishops of the church at Rome who'd been capable leaders and under their guidance had established Rome as the premier church, if not the whole Christian world, at least in the western portion of the now declining Roman Empire, it can be fairly said that for most of the earlier bishops the person was eclipsed by the office. Bishops Callistus, Stephen, Damasus, & Innocent I all added significant authority to the Roman See. But it was Leo the Great who saw the Bishop of Rome become what we might call the first real Pope. It was with Leo I that the idea of the Papacy became real.While previous bishops at Rome had certainly been theologically astute, as befitted their office, Leo can be classed as a first-rate theologian, arguably the greatest theologian of any who came before in that office and for a century & a half after. He battled the Manichæan, Priscillianist, & Pelagian heresies, and won enduring fame for helping to finish codifying the orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ.Leo's early life is shrouded in mystery. The chief source of information about him comes from his letters & they don't commence till AD 442 when he was already an adult. Leo was mostly likely a Roman who became a deacon, then a legate under Bishops Celestine I & Sixtus III. A legate is a special messenger, sent by a bishop, to carry messages to civil rulers. Think à Church ambassador to the king. Leo was so astute in his task as a representative for the Church, Emperor Valentinian III sent him on a special mission to settle a dispute in Gaul between a couple feuding generals. This was at a time of great turmoil in the north due to the barbarian threat. While Leo was on this peace-making mission, Bishop Sixtus died and Leo was chosen to take his seat. He served for the next 21 years.Leo describes his feelings at the assumption of his office in a sermon;“Lord, I have heard your voice calling me, and I was afraid: I considered the work which was enjoined on me, and I trembled. For what proportion is there between the burden assigned to me and my weakness, this elevation and my nothingness? What is more to be feared than exaltation without merit, the exercise of the most holy functions being entrusted to one who is buried in sin? Oh, you have laid upon me this heavy burden, bear it with me, I beseech you be you my guide and my support.”Leo's papacy faced 2 immense problems.First:  The emergence of heresies threatened the integrity of the Church; and àSecond: The political disintegration of the Western Roman Empire.Leo offered 3 tactics in dealing with these difficulties à1)    Actions to provide essential church doctrine with a clear, orthodox position;2)    Efforts to unify church government under a sovereign papacy; and3)   Attempts at peace by negotiating with the Empire's enemies.On the doctrinal front, Leo theologically refuted the era's main heresies & utilized imperial criminal prosecution & banishment to get rid of unrepentant heretics. Leo's finest achievement was probably the formation and acceptance of an orthodox Christological dogma.Though Arianism was in retreat, the 5th C battled with what's called Eutychianism. We're going to get into this in more depth in a soon coming episode so for now let me just say that Eutychianism was one of the 4th & 5th Cs' attempts to understand the nature of Jesus. Was He God, Man or both? And if both, how do the 2 nature relate to each other? Eutychianism said Jesus had 2 natures, human & divine, but that the divine had completely dominated the human, like a drop of vinegar is overwhelmed by the sea. Later it will come to be known by a label you may have heard = Monophysitism.Leo's manner of dealing with this aberrant teaching was brilliant. Rather than rely on suppression, he brought it's main advocate, Eutychus, to Rome for lengthy discussions and, after painstaking research & deliberation, issued a carefully written letter, the famous Tome of Leo. It set forth a clear exposition of Christ's 2 natures in 1 person & became the basis in 451 for the Council of Chalcedon's enduring formulation of Christological doctrine.This alone would mark Leo as worthy of the honorific “Great” but he did more, much more. He rescued the city of Rome from destruction, not once, but twice! When Attila & his Huns, known as the “Scourge of God,” destroyed the Italian city of Aquileia in 452 & everyone knew Rome was next on the barbarian's hit list, Leo, with a couple companions, travelled north, entered the hostile camp, and persuaded Attila to leave off sacking the City. Think of it; a bishop's simple word accomplished what the waning might of the once mighty Rome could not, convince the barbarian hordes to go home.Then, 3 yrs later when the Vandal king Genseric was poised to do what Attila had been deflected from, Leo was able to obtained a promise the Vandals would relieve the city of its wealth but not burn it or slay its people. The sacking lasted for 2 wks – but when the looters finally left, the city still stood and its citizenry, though badly shaken were still alive; and eternally grateful for Leo's intervention.He died in 461, and was buried in the Church of St. Peter.The literary works of Leo consist of nearly a hundred sermons and over 170 letters. His collection of sermons is the first we have from a Roman bishop. He declared preaching to be his sacred duty. His sermons were short and simple.Leo was a man of extraordinary activity. He took a leading part in all the affairs of the Church. While his private life is unknown, there's not a hint of anything that would give us cause to think he was anything other than pure in both motive & morals. His zeal, time & strength were all devoted to the interests of the Faith. If Leo saw the Faith primarily through the lens of the life & outreach of the Church at Rome, we ought to attribute that to his conviction Rome was meant by God to be THE Home Base for the Church; its headquarters.As Church historian Philip Schaff said, Leo was animated by an unwavering conviction God had committed to him, as the successor of Peter, the care of the whole Church. He anticipated all the dogmatic arguments by which the power of the papacy was later established. Leo made the case that the rock on which the Church is built, mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 16, meant Peter and his confession of faith, that set the cornerstone for THE Faith. Leo claimed that while Christ himself is in the highest sense the Rock and Foundation of the Church, His authority was transferred primarily to Peter. To Peter specifically, Christ entrusted the apostolic keys of the Kingdom. Also, Jesus' prayer that Peter be strengthened so he might strengthen others established Peter's role as leader among the Apostles. Jesus' post-resurrection affirmation of Peter's call, “Feed my sheep,” makes Peter the pastor and prince of the Church Entire, through whom Christ exercises His universal dominion on Earth.But Leo went further, He said Peter's primacy wasn't limited to the apostolic age; it endured in those subsequent bishops of Rome to whom Peter passed the authority Jesus endowed him with. Leo asserted only Rome could serve as the center of the Church because it was both a political & religious center. Sure, Constantinople was political headquarters but it lacked Rome's spiritual ancestry. Alexandria & Antioch were religious, but not political centers. Only Rome provided a sufficient political and spiritual weight to be the center of the Earthly manifestation of the Kingdom of God.While Leo made much of Rome's place as premier among the churches, he himself remained humble. This personal humility was offset by his determination others would honor his office as though he were indeed a modern Peter. Each year a special celebration was called to commemorate his ascension to Peter's seat. He took such confusing titles as, “Servant of the servants of God,” “vicar of Christ,” and even “God upon earth.”As an aside, if you've read my bio on the sanctorum.us site, you know I'm a non-denominational, Evangelical, follower of Jesus. As I've shared in a previous podcast, it's been interesting reading reviews by listeners that I'm obviously è Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Reformed, Pentecostal, & a few other flavors of the faith. I guess people mistake what my personal view is because I'm trying, albeit haltingly, to treat the material in as fair & unbiased a fashion as possible. So, I suspect here's what's happening in a lot of listeners minds right now after sharing Leo the Great's apologetic for the primacy of Peter; they're wondering if I've gone RC!Let me respond to that by sharing this . . .While Leo did make a good case for the Bishop at Rome being the spiritual successor to Peter, what about the fact that Peter himself passes over his primacy in silence. In his NT letters he expressly warned against hierarchical assumptions while Leo used every opportunity to affirm his authority. In Antioch, when Peter played the role of hypocrite, he meekly submitted to the junior apostle Paul's rebuke. Leo, on the other hand, declared any resistance to his authority as an impious pride and sure way to hell. Under Leo, obedience to the pope was a condition to salvation. He claimed anyone not in harmony with Rome's See as the head of the body, from which all gifts of grace descended, was in fact not IN The Church, and so had no part in grace or the Body of Chrsit.Schaff wrote,This is the fearful but legitimate logic of the papal principle, which confines the kingdom of God to the narrow lines of a particular organization, and makes the universal spiritual reign of Christ dependent on a temporal form and a human organ.Another important point: Crucial to the idea that the Bishop of Rome was & is the spiritual heir to Peter's apostolic authority is the assumption Peter founded & led the Church at Rome. There's simply not a shred of evidence for that. Sure, Peter went to Rome, but besides being buried there, there's no evidence he ever functioned as the leader of fellowship there. The assumption that he must have been because he was an Apostle would be like assuming if Billy Graham visited your city and attended your church for a few weeks, he was THE pastor – and later pastors could then claim they operated in the authority & ministry of Billy Graham.In carrying his idea of the Papacy into effect, Leo displayed a cunning diplomacy & consistency that characterized some of the popes of the Middle Ages. Certainly, the circumstances of the times were in his favor. This was the era of the fall of the Western Empire. The East was being torn apart by doctrinal controversies we'll look at in a later episode. Africa was over-run by barbarians. The West was without political leadership, and there were no strong church leaders of the flavor of an Athanasius or Jerome to lead.Leo took advantage of the Arian Vandals rampaging across North African, giving rise to the word that memorializes their career – Vandal, to write the bishops there in the tone of an over-shepherd. They eagerly submitted to his authority in AD 443. He banished the last of the heretical Manichæans & Pelagians from Italy. Then in 444 Leo looked Eastward & began affirming Bishops to key posts, increasingly encroaching on territory that had been under the purview of Constantinople, Alexandria & Antioch. But Leo reserved to himself a right of appeal by lower bishops in important cases; things which ought to be decided by the pope according to divine revelation.We'll learn a little more about Pope Leo I, called Leo the Great in future episodes as he played a key role in the Church life of the 5th C.As we end this episode, I want to again invite you to stop by the sanctorum.us website for more info about the podcast, and to visit the Facebook page to give us a like. Do a search for Communio Sanctorum – History of the Christian Church. Leave a comment and tell us where you live. It's been fun seeing all the places our subscribers hail from.Till next time . . .