Podcast appearances and mentions of walter hooper

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 10, 2022 45:13

Eric wraps up his extensive, in-depth interview with Walter Hooper in Oxford, England, for Socrates in the City. Hooper is an author, editor, and trustee of the literary estate of C.S. Lewis.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Walter Hooper - Part 3

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 10, 2022 46:00

Eric wraps up his extensive, in-depth interview with Walter Hooper in Oxford, England, for Socrates in the City. Hooper is an author, editor, and trustee of the literary estate of C.S. Lewis.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Walter Hooper - Part 2

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 3, 2022 45:54

Eric continues his in-depth interview of the late Walter Hooper in Oxford, England, for Socrates in the City. Hooper is an author, editor, and trustee of the literary estate of C.S. Lewis.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Walter Hooper (continued)

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 3, 2022 46:33

The late Walter Hooper is interviewed by Eric in Oxford, England, for Socrates in the City. Hooper is an author, editor, and trustee of the literary estate of C.S. Lewis.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Walter Hooper

england oxford socrates walter hooper

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 19, 2022 45:55

The late Walter Hooper is interviewed by Eric in Oxford, England, for Socrates in the City. Hooper is an author, editor, and trustee of the literary estate of C.S. Lewis.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Walter Hooper (continued)

england oxford socrates walter hooper

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 19, 2022 45:53

Eric continues his interview with Walter Hooper in Oxford, England, for Socrates in the City. Hooper is an author, editor, and trustee of the literary estate of C.S. Lewis.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

3. Shelf Life - Abolition of Man

The StandFast Cast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 30, 2022 6:50

Walter Hooper, the executor of C.S. Lewis' literary estate maintained that The Aboli- tion of Man was “an all but indispensable intro- duction to the entire corpus of Lewisiana.” Lewis himself revealed that it was “almost my favorite among my books.” Indeed, he referred to it again and again in virtually all of his later works—he says That Hideous Strength is “a novelization of its essential thesis” and the first four chapters of Mere Christianity “operate in effect, as a simpli- fied version or beginners' guide to Abolition.” But, the average Evangelical reader today would be justifiably baffled by this notion: the book, despite its many pithy epigrammatic quotes, seems to be arcanely philosophical and morosely pessi- mistic.

man evangelical abolition mere christianity shelf life aboli that hideous strength walter hooper

The Atmosphere of Narnia, with Michael Ward

Church Life Today

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 8, 2022 31:01

Fr. Michael Ward is a member of the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford. He is the author or editor of several books, including Heresies and How to Avoid Them, The Cambridge Companion to C. S. Lewis, and After Humanity: A Guide to C. S. Lewis' ‘Abolition of Man'. But it was another one of his books that Walter Hooper, the esteemed literary advisor to the Estate of C. S. Lewis, lauded as “unsurpassed in showing a comprehensive knowledge of and depth of insight into C. S. Lewis' works.” That book is the groundbreaking and persuasive Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C. S. Lewis. Fr. Ward brought his world-class expertise on the works of C. S. Lewis to a new volume recently released from Ignatius Press, for which I myself happened to serve as editor. This book is The Chronicles of Transformation: A Spiritual Journey with C. S. Lewis. In the book we take Narnia seriously as a place where the choices and actions, the desires and dispositions of children affect their own destinies and the fate of the world. It is a place where children learn what it means to grow in maturity, to become responsible and develop character. But it is also a place where adults can always start over in relearning what is all too quickly forgotten, for the sake of their own moral and spiritual transformation. For his part, Fr. Ward authored the chapter on Lewis's Prince Caspian. In his chapter, Fr. Ward helps us to get acquainted with and be delighted by what it feels like to live inside a chivalric tradition. We first recorded this episode a few years ago when Fr. Ward visited Notre Dame to give a lecture on Prince Caspian. Our conversation moves broadly across and deeply into the imagination of C. S. Lewis. As for me, I'm Leonard DeLorenzo, this is Church Life Today, a production of the McGrath Institute for Church Life. I'm glad you're here.

God Is for You

Cities Church Sermons

Play Episode Listen Later May 29, 2022

The heart of the gospel is that God is for you. That's about as simple and direct as you can say it. God is for you. But that simple sentence requires unpacking.There is one, living, sovereign, and all glorious and triune God. He is infinite, eternal, unchanging, all-sufficient, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. He is the Maker and Sustainer of the world, and the Lord and Ruler of history. And this God–this one, living sovereign, all-glorious, and triune God is for you. He's on your side. He's in your corner. He's not indifferent to you or apathetic about you. He's not hostile to you or opposed to you. His goodness and mercy pursue you all the days of your life. The heart of the gospel is that God is for you. Now, few of us feel the glory and wonder of this reality. We hear it. We confess it. We sing about it. We want to boast and glory and exult in it. But our hearts struggle to rise to such glory. And one reason for this struggle is confusion. We don't see the glory clearly. And so my very modest goal this morning is to sow some seeds of clarity from Romans 8 about the heart of this gospel in hopes that the Holy Spirit will raise your affections higher. More than that, I want to offer some clarity that may help you testify to the heart of this gospel to the world around us. More than that, I want you to revel in what John Piper calls the greatest promise in the Bible. The World's Confusion About the CourtroomIn this passage, we hear the language of charges, justification, and condemnation. These words place us in a courtroom. There are three people in view: the accuser who brings the charges, the accused who is on trial, and the judge who renders the verdict and pronounces the sentence.And this brings us to our first confusion. As Christians, we know that we're the accused and God is the judge. But the world around us is confused on precisely this point. For many, the idea that we're the accused is a problem. They don't see themselves as the criminal in the courtroom. In fact, for many people, God is the one who needs to answer some questions. As C.S. Lewis noted seventy-five years ago, God is the one on trial. This, Lewis said, created a new situation for us. “The early Christian preachers could assume in their hearers, whether Jews or Pagans, a sense of guilt…Thus the Christian message was in those days unmistakably the Evangelium, the Good News. It promised healing to those who knew they were sick.”On the other hand, “We have to convince our hearers of the unwelcome diagnosis before we can expect them to welcome the news of the remedy.”The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defense for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock. (C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock (ed. Walter Hooper; HarperOne, 1994), 267.)Let's call that the World's Confusion. The Christian's Confusion About the CourtroomThe Christian confusion is more subtle. When we Christians hear the language of the courtroom, we know that we're the accused and that God is the judge. But what about the accuser? “Who will bring a charge (an accusation) against God's elect?” What do we think of when we hear “accuser”? We think of the devil, making accusations against us. In fact, the name “Satan” means accuser. And this can feel a bit confusing. Because Satan's the bad guy. He hates us. He's a malicious liar and murderer. The name “devil” means “slanderer.” So he's the accuser and he's the slanderer. So what's he doing in God's courtroom? Our imaginations at this point can lead us astray. We, perhaps, begin to imagine a courtroom where the prosecutor–the accuser–is maliciously evil. He's uttering false accusations against us, lying about us, slandering our character.And then we might begin to imagine that the accuser is effective, that his accusations are working. His false charges are sticking. Which means the judge is either blind or compromised. He's inept, or he's on the side of the devil.Both of these errors–the World's Confusion about who is exactly on trial, and the Christian's Confusion about the role of the devil–hinder our ability to rejoice in the heart of the gospel. In the former case, the news that “God is on your side; he's declared you ‘not guilty,'” is met with “Who does he think he is?” Or even more, “We don't need him. In fact, he probably isn't even real. He's just a fiction to make us feel better. And if he is real, he's got some explaining to do.”In the more subtle confusion, we may feel some relief that God is for us and has rescued us from the false accusations that the devil was bringing. But our relief may also have a twinge of “What are you doing allowing that liar to come after us at all?”The Common Core of ConfusionIn both cases, our chief difficulty concerns the reality and gravity of sin. In the same essay I quoted earlier, Lewis noted that the greatest barrier he faced in his evangelistic efforts is “the almost total absence from the minds of my audience of any sense of sin.”Apart from that sense of sin, the gospel doesn't make sense. That's why a crucial part of the church's witness in the modern world is the reality of God's holiness and Jesus's demands for the world. As Dwight Moody is reported to have said, “You've got to get people lost before you can get them saved.” And this is difficult in the modern world for a number of reasons. Let me give you two. First, modern culture rejects the moral and natural law of God. Lewis referred to this as “the Tao,” the objective moral and rational order embedded in the universe. In his book The Abolition of Man, Lewis demonstrates that a belief in the Tao, in the objective moral order of the cosmos, was common to all ancient cultures and civilizations. (He took the term Tao from Eastern religions precisely to communicate this universality. In other words, this isn't just a Western, European, Christian concept; it's common to almost all civilizations before modern times.The doctrine of objective value–the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are–was common to all teachers and even all men. Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan–whatever differences there are between them–and these differences are substantial–a common thread was the belief in objective reality to which we must conform ourselves.Modern people, on the other hand, view reality as playdough, to be manipulated according to our wishes and desires. There is no law that binds all of us, no Law-Giver that stands over us as judge. For Lewis, the difference between ancient pagans and modern unbelievers is that the ancient pagans had a self-conscious sense of sin and guilt–that's why they sacrificed to the gods and engaged in all sorts of rituals to purify themselves. Modern people, on the other hand, have a sub-conscious sense of sin and guilt that often comes out sideways. We still seek purification, innocence, and justification through social media signaling or political action or bodily transformation. But we're a guilt-ridden people who no longer believe in objective standards.Cultural Christianity?That's why I can't join those Christians who celebrate the demise of cultural Christianity or Bible Belt religion. These Christians welcome the loss of Christian culture in Europe and America because they believe that cultural Christianity was a hindrance to the spread of the gospel. It lulled people into a false sense of security, it covered over rank evil, and it was a stumbling block to unbelievers. Now there may be truth to that criticism, but I think this is a significant error. Cultural Christianity never saved anyone, and to the degree that it covered over sin and wickedness, God hated it, and we ought to condemn it. But cultural Christianity, however imperfect, was and is a manifestation of the Tao. In that sense, it's a form of pre-evangelism. It tills the soil to prepare it for the seed. It teaches us through laws and customs and cultural practices the reality of the Tao, of God's moral order. So, cultural Christianity never saved anyone, but it did give many a sense of sin and guilt, which prepared them for the good news of Jesus. And this brings me to the second difficulty for us in the modern world. Many of us want our friends, family, and neighbors to know Jesus. And we don't want them to stumble over other things. We think, “If they stumble over Jesus, that's fine. But let's remove the other stumbling blocks.”The problem is that we can't separate Jesus from his demands, including the demands of the moral law which he established in the creation of the world. We may not and must not water down or mute the voice of God in his word and in our conscience. And how tempting it is to do so. How tempting it is to present Jesus only as the fulfillment of people's desires and aspirations, as the source of comfort and happiness, without ever pressing upon them the reality of God's law and their sin. How easy it is to turn Jesus into one more malleable part of reality, one more lump of playdough that we can mold and shape however we want. How easy it is to re-make God in our image, rather than face the fact that we have dishonored him as the One whose image we bear.In the face of these two difficulties–the loss of the consciousness of the moral law in our culture and the temptation to please people by muting the demands of Jesus–what should we do? We must labor to creatively and clearly and courageously press the law of God on the consciences of men. Like Nathan with King David, we must work, with God's help, to awaken the moral sense of our friends and families, and then to lovingly and clearly turn it to say, “You are the man!” We do this, in hope that they come to feel their lostness and therefore are able, by God's grace, to see and savor the glory of the heart of the gospel. And of course, this begins with us and brings me back to the more subtle confusion that Christians have about the courtroom. We must not think that the accuser in God's courtroom is a liar. The reality is he doesn't need to lie. So for a moment, instead of the devil, imagine the holiest of the angels is the prosecutor. He stands before the Righteous Judge and turns to Romans 1. He points to each of us and says, “You have not honored God as God. You have not treasured him and delighted in him supremely. You have not given thanks to him for all of his many kindnesses to you. You have exchanged his glory for idols, his truth for a lie, and you have worshiped and served creatures, including and especially yourself, rather than your Creator who is blessed forever. You have followed the lusts of your heart; you've debased your mind. You have despised the masculinity of men and the femininity of women and indulged every sort of dishonorable passion and sexual immorality. You have been filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. You are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. You are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. You know God's decree; it is written on your heart. Yet you have suppressed the truth and celebrated ungodliness and unrighteousness in yourself and others. You are the man.”That's the reality of the situation. Now imagine sitting there, knowing that every word of that is true, and every ungodly thought, every careless word, every sinful desire, and every unrighteous deed is laid bare with damning evidence. And then imagine that the judge, the infinitely holy and unimpeachably righteous judge, looks at you and says “Not guilty. No condemnation. Righteous. Justified.” More than that, he looks at you and says, “I am 100% for you. I'm on your side, in your corner. I've got your back. My goodness is yours forever.”Beneath the ShockThat cries out for explanation. And that's what Paul gives in Romans 8:33-34.Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died, more than that, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. That series of questions and answers contains a deeply profound argument. If the Supreme Court of the Universe has ruled in your favor, what charges could possibly stick? Who could possibly bring a charge against you, if the supreme and righteous Judge has rendered his verdict?God is the Justifier. So who is to condemn? [lit. who is the Condemner?]Paul then points to the ground of God's justification. He reaches back to his earlier argument in Romans 3-4. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:23-26)God justifies the ungodly, the guilty, as a gift, as grace, because of what Jesus has done. Jesus pays the debt and satisfies God's judgment, through his death on the cross, which we receive by faith. Thus, God is able to be both truly righteous and the justifier of the sinner who trusts in Jesus. In other words, the reason that you, a guilty sinner, condemned for your rebellion against God and the objective moral order he embedded in the universe, can be declared righteous is because Christ died for you. He was raised for you. He ascended to heaven and sits at God's right hand for you, and even now is making intercession for you. In other words, there is a fourth person in this courtroom. Not only is there a judge and an accuser and you the accused. There is an Advocate. As the apostle John says in 1 John 2:1: “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”This is the unpacking of the heart of the gospel. The Righteous Judge justifies you; he counts you righteous; he reckons righteousness to you because by grace through faith you are united to Jesus Christ the Righteous One, who died, was raised, ascended to God's right hand, and ever lives to plead for you. Don't miss the intercession of Jesus here. The book of Hebrews (7:22-28) compels us to dwell on Christ's intercessory work. Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant, because unlike the Levitical priests, he holds his priesthood permanently. They died, and that was it. He died, and was raised. He continues forever, seated at God's right hand, and as a result, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. But Wait, There's MoreIf that was all, that would be amazing. But there's more.Last week in Pastor Jonathan's sermon, what struck me most about Romans 5 is the repeated use of the phrases “not only that,” “much more,” and “more than that.” We have peace with God. We've obtained access into the grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the hope of glory. Not only that, we rejoice in sufferings. While we were sinners, Christ died for us. Since we've been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from God's wrath. Since we were reconciled while enemies through his death, much more shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus. We see the same element here in the work of Christ. He died, more than that, he was raised. More than that, he ascended and sits at God's right hand. More than that, he intercedes for us. This is so crucial. The God who is for us, the God who meets us in the person of Jesus, is the God of More Than That. He's the God of “But wait, there's more.” There's always more. And not just in terms of Christ's work, but in terms of the good he intends for us. No SeparationNotice the shift in the question that begins in Romans 8:35. We go from the courtroom–accusation, justification, condemnation–to love. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?And then he presents potential obstacles that could conceivably separate us from Christ's love: tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger, sword. We can see the difference. The courtroom questions had to do with sin and guilt and moral evil. That's one sort of barrier to God's being for us. This question has to do with suffering and hardship and natural evil.And Paul's argument is that the work of Christ completely removes the first, and fundamentally transforms the second. The death, resurrection, ascension, and advocacy of Jesus removes all sin and guilt. No condemnation. Real justification. No higher appeal. But more than that, the work of Jesus transforms the suffering that we endure on his behalf. That last part is important; verse 36. “For your sake we are being killed and treated like sheep to be slaughtered.” These sufferings are for the sake of Jesus. But notice that he doesn't limit himself to merely persecution. He includes all manner of suffering–distress, famine, nakedness, danger. These sufferings too are for Jesus's sake. And how does the work of Jesus transform these hardships and sufferings? The work of Jesus makes these hardships work for our good. That's what Paul says in Romans 8:28: “We know that for those who love God all things work together for good,” including tribulation, distress, persecution, and the rest. Or to put it another way, the work of Jesus makes us more than conquerors in all these things. Now what does that mean? What does “more than conquer” mean? When you conquer something, it means you overcome it. You don't let that thing hinder you from accomplishing your purpose. So, to conquer tribulation and distress and famine and so forth would mean that you don't let those things prevent you from reaching your destination. In other words, a conqueror endures. More than a conqueror recognizes that these sufferings are not merely hardships to be endured, but are themselves means of giving us more of God. A conqueror endures suffering; he guts it out. A more-than-a-conqueror rejoices in suffering, because suffering works endurance, character, and a hope that will never disappoint. He knows, he is persuaded, he is sure that nothing can separate him from the love of God in Christ Jesus–not life or death, not angels or rulers, not things present or things to come, not powers, nothing in the world above nor in the world below, indeed nothing in all of creation can separate you from God's love in Christ.The Greatest Promise in the BibleWhich brings me back to the greatest promise in the Bible. Romans 8:32. The heart of the gospel is that God is for us, and therefore no one and nothing can be successfully against us. Not now, not ever. And then Paul gives a particular kind of argument. It's an argument from the greater to the lesser.He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? If God did not withhold his Son from death for you, what will he not do for you? This argument is built on the infinite worth and value of Jesus and the Father's eternal and infinite love for his Son. Given the infinite worth of Jesus to his Father, and given that he gave his Son for you on the cross, there's no way he'll hold anything back from you. If he didn't withhold Jesus, then no good thing will he withhold from you. He'll give you everything. And, amazingly, he'll give you everything with him. Don't miss that. God gave up his Son, but didn't lose his Son. God didn't spare him, but he also received him back in the resurrection. Which means all the good that God intends to give you, he will give you with Jesus. He will always be for you the God of More Than That. And there will always be more. The Heart of the Gospel at the TableWhich brings us to the Table. This Table represents the heart of the gospel. It's designed to be edible persuasion, to help us be sure of God's unstoppable love. God so loved the world he gave his only Son, that whoever believes will not perish but have eternal life. God so loved that he did not spare his Son but gave him up for us all so that he will give us all things with him. God made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. God is the Justifier of the one who trusts in Jesus because Christ died, more than that, was raised, more than that, is at the right hand of God, and more than that is interceding for us. God shows his love for us in this, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. And nothing–not the true accusations of angels or the false accusations of devils, not the hostility of persecutors nor the tribulations of life, not distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword, not life or death, the present or the future, or anything else in all creation–can separate us from that love.

TFS 7,4: A Portrait of a Literary Artist: Reflections on the Psalms

Play Episode Listen Later May 2, 2022 92:42

Starting in 1931 (Lewis was born in 1898), Lewis became a lifetime attendee at Sunday services at his parish church (Scripture and Sacrament) and at the daily Morning Prayer in the College Chapel at 8 AM. This Morning Prayer included the singing of some Psalms (different each day) by the College Choir, often a boys' choir of highest excellence. Walter Hooper (1931-2020), the incomparable editor of all of Lewis' writings, wrote: “By a constant reading of the Psalter, Lewis came to know the Psalms almost by heart. Sometimes he read the Bible on its own, but it was through the continuous reading and praying of Morning and Evening Prayer that he came to know the Bible and the Psalms so well…. He used the translation of the Psalms found in the Book of Common Prayer.”

starting bible scripture reflections psalms portrait sacrament morning prayer psalter common prayer evening prayer walter hooper literary artist

TFS 7,3: A Portrait of a Literary Artist: The Great Divorce

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 5, 2022 94:25

The Great Divorce: A Dream (1945). Warnie, Lewis' brother, writing in his diary for 16 April 1933: “Jack has a new idea for a religious work, based on the opinion of some of the Fathers [i.e., the Fathers of the Church – the greatest of the Christian teachers in the early centuries of Christianity], that while punishment for the damned is eternal, if is intermittent. He proposes to do sort of an infernal [i.e., something to do with Hell] day-excursion to Paradise. I shall be very interested to see how he handles it.” (This reference from Walter Hooper.)

church hell christianity paradise fathers portrait great divorce warnie walter hooper literary artist

A Portrait of a Literary Artist: Week 2

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 8, 2022 92:55

Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold (1956). Walter Hooper, quoting Lewis about this novel that he wrote so late in his life (he died in November 1963): “This re-interpretation of an old story has lived in the author's mind, thickening and hardening with the years, ever since he was an undergraduate. That way, he could be said to have worked at it most of his life.”

portrait cs lewis walter hooper literary artist

TFS 7,2: A Portrait of a Literary Artist: Till We Have Faces

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 7, 2022 92:54

Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold (1956). Walter Hooper, quoting Lewis about this novel that he wrote so late in his life (he died in November 1963): “This re-interpretation of an old story has lived in the author's mind, thickening and hardening with the years, ever since he was an undergraduate. That way, he could be said to have worked at it most of his life.”

portrait till we have faces walter hooper literary artist

A Portrait of a Literary Artist: Week 1

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 7, 2022 95:14

For Part I of Session #7: A Portrait of a Literary Artist (C.S. Lewis), we will discuss The Pilgrim's Regress: An Allegorical Apology for Christianity, Reason, and Romanticism (1933). Walter Hooper, Lewis' great Assistant and Literary Executor of all of Lewis' works, writes: “Lewis' first prose work, The Pilgrim's Regress, was an attempt to explain the elusive experience he called JOY, and the part that it played in his conversion [to a humble acknowledgement of God, and eventually to “mere” Christianity].”

god christianity reason portrait assistant pilgrims cs lewis romanticism regress walter hooper pilgrim's regress literary artist

TFS 7, 1: A Portrait of a Literary Artist: The Pilgrim's Regress

All About Jack: A C.S. Lewis Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 7, 2022 95:13

For Part I of Session #7: A Portrait of a Literary Artist (C.S. Lewis), we will discuss The Pilgrim's Regress: An Allegorical Apology for Christianity, Reason, and Romanticism (1933). Walter Hooper, Lewis' great Assistant and Literary Executor of all of Lewis' works, writes: “Lewis' first prose work, The Pilgrim's Regress, was an attempt to explain the elusive experience he called JOY, and the part that it played in his conversion [to a humble acknowledgement of God, and eventually to “mere” Christianity].”

god christianity reason portrait assistant pilgrims romanticism regress walter hooper pilgrim's regress literary artist

(Re-Post) Walter Hooper Tribute - Episode 2

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 13, 2021 51:31

IN THIS REPEAT: Here's the second podcast I did that was a tribute to Walter Hooper. - - - - - This is actual the FIFTH (and final) podcast to honor the legacy of Walter Hooper. He died on December 7, 2020. While it is the second show for the All About Jack podcast, two other podcasters have done some shows reflecting on the life and image of Hooper (see links below). Some are unaware that he was THE key person in making sure several books published by Lewis before his death stayed in print, as well as collecting and releasing new material that many enjoy today. In this episode, you will hear from a handful of people who knew Walter reflecting on some of their interactions with him (see the list below). Hear my 1st show here. The 2nd episode featuring others who knew him can be found on the Pints with Jack podcast. It was posted on January 8th and can be heard here. The 3rd show is found at The Lamp-post Listener podcast. It was posted on January 11th - LISTEN HERE. The 4th show is back at Pints with Jack, it posted on January 12th; hear it here. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ These are the people sharing in this episode (in order of appearance): Lancia E. Smith Andrew Lazo Jerry Root Mark Neal Will Vaus Sarah Waters Steven Beebe Other Useful Links: Knowing and Understanding C.S. Lewis YouTube CHANNEL Listen to All About Jack on iTunes Purchase C.S. Lewis Goes to Hell Visit ScrewtapeCompanion.com Visit EssentialCSLewis.com Purchase The Misquotable C.S. Lewis

tribute lamp repost hooper pints walter hooper lewis goes

(Re-Post) Walter Hooper Tribute – Episode 1

All About Jack: A C.S. Lewis Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 11, 2021 57:00

IN THIS REPEAT: Here's the first of two shows featuring a variety of people reflecting on the passing of Walter Hooper. This is the first of several podcasts to honor the legacy of Walter Hooper who died on December 7, 2020. His funeral is scheduled for January 8th at the Oxford Oratory at 11 am local time. Most are aware he served as the Literary Executor of the C.S. Lewis Estate for many years. As you will hear in this episode, Walter was THE key person in making sure several books published by Lewis before his death stayed in print, as well as collecting and releasing new material that many enjoy today. In this episode, you will hear from a handful of people who knew Walter reflecting on some of their interactions with him (see the list below). The next episode (scheduled to release on January 8th) featuring others who knew him can be heard on the Pints with Jack podcast. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ These are the people sharing in this episode (in order of appearance): Harry Lee (Hal) Poe Bruce Johnson Alan Snyder Michael Christensen Colin Duriez Joel Heck Carolyn Curtis Don King Other Useful Links: Knowing and Understanding C.S. Lewis YouTube CHANNEL Listen to All About Jack on iTunes Purchase C.S. Lewis Goes to Hell Visit ScrewtapeCompanion.com Visit EssentialCSLewis.com Purchase The Misquotable C.S. Lewis

tribute repost pints walter hooper lewis goes

(Re-Post) COMPLETE Walter Hooper Interview 2016

All About Jack: A C.S. Lewis Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 9, 2021 54:44

IN THIS REPEAT: My interview with Walter Hooper from summer 2016. The following is the complete interview (nearly 60 minutes) with Walter Hooper. It was recording in his home on July 20, 2016. As you likely know, Walter has been the central figure since the death of C.S. Lewis in making sure Lewis' writing that were published in his life were reprinted and also Hooper has edited the majority of material from Lewis that was previously unpublished. His C.S. Lewis - A Companion and Guide gives the best single volume summary of the works of Lewis and key facts about his life. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Purchase C.S. Lewis - A Companion & Guide Walter Hooper Purchase Mere Christianity Purchase Perelandra Purchase That Hideous Strength Purchase C.S. Lewis and His Circle Abolition of Man Miracles Other Useful Links: Knowing and Understanding C.S. Lewis YouTube CHANNEL Listen to All About Jack on iTunes Purchase C.S. Lewis Goes to Hell Visit ScrewtapeCompanion.com Visit EssentialCSLewis.com Purchase The Misquotable C.S. Lewis

guide repost hooper walter hooper lewis goes

Going Digital with W.A. Hooper Marketing

GP Chamber Chat

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 29, 2021 13:17

Welcome to the GP Chamber Chats with the Grosse Pointe Chamber of Commerce! On today's episode we had the privilege of speaking with Walter Hooper of W.A. Hooper Marketing. Walter and his team excel in helping businesses develop and implement custom, effective marketing strategies. This includes social media, video, photography, podcasting, SEO and email campaigns. Let's dive in and learn more about his process and client success stories. Learn more about W.A. Hooper Marketing at https://www.facebook.com/wahoopermarketing Learn more about the Grosse Pointe Chamber of Commerce at https://www.grossepointechamber.com

marketing seo commerce hooper going digital walter hooper

Episode 64 - After Humanity: C.S. Lewis, The Abolition Of Man, and Michael Ward

And If Love Remains

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 1, 2021 46:53

After Humanity: A Guide to C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man is the go to resource for Lewis's great philosophical work. Today we talk about it with author Michael Ward. Get your copy here: https://www.wordonfire.org/humanity/#ward MICHAEL WARD, a Catholic priest, is Senior Research Fellow at Blackfriars Hall, University of Oxford, and Professor of Apologetics at Houston Baptist University. He is the author of the best-selling and award-winning Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C.S. Lewis, co-editor of The Cambridge Companion to C.S. Lewis, and presenter of the BBC television documentary The Narnia Code. On the fiftieth anniversary of Lewis's death, Michael Ward unveiled a permanent national memorial to him in Poets' Corner, Westminster Abbey, London. After Humanity is a guide to one of C.S. Lewis's most widely admired but least accessible works, The Abolition of Man, which originated as a series of lectures on ethics that he delivered during the Second World War. These lectures tackle the thorny question of whether moral value is objective or not. When we say something is right or wrong, are we recognizing a reality outside ourselves, or merely reporting a subjective sentiment? Lewis addresses the matter from a purely philosophical standpoint, leaving theological matters to one side. He makes a powerful case against subjectivism, issuing an intellectual warning that, in our “post-truth” twenty-first century, has even more relevance than when he originally presented it. Lewis characterized The Abolition of Man as “almost my favourite among my books,” and his biographer Walter Hooper has called it “an all but indispensable introduction to the entire corpus of Lewisiana.” In After Humanity, Michael Ward sheds much-needed light on this important but difficult work, explaining both its general academic context and the particular circumstances in Lewis's life that helped give rise to it, including his front-line service in the trenches of the First World War. After Humanity contains a detailed commentary clarifying the many allusions and quotations scattered throughout Lewis's argument. It shows how this resolutely philosophical thesis fits in with his other, more explicitly Christian works. It also includes a full-color photo gallery, displaying images of people, places, and documents that relate to The Abolition of Man, among them Lewis's original “blurb” for the book, which has never before been published.

Real talk: Childhood Trauma

Sarahcasm

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 26, 2021 21:17

Talking about childhood trauma with Lauren Atwell. We discuss what trauma can look like, how we learned to accept it, and what we did to grow from it. References: New Day Foundation (not sponsored) Walter Hooper @wahoopermarketing (not sponsored)

real talk childhood trauma walter hooper

PWJ: S4E41 – AH – “After Hours” with Michael Ward

christianity chronicles oxford james bond ward cs narnia inklings michael ward planet narnia walter hooper

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 25, 2021

In 2008, Dr. Michael Ward released "Planet Narnia", a book which caused a real stir in C.S. Lewis studies in which he offered a new lens through which to view "The Chronicles of Narnia". On today's show, in addition to his book, Dr. Ward discusses his friendship with the late Walter Hooper, as well as his involvement in honouring Lewis' life and legacy. Oh yes, and he also explains how he came to give James Bond a pair of x-ray glasses…

C.S. Lewis, Walter Hooper, Conversion, and Much More with Ron Ratliff - KCP 047

The Konza Catholic Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 2, 2021 52:19

Join us for a fun and informative episode as we welcome Ron Ratliff to tell his story of conversion, and how reading C.S. Lewis and his friendship with the legendary Walter Hooper helped him on his way. Expect lots of laughs and heartfelt moment from a great storyteller and our good friend.

conversion cs lewis ratliff walter hooper

PWJ: S4E27 – Bonus – “Another Tribute to Walter Hooper”

christianity tribute oxford cs narnia inklings walter hooper

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 12, 2021

Together with William O’Flaherty and the hosts of The Lamp-Post Listener, we have assembled several tributes to Walter Hooper who recently passed away. This is the fourth episode in the series, and the second which has appeared on this feed.

Remembering Walter Hooper

The Lamp-post Listener: Chronicling C.S. Lewis' World of Narnia

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 11, 2021 52:13

Eight Lewis scholars reflect on the life and legacy of Walter Hooper. Your Lamp-post Links: All About Jack: Walter Hooper Tribute - Episode 1 Pints with Jack: S4E26 - Bonus - A Tribute to Walter Hooper Andrew Lazo was the co-editor of Mere Christians: Inspiring Stories of Encounters with C. S. Lewis. Many of you will also recognize him as one of the current co-hosts of Pints with Jack. Dr. Charlie Starr is an Associate Professor of English at Alderson Broaddus University in West Virginia. He is also the author of The Faun's Bookshelf: C.S. Lewis on Why Myth Matters. Dr. Diana Pavlac Glyer is an award-winning author and professor at Azusa Pacific University. Dr. Gyler is also the author of academic work The Company They Keep and its companion work, Bandersnatch. Both publications focus on Lewis, Tolkien, and the creative collaboration of the Inklings. Dr. Terry Lindvall is the author of Surprised by Laughter: The Comic World of C.S. Lewis and God Mocks: A History of Religious Satire from the Hebrew Prophets to Stephen Colbert. Dr. Lindvall also holds the C. S. Lewis Chair of Communication and Christian Thought at Virginia Wesleyan College. Dr. Brenton Dickieson works in the literature department at Signum University. He is also is Lecturer in Literature at The King's College in New York City, Lecturer in Theology and Literature at Maritime Christian College in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Sessional Instructor in the Centre for the Study of Christianity and Culture at the University of Prince Edward Island, and Instructor in Spiritual Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, BC. Dr. Dickieson is also the curator of the wonderful blog: APilgrimInNarnia.com. Dr. Devin Brown is a Lilly Scholar and Professor of English at Asbury University in Kentucky. He is the author of numerous books on Lewis, including A Life Observed: A Spiritual Biography of C. S. Lewis, Bringing Narnia Home: Lessons from the Other Side of the Wardrobe, and C.S. Lewis and the Moral Argument. Dr. Brown has three publications on the first three books in The Chronicles of Narnia. They are titled Inside Narnia, Inside Prince Caspian, and Inside the Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Dr. Harry Lee Poe is the Charles Colson University Professor of Faith & Culture at Union University. In 2019, Dr. Poe released Becoming Lewis: A Biography of Young Jack Lewis. Dr. Roger White is the curator of the Inklings Special Collection for the University Libraries as well as Professor of Ministry for the Seminary at Azusa Pacific University. Dr. White was the co-editor of 2015's C. S. Lewis and His Circle: Essays and Memoirs from the Oxford C. S. Lewis Society. Support us on Patreon or follow us into Narnia on our Twitter or Facebook pages. You can also email us at thenarniapodcast@gmail.com or leave us a voicemail at (406) 646-6733. Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | YouTube | Stitcher Radio | Podcast Website | RSS Feed

PWJ: S4E26 – Bonus – “A Tribute to Walter Hooper”

christianity tribute oxford cs narnia inklings walter hooper

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 8, 2021

Together with William O'Flaherty and the hosts of The Lamp-Post Listener, we have assembled several tributes to Walter Hooper who recently passed away.

Walter Hooper - Part 5 (Encore)

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 30, 2020 40:48

Eric's interview with Walter Hooper, the literary assistant to C.S. Lewis, continues in this special Socrates in the City broadcast recorded in London. (Encore Presentation)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Walter Hooper - Part 4 (Encore)

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 30, 2020 40:48

Eric's interview with Walter Hooper, the literary assistant to C.S. Lewis, continues in this special Socrates in the City broadcast recorded in London. (Encore Presentation)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Walter Hooper - Part 6 (Encore)

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 30, 2020 40:49

Eric wraps up his interview with Walter Hooper, the literary assistant to C.S. Lewis, in this special Socrates in the City broadcast recorded in London. (Encore Presentation)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Walter Hooper - Part 3 (Encore)

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 30, 2020 40:45

Eric's interview with Walter Hooper, the literary assistant to C.S. Lewis, continues in this special Socrates in the City broadcast recorded in London. (Encore Presentation)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Walter Hooper - Part 2 (Encore)

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 28, 2020 40:49

Eric's interview with Walter Hooper, the literary assistant to C.S. Lewis, continues in this special Socrates in the City broadcast recorded in London. (Encore Presentation)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Walter Hooper - Part 1 (Encore)

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 28, 2020 40:49

Walter Hooper, C.S. Lewis' literary assistant, is interviewed by Eric for a special "Socrates in the City" event in London. (Encore Presentation)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Lewis Festival Scholar Series

C. S. Lewis Festival Scholar Series Special: Walter Hooper

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 18, 2020 36:51

The C. S. Lewis Festival Scholar Series presents a special episode in honor of Walter Hooper, renowned Lewis scholar and C.S. Lewis’ private secretary and literary trustee. Walter shares personal and intimate stories of his time with Jack Lewis and Lewis’s circle of remarkable friends including JRR Tolkien from the 2009 C.S. Lewis Festival in Petoskey, MI. (cslewisfestival.org).

festival scholar cs lewis jrr tolkien petoskey jack lewis walter hooper

Walter Hooper, Champion of the Writings of C.S. Lewis

Notable Speeches

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 11, 2020 30:28

Walter Hooper, an American who spent his life helping preserve and promote the literary legacy of British writer C.S. Lewis, died Dec. 7, 2020, at age 89. In this address from 2007, Mr. Hooper talks about how he met C.S. Lewis and eventually came to manage the writer's literary estate following Lewis's death in 1963. Walter Hooper went on to edit many collections of C.S. Lewis's essays, poems, and letters, and he worked to keep Lewis's writings in print. In 1997, Christianity Today wrote that "Hooper's knowledge of Lewis's writings (both published and unpublished) is unsurpassed." Mr. Hooper presented this address at a conference sponsored by Southeastern Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C. The audio has been condensed for this podcast. If you have a comment or question about the Notable Speeches podcast, email feedback@notablespeeches.com.

american british champion wake forest cs lewis hooper christianity today writings walter hooper

PWJ: S4E16 – AH – “After Hours” with Metropolitan Kallistos Ware

church christianity oxford cs narnia eastern orthodox inklings metropolitan kallistos ware walter hooper

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 3, 2020

Last Christmas I gifted myself a copy of C.S. Lewis and The Church, which was a collection of essays in honour of Walter Hooper. Among this collection was an essay by well-known Eastern Orthodox writer, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. In this essay he speaks about aspects of Lewis' theology which appeals to Eastern Orthodox readers. I invited him onto the show to talk about it.

Happy C.S. Lewis Day!

The Inklings Variety Hour

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 29, 2020 18:02

Happy "Commemoration of C.S. Lewis Day." Rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? Here's a quick reading from Walter Hooper's Introduction to "The Weight of Glory and Other Essays," which describes the last three months of Lewis' life. Stay tuned for more podcasts very soon.

weight rolls cs lewis other essays walter hooper

What is Faith? #129 - The Hebrews 11 Faith Hall of Fame.

Play Episode Listen Later May 6, 2020 28:42

Hello friends and happy Wednesday to you! Today we are covering a Bible passage that many might be familiar with, as this is a favorite for preachers to preach through - and with good reason! Hebrews 11 is rich with meaning and lots depth and encouragement. This passage gives us not only a definition of faith, but a plethora of illustrations that demonstrate to us what faith is, and how it might look in our lives. In addition to Hebrews 11, we will also be reading Numbers 14, Psalms 50 and Isaiah 3 and 4. Let's go read Hebrews 11 and then return and discuss our major question: What is faith? Did you catch the Hebrews definition? Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen. 2 For by this our ancestors were approved. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible. Hebrews 11:1-3 That is a very interesting definition of faith, isn't it? Hebrews 11:1 in the ESV says this, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." and in the NIV, "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." and the NLT, "Faith shows the reality of what we hope for; it is the evidence of things we cannot see." In the KJV: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" In the Lexham, "Now faith is the realization of what is hoped for, the proof of things not seen,"and the Young's Literal, "And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction" All of these translations are expressing the same Greek words in a slightly different way of explanation, but the meaning is clear: faith is not mere hopeful belief that something might happen - "I hope this quarantine will be over soon," "I hope Alabama wins the 2020 national championship," "I hope my doctor visit goes well." It is good to hope, but faith is something different - it is not hopefulness in an uncertain outcome in a wishful sense, but it is assurance, confidence, reality, realization and substance. Faith is a concrete belief in a reality - that is the point of what Hebrews is telling us, and that reality/substance/confidence/assurance/conviction produces actions....and not actions like merely going to church, or going through religious motions. Actions like Noah building an Ark for years in the middle of dry land. Actions like Abraham heading out on a life-changing move of himself and his whole family to a land he didn't know and had never seen. Actions like Rahab welcoming the Israelite spies and risking her life to protect them. Actions like Joshua leading a musical/prayer march around the walls of a well-fortified city that led to its capture. And actions like Moses refusing to live as fake royalty in the house of Pharoah. Hebrews is telling us that faith is a bedrock reality that causes people to make life-changing, life-altering decisions that are risky and stupid if our faith is somehow misplaced. Faith is concrete substance/reality/confidence/assured says Hebrews 11 and faith leads to action and life-change. Here are a few other definitions: "Faith is a living, daring confidence in God's grace, so sure and certain that a man could stake his life on it a thousand times." Martin Luther "True faith, not head knowledge, is a firm conviction that brings personal surrender to God and His Word." Kay Arthur "Faith means being sure of what we hope for now. It means knowing something is real, this moment, all around you, even when you don't see it." Joni Eareckson Tada "TRUE faith is reliance. Look at any Greek lexicon you like, and you will find that the word πιστευειν does not merely mean to believe, but to trust, to confide in, to commit to, entrust with, and so forth; and the marrow of the meaning of faith is confidence in, reliance upon. Let me ask, then, every professor here who professes to have faith, is your faith the faith of reliance? You give credit to certain statements, do you also place trust in the one glorious person who alone can redeem? Have you confidence as well as credence? A creed will not save you, but reliance upon the anointed Saviour is the way of salvation." - C. H. Spurgeon, Flashes of Thought (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1874), 146. “Faith is the evidence of things not seen”; that is, it is their being evident. This verse is as much as if he had said, “Faith is the being present of things that are to come, and the being clearly seen of things that are not seen.” Jonathan Edwards, Notes on Scripture, ed. Harry S. Stout and Stephen J. Stein, vol. 15, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (London; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 81. "Faith is a grounded, justifiable knowledge, and not a fancy, or ineffectual opinion; having for its object the infallible revelation and certain truth of God; and not a falsehood, nor a mere probability, or ‘verisimile.’" Richard Baxter, William Orme, The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter, vol. 12 (London: James Duncan, 1830), 54. "We all in one sense ‘believe’ we are mortal: but until one’s forties does one really believe one is going to die? On the edge of a cliff can’t one believe, and yet not really believe, that there’s no danger? But certainly this real belief in the truths of our religion is a great gift from God. When in Hebrews ‘faith’ is defined as ‘the substance of things hoped for’,179 I wd. translate ‘substance’ as ‘substantialness’ or ‘solidity’ or (almost) ‘palpableness’." - C. S. Lewis, The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed. Walter Hooper, vol. 3 (New York: HarperCollins e-books; HarperSanFrancisco, 2004–2007), 751. Faith is to believe what you do not see, or to trust words about a hidden thing which truly exists, though you cannot see it with your eyes. About the things that we see we have knowledge, and not faith.Elliot Ritzema, 300 Quotations for Preachers from the Early Church, Pastorum Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013). Great definitions there - let me close with a bit of exposition from John Piper to give us a fuller idea of what exactly faith is: Hebrews 11:1 says, “Faith is the conviction—or better, the evidence—of things not seen.” And then the writer illustrates this in verse 3 when he says that “we understand by faith” that God created the world. In other words, faith is not just a responding act of the soul; it is also a grasping or perceiving or understanding act. It is a spiritual act that sees the fingerprints of God. This does not mean that you believe them into being. That would be wishful thinking—the power of positive thinking. That is not authentic faith. Real faith is based on real Truth. It looks deeply at the world God has made—looks through it, so to speak—and by the grace of God, it sees the glory of God (as Psalm 19:1 says) standing forth off the creation like a 3-D image. The Substance of Things Hoped For Now that leaves us just a few minutes to focus on the other part of the definition of faith in verse 1: “Now faith is the assurance—or the substance—of things hoped for.” It may be that all this means is that faith is a deep confidence that the promises of God will come true so that we bank on them. That would be enough to free us from the fears and greed and worldliness that block the flow of radical, risk-taking, sacrificial love. If we have a strong conviction that God will care for us and bring us to glory and fulfill all his promises to us forever, then we will be free from self-indulgence and free for serving others. But I think it means more—or maybe this is just a way of filling up this meaning with all that’s really here. The word “assurance” here can mean “nature” or “substance” or “reality” or “essence” in other places, for example, Hebrews 1:3 (“exact representation of God’s nature”). If that is what is meant here, then we should think like this. What could the “substance” or “nature” of things hoped for mean? I think it could mean that faith apprehends the goodness and the sweetness of what God promises so clearly that this goodness and sweetness are substantially present in faith. In other words, faith grasps—lays hold of—God’s preciousness so firmly that in the faith itself there is the substance of the goodness and the sweetness promised. Faith doesn’t create what we hope for—that would be a mere mind game. Faith is a spiritual apprehending or perceiving or tasting or sensing of the beauty and sweetness and preciousness and goodness of what God promises—especially his own fellowship, and the enjoyment of his own presence. Faith does not just feel confident that this is coming some day. Faith has spiritually laid hold of and perceived and tasted that it is real. And this means that faith has the substance or the nature of what is hoped for in it. Faith’s enjoyment of the promise is a kind of substantial downpayment of the reality coming. John Piper, Sermons from John Piper (1990–1999) (Minneapolis, MN: Desiring God, 2007). As a bonus, here are two other great quotes on faith: "Let us see to it that we keep God before our eyes; that we walk in His ways, and seek to please and glorify Him in everything, great and small. Depend upon it, God’s work, done in God’s way, will never lack God’s supplies." Hudson Taylor “Furnish thyself with arguments from the promises to enforce thy pravers, and make them prevalent with God. The promises are the ground of faith, and faith, when strengthened, will make thee fervent, and such fervency ever speeds and returns with victory out of the field of prayer…. The mightier any is in the Word, the more mighty he will be in prayer.” - William Gurnall

What is Faith? #129 - The Hebrews 11 Faith Hall of Fame.

Verum Fabula Fellowship Review

Play Episode Listen Later May 6, 2020 28:42

Hello friends and happy Wednesday to you! Today we are covering a Bible passage that many might be familiar with, as this is a favorite for preachers to preach through - and with good reason! Hebrews 11 is rich with meaning and lots depth and encouragement. This passage gives us not only a definition of faith, but a plethora of illustrations that demonstrate to us what faith is, and how it might look in our lives. In addition to Hebrews 11, we will also be reading Numbers 14, Psalms 50 and Isaiah 3 and 4. Let's go read Hebrews 11 and then return and discuss our major question: What is faith? Did you catch the Hebrews definition? Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen. 2 For by this our ancestors were approved. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible. Hebrews 11:1-3 That is a very interesting definition of faith, isn't it? Hebrews 11:1 in the ESV says this, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." and in the NIV, "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." and the NLT, "Faith shows the reality of what we hope for; it is the evidence of things we cannot see." In the KJV: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" In the Lexham, "Now faith is the realization of what is hoped for, the proof of things not seen,"and the Young's Literal, "And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction" All of these translations are expressing the same Greek words in a slightly different way of explanation, but the meaning is clear: faith is not mere hopeful belief that something might happen - "I hope this quarantine will be over soon," "I hope Alabama wins the 2020 national championship," "I hope my doctor visit goes well." It is good to hope, but faith is something different - it is not hopefulness in an uncertain outcome in a wishful sense, but it is assurance, confidence, reality, realization and substance. Faith is a concrete belief in a reality - that is the point of what Hebrews is telling us, and that reality/substance/confidence/assurance/conviction produces actions....and not actions like merely going to church, or going through religious motions. Actions like Noah building an Ark for years in the middle of dry land. Actions like Abraham heading out on a life-changing move of himself and his whole family to a land he didn't know and had never seen. Actions like Rahab welcoming the Israelite spies and risking her life to protect them. Actions like Joshua leading a musical/prayer march around the walls of a well-fortified city that led to its capture. And actions like Moses refusing to live as fake royalty in the house of Pharoah. Hebrews is telling us that faith is a bedrock reality that causes people to make life-changing, life-altering decisions that are risky and stupid if our faith is somehow misplaced. Faith is concrete substance/reality/confidence/assured says Hebrews 11 and faith leads to action and life-change. Here are a few other definitions: "Faith is a living, daring confidence in God's grace, so sure and certain that a man could stake his life on it a thousand times." Martin Luther "True faith, not head knowledge, is a firm conviction that brings personal surrender to God and His Word." Kay Arthur "Faith means being sure of what we hope for now. It means knowing something is real, this moment, all around you, even when you don't see it." Joni Eareckson Tada "TRUE faith is reliance. Look at any Greek lexicon you like, and you will find that the word πιστευειν does not merely mean to believe, but to trust, to confide in, to commit to, entrust with, and so forth; and the marrow of the meaning of faith is confidence in, reliance upon. Let me ask, then, every professor here who professes to have faith, is your faith the faith of reliance? You give credit to certain statements, do you also place trust in the one glorious person who alone can redeem? Have you confidence as well as credence? A creed will not save you, but reliance upon the anointed Saviour is the way of salvation." - C. H. Spurgeon, Flashes of Thought (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1874), 146. “Faith is the evidence of things not seen”; that is, it is their being evident. This verse is as much as if he had said, “Faith is the being present of things that are to come, and the being clearly seen of things that are not seen.” Jonathan Edwards, Notes on Scripture, ed. Harry S. Stout and Stephen J. Stein, vol. 15, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (London; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 81. "Faith is a grounded, justifiable knowledge, and not a fancy, or ineffectual opinion; having for its object the infallible revelation and certain truth of God; and not a falsehood, nor a mere probability, or ‘verisimile.’" Richard Baxter, William Orme, The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter, vol. 12 (London: James Duncan, 1830), 54. "We all in one sense ‘believe’ we are mortal: but until one’s forties does one really believe one is going to die? On the edge of a cliff can’t one believe, and yet not really believe, that there’s no danger? But certainly this real belief in the truths of our religion is a great gift from God. When in Hebrews ‘faith’ is defined as ‘the substance of things hoped for’,179 I wd. translate ‘substance’ as ‘substantialness’ or ‘solidity’ or (almost) ‘palpableness’." - C. S. Lewis, The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed. Walter Hooper, vol. 3 (New York: HarperCollins e-books; HarperSanFrancisco, 2004–2007), 751. Faith is to believe what you do not see, or to trust words about a hidden thing which truly exists, though you cannot see it with your eyes. About the things that we see we have knowledge, and not faith.Elliot Ritzema, 300 Quotations for Preachers from the Early Church, Pastorum Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013). Great definitions there - let me close with a bit of exposition from John Piper to give us a fuller idea of what exactly faith is: Hebrews 11:1 says, “Faith is the conviction—or better, the evidence—of things not seen.” And then the writer illustrates this in verse 3 when he says that “we understand by faith” that God created the world. In other words, faith is not just a responding act of the soul; it is also a grasping or perceiving or understanding act. It is a spiritual act that sees the fingerprints of God. This does not mean that you believe them into being. That would be wishful thinking—the power of positive thinking. That is not authentic faith. Real faith is based on real Truth. It looks deeply at the world God has made—looks through it, so to speak—and by the grace of God, it sees the glory of God (as Psalm 19:1 says) standing forth off the creation like a 3-D image. The Substance of Things Hoped For Now that leaves us just a few minutes to focus on the other part of the definition of faith in verse 1: “Now faith is the assurance—or the substance—of things hoped for.” It may be that all this means is that faith is a deep confidence that the promises of God will come true so that we bank on them. That would be enough to free us from the fears and greed and worldliness that block the flow of radical, risk-taking, sacrificial love. If we have a strong conviction that God will care for us and bring us to glory and fulfill all his promises to us forever, then we will be free from self-indulgence and free for serving others. But I think it means more—or maybe this is just a way of filling up this meaning with all that’s really here. The word “assurance” here can mean “nature” or “substance” or “reality” or “essence” in other places, for example, Hebrews 1:3 (“exact representation of God’s nature”). If that is what is meant here, then we should think like this. What could the “substance” or “nature” of things hoped for mean? I think it could mean that faith apprehends the goodness and the sweetness of what God promises so clearly that this goodness and sweetness are substantially present in faith. In other words, faith grasps—lays hold of—God’s preciousness so firmly that in the faith itself there is the substance of the goodness and the sweetness promised. Faith doesn’t create what we hope for—that would be a mere mind game. Faith is a spiritual apprehending or perceiving or tasting or sensing of the beauty and sweetness and preciousness and goodness of what God promises—especially his own fellowship, and the enjoyment of his own presence. Faith does not just feel confident that this is coming some day. Faith has spiritually laid hold of and perceived and tasted that it is real. And this means that faith has the substance or the nature of what is hoped for in it. Faith’s enjoyment of the promise is a kind of substantial downpayment of the reality coming. John Piper, Sermons from John Piper (1990–1999) (Minneapolis, MN: Desiring God, 2007). As a bonus, here are two other great quotes on faith: "Let us see to it that we keep God before our eyes; that we walk in His ways, and seek to please and glorify Him in everything, great and small. Depend upon it, God’s work, done in God’s way, will never lack God’s supplies." Hudson Taylor “Furnish thyself with arguments from the promises to enforce thy pravers, and make them prevalent with God. The promises are the ground of faith, and faith, when strengthened, will make thee fervent, and such fervency ever speeds and returns with victory out of the field of prayer…. The mightier any is in the Word, the more mighty he will be in prayer.” - William Gurnall

Jack & Beren Show Episode #7 - COVID 19 And Other Reflections

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 23, 2020 35:51

Randy and I are socially distant at Drinklings Roastery, his coffee cafe and roasting facility in Wilmore, Kentucky. We discussed Covid-19 and other rabbit trails. We feel like rabbit trails are our bread and butter and very Inkling-esque ... as they rabbited nearly every time in the Rabbit Room of the Eagle and Child pub. Walter Hooper noted once that the Inklings met and talked about "Public Schools and Sherlock Holmes." It was good enough for them, so we'll keep the format going! Enjoy!

covid-19 child kentucky reflections eagle sherlock holmes public school cs lewis jrr tolkien baker street inklings beren wilmore inkling rabbit room walter hooper

Episode #30 - Is My Hypocrisy Causing Non-Christians to Blaspheme God!? (+ Was Haman Impaled or Hanged?)

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 30, 2020 35:28

Today's Bible passages feature the incredible absurdities of Jacob (and his sneaky wife Rachel!) in Genesis 31, some very satisfying comeuppance for the antisemite Haman in Esther 7, and Jesus healing, forgiving, and calling a seemingly ignoble tax-collector to His team of disciples in Mark 2. Romans 2 is our focus passage of the day, and it is all about hypocrisy and its dangers. Even though the word 'hypocrite' is not found in the chapter at all, Romans 2 contains one of the most detailed - almost poetic - descriptions of hypocrisy in the Bible. Today we will change our format up ever so slightly by first reading Romans 2, and discussing how hypocrisy can blaspheme God's name, then we will read Esther 7, and cover the one big (and grisly) Bible mystery in that passage. Shout-out to my friend and Valley Baptist church-goer Dan Blair who suggested the topic for today's podcast (because he was reading ahead into Romans) and also shout out to the people that attacked one of our church Facebook posts this week for being an excellent demonstration that hypocrisy is not just something that Christians do, but that anybody can engage in hypocrisy! Let's jump right into Romans 2, and come back for a deep discussion of hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is a big, big deal. If you Google the word to come up with a concise and easy to understand definition (as I did), you will find this gem presented to you from the Oxford dictionary, "[hypocrisy is] the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense." Of all the definitions I read, and there are many, I believe that this one correlates most closely to the behavior that Jesus seeks to challenge and condemn so many times. Interestingly, Google also serves up a picture to go along with hypocrisy, and it is a challenge to those of us, like myself, who are pro-life. Hypocrisy is dangerous. In most modern versions of the Bible, the word 'hypocrite' and its cognates appear about 30 or so times in most translations of the Bible. Of those appearances, about 75 percent of them are referenced by Jesus, and it is clear that this is an issue that is exceedingly important to Him. Consider just these four passages to get an idea of how Jesus feels about hypocrisy: (I note here that passage #1 gives a crystal clear definition of hypocrisy by Jesus.) 27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of the bones of the dead and every kind of impurity. 28 In the same way, on the outside you seem righteous to people, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. Matthew 23:27-28 5 “Whenever you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by people. Truly I tell you, they have their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your private room, shut your door, and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. Matthew 6:5-6' He answered them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Mark 7:6 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the splinter that is in your eye,' when you yourself don't see the beam of wood in your eye? Hypocrite! First take the beam of wood out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the splinter in your brother's eye. Luke 6:42 So, according to Jesus, hypocrisy is appearing to be religious on the outside, but being dead and wicked on the inside/in secret. Hypocrisy is doing gaudy religious behavior so that you appear to be righteous. Hypocrisy is honoring God with our words (and social media posts) but being distant from Him in our hearts, and hypocrisy is judging other people for minor sins when we ourselves are engaging in major sins. In case you can't tell from what Jesus and Paul said, this behavior is incredibly dangerous to our own souls. It is also remarkably confusing to people who are NOT Christians. And, as Paul has shown us, this leads to them blaspheming (aggressively insulting and speaking against) the name of God. When we Christians claim to believe the truths of the Bible, and strongly expound them on social media, and yet don't live up to the words of our mouths and the words of our posts, we are engaging in hypocrisy and increasing the level of blaspheme against the name of God. When we Christians claim to believe the teachings of the Bible, and then lionize and support people who live in opposite ways to the Word of God, then we are confusing non-believers, and engaging in the kind of hypocrisy that increases the level of blasphemy of God's name in the world. When we Christians come out against the immoral behavior of non-Christians and condemn that behavior, and then are later caught doing that same thing - or worse!- then we are engaging in the kind of hypocrisy that raises the level of blasphemy in the world and causes the world to view the teachings of the Bible with extreme skepticism. Our behavior and beliefs must correlate with our actions, and both must be governed by the Word of God and the leadership of the Holy Spirit. There is no justification - pragmatic, political, philosophical or otherwise - for any of those kinds of hypocrisy. We MUST flee from behavior that is hypocritical, lest we run afoul of our Master Jesus, or increase the level of blasphemy in the world. May such words not be true of us! Here are ten powerful quotes on hypocrisy: When you see a man with a great deal of religion displayed in his shop window, you may depend upon it he keeps a very small stock of it within. Charles Spurgeon He that puts on a religious habit abroad to gain himself a great name among men, and at the same time lives like an atheist at home, shall at the last be uncovered by God and presented before all the world for a most outrageous hypocrite. Thomas Brooks, The Privie Key of Heaven (1665). We ought to read the psalms that curse the oppressor; read them with fear. Who knows what imprecations of the same sort have been uttered against ourselves? What prayers have Red men, and Black, and Brown and Yellow, sent up against us to their gods or sometimes to God Himself? All over the earth the White Man's offence ‘smells to heaven': massacres, broken treaties, theft, kidnappings, enslavement, deportation, floggings, lynchings, beatings-up, rape, insult, mockery, and odious hypocrisy make up that smell. C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper, EPub Edition. (HarperOne, 2014), 119. NOTE: This was written more than ten years before the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. He talks about prayer, of repentance, of faith, and of the new birth; but he only knows how to talk about them. I have visited his family and have observed him both at home and abroad, and I know what I say is the truth. His house is as empty of religion as the white of an egg is devoid of flavor. There is no prayer offered in his house, nor any sign of repentance for sin. Yes, even an animal serves God far better than Talkative.“To all who know him, he is the very stain, reproach, and shame of religion. Because of his reputation, the neighborhood in which he lives hardly has a good word to say about him. The common people who really know him say, ‘A saint abroad and a devil at home.' John Bunyan, Description of 'Talkative' a hypocrite who poses as a Christian in Pilgrim's Progress. A hypocrite is the picture of a saint; but his paint shall be washed off, and he shall appear in his own colors. Reverend John Mason COALS of fire cannot be concealed beneath the most sumptuous apparel, they will betray themselves with smoke and flame; nor can darling sins be long hidden beneath the most ostentatious profession, they will sooner or later discover themselves, and burn sad holes in the man's reputation. Sin needs quenching in the Saviour's blood, not concealing under the garb of religion. C. H. Spurgeon, Feathers for Arrows (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1870), 115. O, what may man within him hide, Though angel on the outward side! William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure Hypocrisy leads a man to pretend to be what he is not. His only hope lies in not being discovered; but, as Christ declares that “there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known;” hypocrisy becomes insanity as well as iniquity. Therefore, keep clear of it in every shape and form. C. H. Spurgeon, “God's Glory Our Reward,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 53 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1907), 104. Hypocrisy is hateful to God and humanity. It does not bring a reward, and it is utterly useless for the salvation of the soul. It is rather the cause of its damnation. Although sometimes it may escape detection for a little while, before long, it is sure to be uncovered and bring disgrace on them. Cyril of Alexandria 300s-400s AD Arthur A. Just, ed., Luke, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 203–204. If a man preaches but does not practice what he preaches, he is like a well of water where everyone can quench their thirst and wash their dirt, but which cannot clean away the filth and dung that is around it. Poeman, A Christian monk from the 300s-400s AD Elliot Ritzema, 300 Quotations for Preachers from the Early Church, Pastorum Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013). As to the issue of Haman, almost certainly, he was not hanged on a the version of the gallows that most of us would be familiar with. The Hebrew verbiage is a bit ambiguous here, but it could be read to indicate the Haman was impaled on a pole/tree/spike, or that he was hung (as in, attached) to a pole and left to die. Probably not dropped through the gallows as we think of it. In the work of the Greek historian Herodotus, impalement is regularly presented as a Persian punishment (see The Histories, 1.128, 3,132, 3.159, 6.30 as examples). Given the setting of Esther, it thus seems likely that the manner of punishment for Haman was in fact impalement. In other words, the fifty-cubit “tree” built by Haman was intended to display Mordecai's body impaled in such a way that no one could avoid seeing it. As it turned out, however, it was Haman, whose death (and the folly leading to it) was put on display for the entire population. This view is also confirmed by both recent commentaries (by Jon Levenson, for example) and by older commentaries (Keil and Delitzsch). In this case, I think the TNIV and the NLT to be more correct in their translation than the ESV or the NASB. https://www.ligonier.org/blog/was-haman-hanged-or-impaled/

god jesus christ history black father google bible politics christians holy spirit brothers romans sin greek progress martin luther king jr oxford theology pharisees hebrew measure preachers yellow bible study hypocrisy pilgrims causing saviour persian william shakespeare apologetics god himself early church woe cyril feathers mordecai haman white man spurgeon john bunyan keil herodotus quotations non christians hanged talkative bible questions harperone impaled blaspheme master jesus thomas brooks christian reflections delitzsch walter hooper wa lexham press il intervarsity press dan blair biblemysteries

Episode #30 - Is My Hypocrisy Causing Non-Christians to Blaspheme God!? (+ Was Haman Impaled or Hanged?)

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 30, 2020 35:28

Today's Bible passages feature the incredible absurdities of Jacob (and his sneaky wife Rachel!) in Genesis 31, some very satisfying comeuppance for the antisemite Haman in Esther 7, and Jesus healing, forgiving, and calling a seemingly ignoble tax-collector to His team of disciples in Mark 2. Romans 2 is our focus passage of the day, and it is all about hypocrisy and its dangers. Even though the word 'hypocrite' is not found in the chapter at all, Romans 2 contains one of the most detailed - almost poetic - descriptions of hypocrisy in the Bible. Today we will change our format up ever so slightly by first reading Romans 2, and discussing how hypocrisy can blaspheme God's name, then we will read Esther 7, and cover the one big (and grisly) Bible mystery in that passage. Shout-out to my friend and Valley Baptist church-goer Dan Blair who suggested the topic for today's podcast (because he was reading ahead into Romans) and also shout out to the people that attacked one of our church Facebook posts this week for being an excellent demonstration that hypocrisy is not just something that Christians do, but that anybody can engage in hypocrisy! Let's jump right into Romans 2, and come back for a deep discussion of hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is a big, big deal. If you Google the word to come up with a concise and easy to understand definition (as I did), you will find this gem presented to you from the Oxford dictionary, "[hypocrisy is] the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense." Of all the definitions I read, and there are many, I believe that this one correlates most closely to the behavior that Jesus seeks to challenge and condemn so many times. Interestingly, Google also serves up a picture to go along with hypocrisy, and it is a challenge to those of us, like myself, who are pro-life. Hypocrisy is dangerous. In most modern versions of the Bible, the word 'hypocrite' and its cognates appear about 30 or so times in most translations of the Bible. Of those appearances, about 75 percent of them are referenced by Jesus, and it is clear that this is an issue that is exceedingly important to Him. Consider just these four passages to get an idea of how Jesus feels about hypocrisy: (I note here that passage #1 gives a crystal clear definition of hypocrisy by Jesus.) 27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of the bones of the dead and every kind of impurity. 28 In the same way, on the outside you seem righteous to people, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. Matthew 23:27-28 5 “Whenever you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by people. Truly I tell you, they have their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your private room, shut your door, and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. Matthew 6:5-6' He answered them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Mark 7:6 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the splinter that is in your eye,' when you yourself don't see the beam of wood in your eye? Hypocrite! First take the beam of wood out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the splinter in your brother's eye. Luke 6:42 So, according to Jesus, hypocrisy is appearing to be religious on the outside, but being dead and wicked on the inside/in secret. Hypocrisy is doing gaudy religious behavior so that you appear to be righteous. Hypocrisy is honoring God with our words (and social media posts) but being distant from Him in our hearts, and hypocrisy is judging other people for minor sins when we ourselves are engaging in major sins. In case you can't tell from what Jesus and Paul said, this behavior is incredibly dangerous to our own souls. It is also remarkably confusing to people who are NOT Christians. And, as Paul has shown us, this leads to them blaspheming (aggressively insulting and speaking against) the name of God. When we Christians claim to believe the truths of the Bible, and strongly expound them on social media, and yet don't live up to the words of our mouths and the words of our posts, we are engaging in hypocrisy and increasing the level of blaspheme against the name of God. When we Christians claim to believe the teachings of the Bible, and then lionize and support people who live in opposite ways to the Word of God, then we are confusing non-believers, and engaging in the kind of hypocrisy that increases the level of blasphemy of God's name in the world. When we Christians come out against the immoral behavior of non-Christians and condemn that behavior, and then are later caught doing that same thing - or worse!- then we are engaging in the kind of hypocrisy that raises the level of blasphemy in the world and causes the world to view the teachings of the Bible with extreme skepticism. Our behavior and beliefs must correlate with our actions, and both must be governed by the Word of God and the leadership of the Holy Spirit. There is no justification - pragmatic, political, philosophical or otherwise - for any of those kinds of hypocrisy. We MUST flee from behavior that is hypocritical, lest we run afoul of our Master Jesus, or increase the level of blasphemy in the world. May such words not be true of us! Here are ten powerful quotes on hypocrisy: When you see a man with a great deal of religion displayed in his shop window, you may depend upon it he keeps a very small stock of it within. Charles Spurgeon He that puts on a religious habit abroad to gain himself a great name among men, and at the same time lives like an atheist at home, shall at the last be uncovered by God and presented before all the world for a most outrageous hypocrite. Thomas Brooks, The Privie Key of Heaven (1665). We ought to read the psalms that curse the oppressor; read them with fear. Who knows what imprecations of the same sort have been uttered against ourselves? What prayers have Red men, and Black, and Brown and Yellow, sent up against us to their gods or sometimes to God Himself? All over the earth the White Man's offence ‘smells to heaven': massacres, broken treaties, theft, kidnappings, enslavement, deportation, floggings, lynchings, beatings-up, rape, insult, mockery, and odious hypocrisy make up that smell. C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper, EPub Edition. (HarperOne, 2014), 119. NOTE: This was written more than ten years before the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. He talks about prayer, of repentance, of faith, and of the new birth; but he only knows how to talk about them. I have visited his family and have observed him both at home and abroad, and I know what I say is the truth. His house is as empty of religion as the white of an egg is devoid of flavor. There is no prayer offered in his house, nor any sign of repentance for sin. Yes, even an animal serves God far better than Talkative.“To all who know him, he is the very stain, reproach, and shame of religion. Because of his reputation, the neighborhood in which he lives hardly has a good word to say about him. The common people who really know him say, ‘A saint abroad and a devil at home.' John Bunyan, Description of 'Talkative' a hypocrite who poses as a Christian in Pilgrim's Progress. A hypocrite is the picture of a saint; but his paint shall be washed off, and he shall appear in his own colors. Reverend John Mason COALS of fire cannot be concealed beneath the most sumptuous apparel, they will betray themselves with smoke and flame; nor can darling sins be long hidden beneath the most ostentatious profession, they will sooner or later discover themselves, and burn sad holes in the man's reputation. Sin needs quenching in the Saviour's blood, not concealing under the garb of religion. C. H. Spurgeon, Feathers for Arrows (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1870), 115. O, what may man within him hide, Though angel on the outward side! William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure Hypocrisy leads a man to pretend to be what he is not. His only hope lies in not being discovered; but, as Christ declares that “there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known;” hypocrisy becomes insanity as well as iniquity. Therefore, keep clear of it in every shape and form. C. H. Spurgeon, “God's Glory Our Reward,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 53 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1907), 104. Hypocrisy is hateful to God and humanity. It does not bring a reward, and it is utterly useless for the salvation of the soul. It is rather the cause of its damnation. Although sometimes it may escape detection for a little while, before long, it is sure to be uncovered and bring disgrace on them. Cyril of Alexandria 300s-400s AD Arthur A. Just, ed., Luke, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 203–204. If a man preaches but does not practice what he preaches, he is like a well of water where everyone can quench their thirst and wash their dirt, but which cannot clean away the filth and dung that is around it. Poeman, A Christian monk from the 300s-400s AD Elliot Ritzema, 300 Quotations for Preachers from the Early Church, Pastorum Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013). As to the issue of Haman, almost certainly, he was not hanged on a the version of the gallows that most of us would be familiar with. The Hebrew verbiage is a bit ambiguous here, but it could be read to indicate the Haman was impaled on a pole/tree/spike, or that he was hung (as in, attached) to a pole and left to die. Probably not dropped through the gallows as we think of it. In the work of the Greek historian Herodotus, impalement is regularly presented as a Persian punishment (see The Histories, 1.128, 3,132, 3.159, 6.30 as examples). Given the setting of Esther, it thus seems likely that the manner of punishment for Haman was in fact impalement. In other words, the fifty-cubit “tree” built by Haman was intended to display Mordecai's body impaled in such a way that no one could avoid seeing it. As it turned out, however, it was Haman, whose death (and the folly leading to it) was put on display for the entire population. This view is also confirmed by both recent commentaries (by Jon Levenson, for example) and by older commentaries (Keil and Delitzsch). In this case, I think the TNIV and the NLT to be more correct in their translation than the ESV or the NASB. https://www.ligonier.org/blog/was-haman-hanged-or-impaled/

god jesus christ history black father google bible politics christians holy spirit brothers romans sin greek progress martin luther king jr oxford theology pharisees hebrew measure preachers yellow bible study hypocrisy pilgrims causing saviour persian william shakespeare apologetics god himself early church woe cyril feathers mordecai haman white man spurgeon john bunyan keil herodotus quotations non christians hanged talkative bible questions harperone impaled blaspheme master jesus thomas brooks christian reflections delitzsch walter hooper wa lexham press il intervarsity press dan blair biblemysteries

Episode 13: Was the Mysterious Melchizedek in the Old Testament actually Jesus?

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 13, 2020 39:36

Today we are reading Genesis 14, Nehemiah 3, Matthew 13 and Acts 13, following the Robert Murray M'Cheyne Bible reading plan. Our big Bible question of the day is all about Melchizedek, one of the most interesting and mysterious figures in the Old Testament. As of today, we are 3 chapters into Nehemiah, and we've barely talked about him! I hope to rectify that in an upcoming episode of the podcast. For now, we begin with Genesis 14, which is an action packed passage, to be sure! When I was a kid, I thought the Bible was boring, but I don't actually remember why. I also thought Lord of the Rings was boring and inscrutable when I tried to read it in 4th or 5th grade, and honestly both of those opinions are childish rubbish. The Lord of the Rings is one of the best works of fiction ever written, and the Bible is chock full of fascinating and interesting things, and this passage is a great example of that. Military strategists and historians should study this passage because it is honestly one of the first incidents in all of recorded history that features advanced war tactics and what we now call guerrilla warfare. Considering that military tactics were much more conventional even during the times of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, I find it fairly interesting Abram was thousands of years ahead of his time in terms of strategy. Think about it: he divided his forces against the far superior forces of King Chedorlaomer and attacked them by night - Abram had military wisdom! Using the clever tactic of a night attack with his army split into two groups, he succeeded in rescuing Lot and recovering all the plunder (all the goods) seized by the partnership of the five kings. And then, on the way back from this stunning victory, Abram encounters a mysterious figure, who brings him some bread and wine and blesses him. This person is Melchizedek, and Abram gives him a tithe/tenth of all the spoils of the battle. For thousands of years since then, people have speculated about who, exactly this guy Melchizedek was. "King and priest. None other of the house of David save our Lord Jesus Christ could claim the union of these two offices. In Christ we have a King and a priest, as also with Melchisedech of old, a great type of Jesus." C. H. Spurgeon, “Seeing Jesus,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 61 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1915), 47. "Clearly, from a passage in Hebrews there is something v. special about Melchisedech, but I don't know what it is. There's lots to find out, here and hereafter, isn't there?" Letter to Mrs. Johnson, C. S. Lewis, The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed. Walter Hooper, vol. 3 (New York: HarperCollins e-books; HarperSanFrancisco, 2004–2007), 608. "WE will not enlarge upon the story of Melchisedec, nor discuss the question as to who he was. It is near enough for us to believe that he was one who worshipped God after the primitive fashion, a believer in God such as Job was in the land of Uz, one of the world's grey fathers who had kept faithful to the Most High God. He combined in his own person the kingship and the priesthood; a conjunction by no means unusual in the first ages. Of this man we know very little; and it is partly because we know so little of him that he is all the better type of our Lord, of whom we may enquire, “Who shall declare his generation?” The very mystery which hangs about Melchisedec serves to set forth the mystery of the person of our divine Lord. “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; he abideth a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.” C. H. Spurgeon, “First King of Righteousness, and after That King of Peace,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 30 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1884), 121. 7 Reasons I believe that Melchizedek was actually a Christophany - an Old Testament manifestation/appearance of Jesus: His name: King of Righteousness and King of Salem/Shalom. This is not persuasive, just evidential. Melchizedek was a priest AND a king. This was specifically forbidden by God, and King Uzziah - who tried to be both king and priest - was struck by leprosy for doing so. There are two king-priests in the Bible: Jesus and Melchizedek. Melchizedek served wine and bread to Abraham. This seems a bit on the nose, doesn't it? It doesn't have to be a nod towards Jesus serving wine and bread to the disciples - the New Testament never draws that connection - but it certainly seems significant to me. As mentioned in Psalms and Hebrews, Jesus was priest in the order of Melchizedek, not the order of Aaron, as every other priest of the Jewish people were. Consider this: why in the world would Jesus - God's son and God Himself - be of the order of ANY human priesthood? That seems rather absurd, doesn't it? The writer of Hebrews, in discussing Melchizedek and Jesus in depth and in parallel, seems to go out of his way to make the case that Melchizedek was significant and great, which is fairly odd considering that the Old Testament devotes a mere handful of verses to Melchizedek. But, consider these quotes from Hebrews, "Now consider how great this man was: even Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the plunder to him." (Hebrews 7:4) "But one without this lineage collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises.7 Without a doubt, the inferior is blessed by the superior. " (Hebrews 7:6 - did you catch the obvious implication that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham?) Perhaps the primary function of a priest was to be a mediator between humans and God. There were many thousands of priests, but still Paul could say in 1 Timothy 2:5, "There is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus. " There is only ONE priest like Jesus - who reconciles God and humanity - only ONE mediator like him. Considering how the writer of Hebrews talks about Jesus and Melchizedek in parallel - literally the only two priests in history that are in the order of Melchizedek, it would seem that these two priests are actually the same priest, with different names. (Consider Isaiah in this regard: Jesus will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.") The above items are certainly weighty, but not altogether convincing, and if they were the only evidence that tied Jesus and Melchizedek together, I would be content to stay with Spurgeon and Lewis and say that there is no solid biblical proof that Jesus and Melchizedek were the same person. However, there is one more passage that we have in the book of Hebrews about Melchizedek, and I can't imagine how that description of him could possibly be about anybody but Jesus Himself. Consider: " Without father, mother, or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever." Hebrews 7:3 There's really only two options here: either the writer of Hebrews was simply exaggerating a lot, or Melchizedek is an appearance of Jesus. How could a human being not have a father or mother? How could a human being not have a genealogy or genetic relatives? How could a human being not have a beginning? How could a human being be immortal and NOT DIE? How could a human being be a priest FOREVER?!? The writer of Hebrews makes it crystal clear in chapter 7 vss. 23-24 that all other priests prior to Jesus died ("Now many have become Levitical priests, since they are prevented by death from remaining in office. 24 But because he remains forever, he holds his priesthood permanently. ") So - that's my case for Melchizedek being more than simply a type of Christ, but an actual manifestation of Jesus Himself. There are other places in the Old Testament where this might have happened also, and theologians usually call this a Christophany. One prominent example is when Joshua meets the Commander of the Armies of the Lord prior to the Jericho battle, and Joshua falls down and worships, and the Commander does NOT stop him, as every other angelic being does in that situation.

Episode 13: Was the Mysterious Melchizedek in the Old Testament actually Jesus?

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 13, 2020 39:36

Today we are reading Genesis 14, Nehemiah 3, Matthew 13 and Acts 13, following the Robert Murray M'Cheyne Bible reading plan. Our big Bible question of the day is all about Melchizedek, one of the most interesting and mysterious figures in the Old Testament. As of today, we are 3 chapters into Nehemiah, and we've barely talked about him! I hope to rectify that in an upcoming episode of the podcast. For now, we begin with Genesis 14, which is an action packed passage, to be sure! When I was a kid, I thought the Bible was boring, but I don't actually remember why. I also thought Lord of the Rings was boring and inscrutable when I tried to read it in 4th or 5th grade, and honestly both of those opinions are childish rubbish. The Lord of the Rings is one of the best works of fiction ever written, and the Bible is chock full of fascinating and interesting things, and this passage is a great example of that. Military strategists and historians should study this passage because it is honestly one of the first incidents in all of recorded history that features advanced war tactics and what we now call guerrilla warfare. Considering that military tactics were much more conventional even during the times of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, I find it fairly interesting Abram was thousands of years ahead of his time in terms of strategy. Think about it: he divided his forces against the far superior forces of King Chedorlaomer and attacked them by night - Abram had military wisdom! Using the clever tactic of a night attack with his army split into two groups, he succeeded in rescuing Lot and recovering all the plunder (all the goods) seized by the partnership of the five kings. And then, on the way back from this stunning victory, Abram encounters a mysterious figure, who brings him some bread and wine and blesses him. This person is Melchizedek, and Abram gives him a tithe/tenth of all the spoils of the battle. For thousands of years since then, people have speculated about who, exactly this guy Melchizedek was. "King and priest. None other of the house of David save our Lord Jesus Christ could claim the union of these two offices. In Christ we have a King and a priest, as also with Melchisedech of old, a great type of Jesus." C. H. Spurgeon, “Seeing Jesus,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 61 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1915), 47. "Clearly, from a passage in Hebrews there is something v. special about Melchisedech, but I don't know what it is. There's lots to find out, here and hereafter, isn't there?" Letter to Mrs. Johnson, C. S. Lewis, The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed. Walter Hooper, vol. 3 (New York: HarperCollins e-books; HarperSanFrancisco, 2004–2007), 608. "WE will not enlarge upon the story of Melchisedec, nor discuss the question as to who he was. It is near enough for us to believe that he was one who worshipped God after the primitive fashion, a believer in God such as Job was in the land of Uz, one of the world's grey fathers who had kept faithful to the Most High God. He combined in his own person the kingship and the priesthood; a conjunction by no means unusual in the first ages. Of this man we know very little; and it is partly because we know so little of him that he is all the better type of our Lord, of whom we may enquire, “Who shall declare his generation?” The very mystery which hangs about Melchisedec serves to set forth the mystery of the person of our divine Lord. “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; he abideth a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.” C. H. Spurgeon, “First King of Righteousness, and after That King of Peace,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 30 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1884), 121. 7 Reasons I believe that Melchizedek was actually a Christophany - an Old Testament manifestation/appearance of Jesus: His name: King of Righteousness and King of Salem/Shalom. This is not persuasive, just evidential. Melchizedek was a priest AND a king. This was specifically forbidden by God, and King Uzziah - who tried to be both king and priest - was struck by leprosy for doing so. There are two king-priests in the Bible: Jesus and Melchizedek. Melchizedek served wine and bread to Abraham. This seems a bit on the nose, doesn't it? It doesn't have to be a nod towards Jesus serving wine and bread to the disciples - the New Testament never draws that connection - but it certainly seems significant to me. As mentioned in Psalms and Hebrews, Jesus was priest in the order of Melchizedek, not the order of Aaron, as every other priest of the Jewish people were. Consider this: why in the world would Jesus - God's son and God Himself - be of the order of ANY human priesthood? That seems rather absurd, doesn't it? The writer of Hebrews, in discussing Melchizedek and Jesus in depth and in parallel, seems to go out of his way to make the case that Melchizedek was significant and great, which is fairly odd considering that the Old Testament devotes a mere handful of verses to Melchizedek. But, consider these quotes from Hebrews, "Now consider how great this man was: even Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the plunder to him." (Hebrews 7:4) "But one without this lineage collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises.7 Without a doubt, the inferior is blessed by the superior. " (Hebrews 7:6 - did you catch the obvious implication that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham?) Perhaps the primary function of a priest was to be a mediator between humans and God. There were many thousands of priests, but still Paul could say in 1 Timothy 2:5, "There is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus. " There is only ONE priest like Jesus - who reconciles God and humanity - only ONE mediator like him. Considering how the writer of Hebrews talks about Jesus and Melchizedek in parallel - literally the only two priests in history that are in the order of Melchizedek, it would seem that these two priests are actually the same priest, with different names. (Consider Isaiah in this regard: Jesus will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.") The above items are certainly weighty, but not altogether convincing, and if they were the only evidence that tied Jesus and Melchizedek together, I would be content to stay with Spurgeon and Lewis and say that there is no solid biblical proof that Jesus and Melchizedek were the same person. However, there is one more passage that we have in the book of Hebrews about Melchizedek, and I can't imagine how that description of him could possibly be about anybody but Jesus Himself. Consider: " Without father, mother, or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever." Hebrews 7:3 There's really only two options here: either the writer of Hebrews was simply exaggerating a lot, or Melchizedek is an appearance of Jesus. How could a human being not have a father or mother? How could a human being not have a genealogy or genetic relatives? How could a human being not have a beginning? How could a human being be immortal and NOT DIE? How could a human being be a priest FOREVER?!? The writer of Hebrews makes it crystal clear in chapter 7 vss. 23-24 that all other priests prior to Jesus died ("Now many have become Levitical priests, since they are prevented by death from remaining in office. 24 But because he remains forever, he holds his priesthood permanently. ") So - that's my case for Melchizedek being more than simply a type of Christ, but an actual manifestation of Jesus Himself. There are other places in the Old Testament where this might have happened also, and theologians usually call this a Christophany. One prominent example is when Joshua meets the Commander of the Armies of the Lord prior to the Jericho battle, and Joshua falls down and worships, and the Commander does NOT stop him, as every other angelic being does in that situation.

Episode 11: How Do I Deal With Doubts? (Grief over Death)+ Summary of Ezra.

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 11, 2020 31:09

Let's celebrate! We've made it through 10 episodes, and have FINISHED OUR FIRST BOOK TOGETHER. Great! Today we are reading Genesis 12, Nehemiah 1, Matthew 11, and Acts 11 together. We will start with Matthew 11, because something very significant and almost unsettling happens in that passage. The focus is on John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus who has risen to incredible prominence in Israel as a preacher of revival. God had given John a tremendous ministry and a huge impact on his country, preparing for the public ministry of Jesus. John was a man of uncompromising righteousness and passionate pursuit of God. Whether he was asked about it, or not - we don't know - but at some point, John proclaimed his view - solidly grounded in Scripture - that Herod the Tetrarch (essentially the president/political figurehead in Israel) was sinning by having intimate relations with his brother Phillip's wife. This infuriated Herod, and he wanted to kill John, but he didn't have the courage to do that, so he simply had John arrested and jailed instead. And that is where we pick up our reading today. Before we get back to John the Baptist and doubts, one thing that I think will be helpful for us is to do a very brief summary of every book that we finish. So here is a brief summary: Ezra was a scribe, priest, and zealous expert in the law. The time period covered by the book is right around 450 B.C. and records the return of the Jewish people to Jerusalem after a 70 year exile in the Babylonian area. Chapters 1-6 of Ezra are about the return of a small advance group of Jewish people that are sent to secure Jerusalem and prepare for the building of the temple. Unfortunately, the enemies of Jerusalem mount a campaign to prevent the rebirth of that city, and there is quite a bit of back and forth between them, the advanced Jewish preparation team, and the government of King Darius and King Artaxerxes. Ultimately, the Persian government sides with the Jewish people and orders the work on the temple and the walls to continue. Interestingly, Ezra is not actually one of the advance scouts, and does not appear in his own book until chapter 7, when he is introduced to us by way of a brief genealogy. Ezra leads a team returning to Jerusalem with literally thousands and thousands of pounds of treasure (and no military guard!) and praises God upon his safe arrival. Later, Ezra discovers that many of the people of God have disobeyed His commands and married foreign wives; a situation that Ezra resolves by calling for the sending away of all of those foreign wives. And that is Ezra - an interesting guy with a passion for God and great faith who solves a thorny problem in quite a controversial way. Back to Matthew 11 and John the Baptist. John is in jail, and apparently feels like he has misunderstood God's plan, or that something has gone wrong. So he sends his followers to go ask Jesus what's up. John is going through what appears to be a significant crisis of doubt - and who can blame him? He is in a dank and dark dungeon and basically just awaiting his execution, which will come fairly soon. It is worth remember here that Jesus called John the Baptist the greatest human being ever born in history (or, at least, in a tie for first place with that title according to Luke 7:28, "I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John. " And here we see the GREATEST ever struck by a massive wave of doubt. Which brings us to a question that lots of Christians have, but rarely voice. And that question is this: Am I the only Christian that wrestles with doubt? And the answer is - OF COURSE YOU AREN'T! Here is John the Baptist, conceived in a miraculous way, the one who heard God's voice and saw the heavenly dove descend on Jesus at His baptism - the greatest human ever....and he is struggling with doubt. And sometimes I do too. And if you are being honest - I'll bet you get hit by waves of doubt too! How do we handle them? I love this letter from one of my writing heroes C.S. Lewis, because it is so honest and transparent: Dear Sister Madeleva Thank you for your most kind letter. I will direct Fabers to send you a copy of the little book, but it may shock your pupils. It is ‘A Grief Observed' from day to day in all its rawness and sinful reactions and follies. It ends with faith but raises all the blackest doubts en route. Since my wife's death I have been very ill myself and last July I was, while unconscious given extreme unction. It would. have been such an easy death that one almost regrets having had the door shut in one's face—but nella sua voluntade è nostra pace (In His will is our peace) I am now retired from my work and live as an invalid, but am quite contented and cheerful. I am afraid laziness has more to do with this than sanctity! All blessings. Yours most sincerely C. S. Lewis C. S. Lewis, The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed. Walter Hooper, vol. 3 (New York: HarperCollins e-books; HarperSanFrancisco, 2004–2007), 1460–1461. In this letter, written about a month before Lewis was to die, he mentions his book "A Grief Observed." Which is about his battle with doubt and faith that came when he watched his beloved wife H. Joy Gresham die of cancer. C.S. Lewis, as I mentioned, is one of my heroes, and probably the biggest reason for that is because he was not a hollow Christian brimming with empty positivisms, fake smiles and repacked religion, but he was a man of full and deep thought about the things of God and Jesus. This book is a stunning display of that reality, and it deals with grief and doubt on a level that is so real and visceral that one can't read it and think that the author was anything less than a genuine person. In his introduction to the book, Lewis' stepson (and the son of Lewis' wife who had died, the object of his grief) writes this: "C. S. Lewis, the writer of so much that is so clear and so right, the thinker whose acuity of mind and clarity of expression enabled us to understand so much, this strong and determined Christian, he too fell headlong into the vortex of whirling thoughts and feelings and dizzily groped for support and guidance deep in the dark chasm of grief. How I wish that he had been blessed with just such a book as this. If we find no comfort in the world around us, and no solace when we cry to God, if it does nothing else for us, at least this book will help us to face our grief, and to “misunderstand a little less completely.” Douglas H. Gresham, “Introduction,” in A Grief Observed (HarperOne, 1996), xxx–xxxi. So - if doubt can grip Lewis and doubt can grip John the Baptist, then you can be sure that it can grip normal folk like you and me. John the Baptist, in his great moment of despair, looked to Jesus for answers, and you and I can do no better. We have no records of his longings, griefs and lamentations as he awaited death, but we do have the words of Lewis as he went through the valley of the shadow of death, and I'll read them here so that they may comfort and encourage you who are dealing with grief and doubt at the moment: "Feelings, and feelings, and feelings. Let me try thinking instead. From the rational point of view, what new factor has H.'s death introduced into the problem of the universe? What grounds has it given me for doubting all that I believe? I knew already that these things, and worse, happened daily. I would have said that I had taken them into account. I had been warned—I had warned myself—not to reckon on worldly happiness. We were even promised sufferings. They were part of the programme. We were even told, ‘Blessed are they that mourn,' and I accepted it. I've got nothing that I hadn't bargained for. Of course it is different when the thing happens to oneself, not to others, and in reality, not in imagination. Yes; but should it, for a sane man, make quite such a difference as this? No. And it wouldn't for a man whose faith had been real faith and whose concern for other people's sorrows had been real concern. The case is too plain. If my house has collapsed at one blow, that is because it was a house of cards. The faith which ‘took these things into account' was not faith but imagination. The taking them into account was not real sympathy. If I had really cared, as I thought I did, about the sorrows of the world, I should not have been so overwhelmed when my own sorrow came. It has been an imaginary faith playing with innocuous counters labelled ‘Illness,' ‘Pain,' ‘Death,' and ‘Loneliness.' I thought I trusted the rope until it mattered to me whether it would bear me. Now it matters, and I find I didn't....(DOUBT!) Bridge-players tell me that there must be some money on the game ‘or else people won't take it seriously.' Apparently it's like that. Your bid—for God or no God, for a good God or the Cosmic Sadist, for eternal life or nonentity—will not be serious if nothing much is staked on it. And you will never discover how serious it was until the stakes are raised horribly high, until you find that you are playing not for counters or for sixpences but for every penny you have in the world. Nothing less will shake a man—or at any rate a man like me—out of his merely verbal thinking and his merely notional beliefs. He has to be knocked silly before he comes to his senses. Only torture will bring out the truth. Only under torture does he discover it himself. And I must surely admit—H. would have forced me to admit in a few passes—that, if my house was a house of cards, the sooner it was knocked down the better. And only suffering could do it....The terrible thing is that a perfectly good God is in this matter hardly less formidable than a Cosmic Sadist. The more we believe that God hurts only to heal, the less we can believe that there is any use in begging for tenderness. A cruel man might be bribed—might grow tired of his vile sport—might have a temporary fit of mercy, as alcoholics have fits of sobriety. But suppose that what you are up against is a surgeon whose intentions are wholly good. The kinder and more conscientious he is, the more inexorably he will go on cutting. If he yielded to your entreaties, if he stopped before the operation was complete, all the pain up to that point would have been useless. But is it credible that such extremities of torture should be necessary for us? Well, take your choice. The tortures occur. If they are unnecessary, then there is no God or a bad one. If there is a good God, then these tortures are necessary. For no even moderately good Being could possibly inflict or permit them if they weren't." C. S. Lewis, A Grief Observed (HarperOne, 1996), 36–38. Sometimes when tragedy strikes, all we can do is respond like Job: 20 Then Job stood up, tore his robe, and shaved his head. He fell to the ground and worshiped, 21 saying: Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will leave this life. The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.22 Throughout all this Job did not sin or blame God for anything. Job 1:20-21

Episode 11: How Do I Deal With Doubts? (Grief over Death)+ Summary of Ezra.

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 11, 2020 31:09

Let's celebrate! We've made it through 10 episodes, and have FINISHED OUR FIRST BOOK TOGETHER. Great! Today we are reading Genesis 12, Nehemiah 1, Matthew 11, and Acts 11 together. We will start with Matthew 11, because something very significant and almost unsettling happens in that passage. The focus is on John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus who has risen to incredible prominence in Israel as a preacher of revival. God had given John a tremendous ministry and a huge impact on his country, preparing for the public ministry of Jesus. John was a man of uncompromising righteousness and passionate pursuit of God. Whether he was asked about it, or not - we don't know - but at some point, John proclaimed his view - solidly grounded in Scripture - that Herod the Tetrarch (essentially the president/political figurehead in Israel) was sinning by having intimate relations with his brother Phillip's wife. This infuriated Herod, and he wanted to kill John, but he didn't have the courage to do that, so he simply had John arrested and jailed instead. And that is where we pick up our reading today. Before we get back to John the Baptist and doubts, one thing that I think will be helpful for us is to do a very brief summary of every book that we finish. So here is a brief summary: Ezra was a scribe, priest, and zealous expert in the law. The time period covered by the book is right around 450 B.C. and records the return of the Jewish people to Jerusalem after a 70 year exile in the Babylonian area. Chapters 1-6 of Ezra are about the return of a small advance group of Jewish people that are sent to secure Jerusalem and prepare for the building of the temple. Unfortunately, the enemies of Jerusalem mount a campaign to prevent the rebirth of that city, and there is quite a bit of back and forth between them, the advanced Jewish preparation team, and the government of King Darius and King Artaxerxes. Ultimately, the Persian government sides with the Jewish people and orders the work on the temple and the walls to continue. Interestingly, Ezra is not actually one of the advance scouts, and does not appear in his own book until chapter 7, when he is introduced to us by way of a brief genealogy. Ezra leads a team returning to Jerusalem with literally thousands and thousands of pounds of treasure (and no military guard!) and praises God upon his safe arrival. Later, Ezra discovers that many of the people of God have disobeyed His commands and married foreign wives; a situation that Ezra resolves by calling for the sending away of all of those foreign wives. And that is Ezra - an interesting guy with a passion for God and great faith who solves a thorny problem in quite a controversial way. Back to Matthew 11 and John the Baptist. John is in jail, and apparently feels like he has misunderstood God's plan, or that something has gone wrong. So he sends his followers to go ask Jesus what's up. John is going through what appears to be a significant crisis of doubt - and who can blame him? He is in a dank and dark dungeon and basically just awaiting his execution, which will come fairly soon. It is worth remember here that Jesus called John the Baptist the greatest human being ever born in history (or, at least, in a tie for first place with that title according to Luke 7:28, "I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John. " And here we see the GREATEST ever struck by a massive wave of doubt. Which brings us to a question that lots of Christians have, but rarely voice. And that question is this: Am I the only Christian that wrestles with doubt? And the answer is - OF COURSE YOU AREN'T! Here is John the Baptist, conceived in a miraculous way, the one who heard God's voice and saw the heavenly dove descend on Jesus at His baptism - the greatest human ever....and he is struggling with doubt. And sometimes I do too. And if you are being honest - I'll bet you get hit by waves of doubt too! How do we handle them? I love this letter from one of my writing heroes C.S. Lewis, because it is so honest and transparent: Dear Sister Madeleva Thank you for your most kind letter. I will direct Fabers to send you a copy of the little book, but it may shock your pupils. It is ‘A Grief Observed' from day to day in all its rawness and sinful reactions and follies. It ends with faith but raises all the blackest doubts en route. Since my wife's death I have been very ill myself and last July I was, while unconscious given extreme unction. It would. have been such an easy death that one almost regrets having had the door shut in one's face—but nella sua voluntade è nostra pace (In His will is our peace) I am now retired from my work and live as an invalid, but am quite contented and cheerful. I am afraid laziness has more to do with this than sanctity! All blessings. Yours most sincerely C. S. Lewis C. S. Lewis, The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed. Walter Hooper, vol. 3 (New York: HarperCollins e-books; HarperSanFrancisco, 2004–2007), 1460–1461. In this letter, written about a month before Lewis was to die, he mentions his book "A Grief Observed." Which is about his battle with doubt and faith that came when he watched his beloved wife H. Joy Gresham die of cancer. C.S. Lewis, as I mentioned, is one of my heroes, and probably the biggest reason for that is because he was not a hollow Christian brimming with empty positivisms, fake smiles and repacked religion, but he was a man of full and deep thought about the things of God and Jesus. This book is a stunning display of that reality, and it deals with grief and doubt on a level that is so real and visceral that one can't read it and think that the author was anything less than a genuine person. In his introduction to the book, Lewis' stepson (and the son of Lewis' wife who had died, the object of his grief) writes this: "C. S. Lewis, the writer of so much that is so clear and so right, the thinker whose acuity of mind and clarity of expression enabled us to understand so much, this strong and determined Christian, he too fell headlong into the vortex of whirling thoughts and feelings and dizzily groped for support and guidance deep in the dark chasm of grief. How I wish that he had been blessed with just such a book as this. If we find no comfort in the world around us, and no solace when we cry to God, if it does nothing else for us, at least this book will help us to face our grief, and to “misunderstand a little less completely.” Douglas H. Gresham, “Introduction,” in A Grief Observed (HarperOne, 1996), xxx–xxxi. So - if doubt can grip Lewis and doubt can grip John the Baptist, then you can be sure that it can grip normal folk like you and me. John the Baptist, in his great moment of despair, looked to Jesus for answers, and you and I can do no better. We have no records of his longings, griefs and lamentations as he awaited death, but we do have the words of Lewis as he went through the valley of the shadow of death, and I'll read them here so that they may comfort and encourage you who are dealing with grief and doubt at the moment: "Feelings, and feelings, and feelings. Let me try thinking instead. From the rational point of view, what new factor has H.'s death introduced into the problem of the universe? What grounds has it given me for doubting all that I believe? I knew already that these things, and worse, happened daily. I would have said that I had taken them into account. I had been warned—I had warned myself—not to reckon on worldly happiness. We were even promised sufferings. They were part of the programme. We were even told, ‘Blessed are they that mourn,' and I accepted it. I've got nothing that I hadn't bargained for. Of course it is different when the thing happens to oneself, not to others, and in reality, not in imagination. Yes; but should it, for a sane man, make quite such a difference as this? No. And it wouldn't for a man whose faith had been real faith and whose concern for other people's sorrows had been real concern. The case is too plain. If my house has collapsed at one blow, that is because it was a house of cards. The faith which ‘took these things into account' was not faith but imagination. The taking them into account was not real sympathy. If I had really cared, as I thought I did, about the sorrows of the world, I should not have been so overwhelmed when my own sorrow came. It has been an imaginary faith playing with innocuous counters labelled ‘Illness,' ‘Pain,' ‘Death,' and ‘Loneliness.' I thought I trusted the rope until it mattered to me whether it would bear me. Now it matters, and I find I didn't....(DOUBT!) Bridge-players tell me that there must be some money on the game ‘or else people won't take it seriously.' Apparently it's like that. Your bid—for God or no God, for a good God or the Cosmic Sadist, for eternal life or nonentity—will not be serious if nothing much is staked on it. And you will never discover how serious it was until the stakes are raised horribly high, until you find that you are playing not for counters or for sixpences but for every penny you have in the world. Nothing less will shake a man—or at any rate a man like me—out of his merely verbal thinking and his merely notional beliefs. He has to be knocked silly before he comes to his senses. Only torture will bring out the truth. Only under torture does he discover it himself. And I must surely admit—H. would have forced me to admit in a few passes—that, if my house was a house of cards, the sooner it was knocked down the better. And only suffering could do it....The terrible thing is that a perfectly good God is in this matter hardly less formidable than a Cosmic Sadist. The more we believe that God hurts only to heal, the less we can believe that there is any use in begging for tenderness. A cruel man might be bribed—might grow tired of his vile sport—might have a temporary fit of mercy, as alcoholics have fits of sobriety. But suppose that what you are up against is a surgeon whose intentions are wholly good. The kinder and more conscientious he is, the more inexorably he will go on cutting. If he yielded to your entreaties, if he stopped before the operation was complete, all the pain up to that point would have been useless. But is it credible that such extremities of torture should be necessary for us? Well, take your choice. The tortures occur. If they are unnecessary, then there is no God or a bad one. If there is a good God, then these tortures are necessary. For no even moderately good Being could possibly inflict or permit them if they weren't." C. S. Lewis, A Grief Observed (HarperOne, 1996), 36–38. Sometimes when tragedy strikes, all we can do is respond like Job: 20 Then Job stood up, tore his robe, and shaved his head. He fell to the ground and worshiped, 21 saying: Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will leave this life. The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.22 Throughout all this Job did not sin or blame God for anything. Job 1:20-21

Episode 8: The Shroud of Turin Introduction

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 26, 2019 36:33

Today's episode is a beginning. It does not YET represent rigorous research, but only a skimming. My opinion at the beginning of this journey is a middle opinion. Call me a Shroud agnostic, at least for now. There are Shroud atheists out there that quickly and completely dismiss the Shroud. They may be right, but I'm not sure they've thoroughly researched their conclusions. Likewise, many faithful Shroud believers seemingly assume its real and don't really interact with some legitimate reasons for debunking. The fact is that there is pretty solid evidence on both sides, which probably explains why The Shroud still has its believers and detractors. This is not a religious issue for me - I am firmly convinced that Jesus rose from the dead with or without The Shroud, and even wrote a book about the resurrection of Jesus. (Easter: Fact or Fiction.) Why should I - a Baptist preacher who doesn't believe at all in the Roman Catholic concept of relics or icons, do a long series on the Shroud of Turin? Protestants have taken two positions on the Shroud over the years. I can neatly frame those two positions by quoting from two of my heroes, Charles Spurgeon and C.S. Lewis: On the negative, anti-Shroud side, we have Charles Spurgeon: Spurgeon on the Shroud: Do you not think, too, that some seekers miss comfort because they forget that Jesus Christ is alive? The Christ of the Church of Rome is always seen in one of two positions—either as a babe in his mother's arms, or else as dead. That is Rome's Christ, but our Christ is alive. Jesus who rose has “left the dead no more to die.” I was requested in Turin to join with others in asking to see the shroud in which the Saviour was buried. I must confess that I had not faith enough to believe in the shroud, nor had I curiosity enough to wish to look at the fictitious linen. I would not care a penny for the article, even if I knew it to be genuine. Our Lord has left his shroud and sepulchre, and lives in heaven. To-night he so lives that a sigh of yours will reach him, a tear will find him, a desire in your heart will bring him to you. Only seek him as a loving, living Saviour, and put your trust in him as risen from the dead no more to die, and comfort will, I trust, come into your spirit. C. H. Spurgeon, “A Gospel Sermon to Outsiders,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 23 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1877), 701–702. On the more open side and curious side, we have C.S. Lewis: Dear Sister Penelope I am ashamed of having grumbled. And your act was not that of a brute—in operation it was more like that of an angel, for (as I said) you started me on a quite new realisation of what is meant by being ‘in Christ', and immediately after that ‘the power which erring men call chance' put into my hands Mascall's two books in the Signpost series which continued the process.102 So I lived for a week end (at Aberystwyth) in one of those delightful vernal periods when doctrines that have hitherto been only buried seeds begin actually to come up—like snowdrops or crocuses. I won't deny they've met a touch of frost since (if only things would last, or rather if only we would!) but I'm still very much, and gladly, in your debt. The only real evil of having read your scripts when I was tired is that it was hardly fair to them and not v. useful to you. I enclose the MS. of Screwtape. If it is not a trouble I shd. like you to keep it safe until the book is printed (in case the one the publisher has got blitzed)—after that it can be made into spills or used to stuff dolls or anything. Thank you very much for the photo of the Shroud. It raises a whole question on which I shall have to straighten out my thought one of these days. yours sincerely Clive Lewis C. S. Lewis, The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed. Walter Hooper, vol. 2 (New York: HarperCollins e-books; HarperSanFrancisco, 2004–2007), 493–494. I note here that Lewis had the picture of the head of the Shroud of Turin framed, and it hung on the wall of his bedroom for the rest of his life. On this particular issue, count me with C.S. Lewis - at least for now. While I believe Spurgeon is correct in condemning Shroudish idolatry, or the worship of The Shroud, I think he was too hasty in his conclusion that The Shroud was an absolute fake. It certainly may be, but it would appear that Spurgeon's theological prejudice against the Roman Catholic church led him to dismiss the Shroud's genuineness as a possibility, rather than some scientific, theological or historical reason. Top Ten Facts about the Shroud of Turin: 1 Coins in eyes. Perhaps the most compelling ‘fact' about The Shroud is not a fact in everybody's eyes. I've erased and retyped that sentence now twice, because it was a legit, “no pun intended.” line. Be that as it may, researchers have apparently discovered what may be coins in the place of the eye-sockets on the image of the man in The Shroud. (Because the image is so small, there is heavy debate about this ‘discovery.') We are going to possibly spend an entire episode on this one issue, so I'm not going to go too deeply into it now, but the supposed coins at least appear to be first century coins - and there is some evidence - scant, but some - that Jewish people of the first two centuries were buried with coins in their eyes. 2. You've probably heard that The Shroud was carbon 14 dated and found conclusively to be a medieval hoax. That conclusion was highly debated in the 1980s, and has been ever since. More recently, data has surfaced that has cast more doubt on the original conclusion. Researcher Tristan Casabianca and his team were able to gain access to the raw data of the original 1989 dating, and found some significant issues. In a recent interview with the French “New Man” magazine, Casabianca says: “In 1989, the results of the shroud dating were published in the prestigious journal Nature: between 1260 and 1390 with 95% certainty. But for thirty years, researchers have asked the laboratories for raw data. These have always refused to provide them. In 2017, I submitted a legal request to the British Museum, which supervised the laboratories. Thus, I had access to hundreds of unpublished pages, which include these raw data. With my team, we conducted their analysis. Our statistical analysis shows that the 1988 carbon 14 dating was unreliable: the tested samples are obviously heterogeneous, [showing many different dates], and there is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the sheet, are representative of the whole fabric. It is therefore impossible to conclude that the shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages.” As I mentioned at the beginning - I'm a Shroud agnostic at this point. I've heard various reasons to debunk the 1989 dating of the Shroud for years, and I've heard people confidently quote that dating as if that completely and utterly convinced them. I remain unpersuaded either way...at this point. 3.. The blood stains on The Shroud appear to be human blood. From Historycollection.co: Many skeptics regarding the Shroud of Turin's authenticity have long claimed that the image seen on the linen cloth is nothing more than a figure that an artist painted. In 1978, scholar John Jackson got permission from the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist to carry out tests to determine what kind of paint may have been used. What he found when he tested pieces of the cloth is that no binding or mixing agents were used in the color, meaning that it did not correspond with the known painting practices of the fourteenth century. In fact, what was used to create the image on the shroud wasn't paint at all. It was blood. Jackson's truly astounding find, though, was that it was human blood on the shroud. The blood type has been identified as type AB. Furthermore, there are two distinctive types of blood found on the cover: pre-mortem blood, the kind before a person dies, and post-mortem, which has undergone changes following death. 4. The Shroud has withstood the rigors of time, and multiple disasters. This, of course, doesn't guarantee its authenticity, but it is curious. In 1503, the Shroud was displayed at Bourg-en-Bresse for Archduke Philip the Handsome, who was the grandmaster of Flanders. A contemporary account by a courtier that was present named Antoine de Lalaing writes about the 1503 display of the Shroud: "The day of the great and holy Friday, the Passion was preached in Monsignor's chapel by his confessor, the duke and duchess attending. Then they went with great devotion to the market halls of the town, where a great number of people heard the Passion preached by a Cordeilier. After that three bishops showed to the public the Holy Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and after the service it was shown in Monsignor's chapel." Of more interest to us here, Lalaing also mentions that the authenticity of The Shroud is seemingly proved by its having been tried by fire, boiled in oil, laundered many times 'but it was not possible to efface or remove the imprint and image.' 29 years after Lalaing wrote this, the entire chapel that held The Shroud burned, and its protective case melted. The Shroud itself suffered little damage beyond some scorching and one small hole that was brought about by melted silver dripping through. 5. Whether you believe the Shroud is the true burial cloth of Jesus or not, all agree that the Shroud is very old and very fragile. Most cloth from hundreds of years ago has long since disintegrated, so to protect the Shroud from damage, it is kept inside a hermetically sealed box that is filled with 99.5 percent argon and .5 percent oxygen. Why argon? Well, if you remember your high school chemistry, then you might remember that Argon is a noble gas, and noble gases are largely inert, meaning that they don't react with many other elements. This means that decay and breakdown are much less likely6. The burial cloth of Jesus is indeed mentioned in the Bible. Luke 23: 50 There was a good and righteous man named Joseph, a member of the Sanhedrin, 51 who had not agreed with their plan and action. He was from Arimathea, a Judean town, and was looking forward to the kingdom of God. 52 He approached Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 53 Taking it down, he wrapped it in fine linen and placed it in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever been placed. Luke 24: 9 Returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven and to all the rest. 10 Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them were telling the apostles these things. 11 But these words seemed like nonsense to them, and they did not believe the women. 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. When he stooped to look in, he saw only the linen cloths. So he went home, amazed at what had happened. John 19: 40 Then they took Jesus' body and wrapped it in linen cloths with the aromatic spices, according to the burial custom of the Jews. 41 There was a garden in the place where He was crucified. A new tomb was in the garden; no one had yet been placed in it. 42 They placed Jesus there because of the Jewish preparation and since the tomb was nearby. John 20: 3 At that, Peter and the other disciple went out, heading for the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and got to the tomb first. 5 Stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, yet he did not go in. 6 Then, following him, Simon Peter came also. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. 7 The wrapping that had been on His head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself. It is quite significant that both Luke AND John mention the burial cloth of Jesus. Luke is part of what is called the synoptic gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke. They are considered highly related and all three contain very similar wording and material in places, which have caused some to speculate that there was an earlier oral (or written) source that all three accounts drew from, sometimes that source is called ‘Q,' which stands for the French word Quelle (which means ‘what' in French, but can also mean ‘source.' John, however, is not usually considered to be derived from the Q source, so it is an additional layer of attestation that Jesus was buried in a linen cloth. 7. It is also mentioned multiple times by Early Church Fathers. For instance: ORIGEN (184-253 AD): “He wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and put it in a new tomb” where no one was buried, thus preserving the body of Jesus for its glorious resurrection. But I think that this shroud was much cleaner from the time it was used to cover Christ's body than it ever had been before. For the body of Jesus retained its own integrity, even in death, so that it cleansed everything it touched and renewed even the new tomb which had been cut from rock. Manlio Simonetti, ed., Matthew 14-28, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 300. HILARY OF POITIERS (310-367): Joseph of Arimathea, having asked Pilate to return Jesus' body, wrapped it in a shroud, placed it in a new tomb carved out from a rock and rolled a stone in front of the entrance to the tomb. Although this may indeed be the order of events and although it was necessary to bury him who would rise from the dead, these deeds are nevertheless recounted individually because each of them is not without some importance. Joseph is called a disciple of the Lord because he was an image of the apostles, even though he was not numbered among the twelve apostles. It was he who wrapped the Lord's body in a clean linen shroud; in this same linen we find all kinds of animals descending to Peter from heaven.7 It is perhaps not too extravagant to understand from this parallel that the church is buried with Christ under the name of the linen shroud.8 Just as in the linen, so also in the confession of the church are gathered the full diversity of living beings, both pure and impure. The body of the Lord, therefore, through the teaching of the apostles, is laid to rest in the empty tomb newly cut from a rock. In other words, their teaching introduced Christ into the hardness of the Gentile heart, which was uncut, empty and previously impervious to the fear of God. And because he is the only one who should penetrate our hearts, a stone was rolled over the entrance to the tomb, so that just as no one previous to him had been introduced as the author of divine knowledge, neither would anyone be brought in after him. From Hilary's commentary on Matthew. Manlio Simonetti, ed., Matthew 14-28, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 300. BEDE: The vanity of the rich, who even in their graves cannot do without their riches, receives its condemnation from the simple and unassuming interment of the Lord. Hence indeed the custom of the church was derived, that the sacrifice of the altar should not be commemorated by wrapping the elements in silk, or any colored cloth, but in linen; as the body of the Lord was buried in clean fine linen Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall, eds., Mark (Revised), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 227. 8. Sadly, devotion to the Shroud (which might be idolatry...more on this later) has actually led to deaths. For example, in May of 1647 at a public showing of the Shroud, some members of the large crowd die of suffocation. What a terrifying way to go! 9. In September of 1939 at the dawn of World War 2, the Shroud is secretly taken to the Benedictine Abbey of Montevergine approximately 588 miles away. During the journey, the Shroud passes through Naples and Rome. The Shroud was returned to Turin in 1946, post war. In explaining the decision to move the Shroud, Father Andrea Cardin (the library curator at Montevergine) wrote, “"The Holy Shroud was moved in secret to the sanctuary in the Campania region on the precise orders of the House of Savoy and the Vatican. "Officially this was to protect it from possible bombing (in Turin). In reality, it was moved to hide it from Hitler who was apparently obsessed by it. When he visited Italy in 1938, top-ranking Nazi aides asked unusual and insistent questions about the Shroud." It should be remembered here that Italy was allied with Germany during WW2, but the Italians still sought to protect their most precious artifact from Hitler. Interestingly, Father Cardin notes that the Nazis almost located The Shroud, "In 1943 when German troops searched the Montevergine church, the monks there pretended to be in deep prayer before the altar, inside which the relic was hidden. This was the only reason it wasn't discovered." 10. In 1898, Secondo Pia, an Italian photographer, takes the first ever photograph of The Shroud. Just four years afterwards, in 1902, an agnostic professor of anatomy named Yves Delage wrote and presented a scientific paper (to the Academy of Sciences in Paris) that made a strong case for the Shroud not being a forgery, but a genuine medical artifact. Dr. Delage concluded that the image therein was likely the body of Christ. With that, I'll close this episode with a word from Shroud critic, and personal hero Charles Spurgeon: Next to this, our faith most earnestly and intensely fixes itself upon the Christ of God. We trust in Jesus; we believe all that inspired history saith of him; not making a myth of him, or his life, but taking it as a matter of fact that God dwelt in very deed among men in human flesh, and that an atonement was really and truly offered by the incarnate God upon the cross of Calvary. Yet the Lord Jesus Christ to us is not alone a Saviour of the past. We believe that he has “ascended up on high, leading captivity captive,” and that he “ever liveth to make intercession for us.” I saw in the cathedral at Turin a very remarkable sight, namely, the pretended graveclothes of the Lord Jesus Christ, which are devoutly worshipped by crowds of Romanists. I could not help observing as I gazed upon these relics, that the ensigns of the death of Christ were all of him that the Romish church possessed. They may well show the true cross, for they crucify him afresh; they may well pray in his sepulchre, for he is not there, or in their church: and they may well claim his graveclothes, for they know only a dead Christ. But, beloved brethren, our Christ is not dead, neither has he fallen asleep, he still walks among the golden candlesticks, and holds the stars in his right hand. AMEN. C. H. Spurgeon, The Sword and Trowel: 1872 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1872), 150.

god jesus christ church lord bible house passion french germany nature ms italy german italian jewish rome academy jews nazis kingdom of god miracles fiction adolf hitler theology ab supernatural sword amen gentiles pilates eleven coins baptist quelle sciences outsiders world war vatican antoine saviour calvary ww2 mary magdalene cathedrals naples middle ages origen cs lewis roman catholic sanhedrin turin simon peter our lord handsome protestants british museum shroud flanders spurgeon charles spurgeon savoy arimathea signposts judean our lord jesus christ campania bourg shroud of turin john jackson argon casa bianca monsignor trowel aberystwyth screwtape early church fathers bresse gospel sermon stooping delage saint john the baptist walter hooper benedictine abbey il intervarsity press montevergine thomas c oden biblemysteries

Episode 8: The Shroud of Turin Introduction

writing oxford cs lewis eric metaxas walter hooper

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 26, 2019 36:33

Today's episode is a beginning. It does not YET represent rigorous research, but only a skimming. My opinion at the beginning of this journey is a middle opinion. Call me a Shroud agnostic, at least for now. There are Shroud atheists out there that quickly and completely dismiss the Shroud. They may be right, but I'm not sure they've thoroughly researched their conclusions. Likewise, many faithful Shroud believers seemingly assume its real and don't really interact with some legitimate reasons for debunking. The fact is that there is pretty solid evidence on both sides, which probably explains why The Shroud still has its believers and detractors. This is not a religious issue for me - I am firmly convinced that Jesus rose from the dead with or without The Shroud, and even wrote a book about the resurrection of Jesus. (Easter: Fact or Fiction.) Why should I - a Baptist preacher who doesn't believe at all in the Roman Catholic concept of relics or icons, do a long series on the Shroud of Turin? Protestants have taken two positions on the Shroud over the years. I can neatly frame those two positions by quoting from two of my heroes, Charles Spurgeon and C.S. Lewis: On the negative, anti-Shroud side, we have Charles Spurgeon: Spurgeon on the Shroud: Do you not think, too, that some seekers miss comfort because they forget that Jesus Christ is alive? The Christ of the Church of Rome is always seen in one of two positions—either as a babe in his mother's arms, or else as dead. That is Rome's Christ, but our Christ is alive. Jesus who rose has “left the dead no more to die.” I was requested in Turin to join with others in asking to see the shroud in which the Saviour was buried. I must confess that I had not faith enough to believe in the shroud, nor had I curiosity enough to wish to look at the fictitious linen. I would not care a penny for the article, even if I knew it to be genuine. Our Lord has left his shroud and sepulchre, and lives in heaven. To-night he so lives that a sigh of yours will reach him, a tear will find him, a desire in your heart will bring him to you. Only seek him as a loving, living Saviour, and put your trust in him as risen from the dead no more to die, and comfort will, I trust, come into your spirit. C. H. Spurgeon, “A Gospel Sermon to Outsiders,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 23 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1877), 701–702. On the more open side and curious side, we have C.S. Lewis: Dear Sister Penelope I am ashamed of having grumbled. And your act was not that of a brute—in operation it was more like that of an angel, for (as I said) you started me on a quite new realisation of what is meant by being ‘in Christ', and immediately after that ‘the power which erring men call chance' put into my hands Mascall's two books in the Signpost series which continued the process.102 So I lived for a week end (at Aberystwyth) in one of those delightful vernal periods when doctrines that have hitherto been only buried seeds begin actually to come up—like snowdrops or crocuses. I won't deny they've met a touch of frost since (if only things would last, or rather if only we would!) but I'm still very much, and gladly, in your debt. The only real evil of having read your scripts when I was tired is that it was hardly fair to them and not v. useful to you. I enclose the MS. of Screwtape. If it is not a trouble I shd. like you to keep it safe until the book is printed (in case the one the publisher has got blitzed)—after that it can be made into spills or used to stuff dolls or anything. Thank you very much for the photo of the Shroud. It raises a whole question on which I shall have to straighten out my thought one of these days. yours sincerely Clive Lewis C. S. Lewis, The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed. Walter Hooper, vol. 2 (New York: HarperCollins e-books; HarperSanFrancisco, 2004–2007), 493–494. I note here that Lewis had the picture of the head of the Shroud of Turin framed, and it hung on the wall of his bedroom for the rest of his life. On this particular issue, count me with C.S. Lewis - at least for now. While I believe Spurgeon is correct in condemning Shroudish idolatry, or the worship of The Shroud, I think he was too hasty in his conclusion that The Shroud was an absolute fake. It certainly may be, but it would appear that Spurgeon's theological prejudice against the Roman Catholic church led him to dismiss the Shroud's genuineness as a possibility, rather than some scientific, theological or historical reason. Top Ten Facts about the Shroud of Turin: 1 Coins in eyes. Perhaps the most compelling ‘fact' about The Shroud is not a fact in everybody's eyes. I've erased and retyped that sentence now twice, because it was a legit, “no pun intended.” line. Be that as it may, researchers have apparently discovered what may be coins in the place of the eye-sockets on the image of the man in The Shroud. (Because the image is so small, there is heavy debate about this ‘discovery.') We are going to possibly spend an entire episode on this one issue, so I'm not going to go too deeply into it now, but the supposed coins at least appear to be first century coins - and there is some evidence - scant, but some - that Jewish people of the first two centuries were buried with coins in their eyes. 2. You've probably heard that The Shroud was carbon 14 dated and found conclusively to be a medieval hoax. That conclusion was highly debated in the 1980s, and has been ever since. More recently, data has surfaced that has cast more doubt on the original conclusion. Researcher Tristan Casabianca and his team were able to gain access to the raw data of the original 1989 dating, and found some significant issues. In a recent interview with the French “New Man” magazine, Casabianca says: “In 1989, the results of the shroud dating were published in the prestigious journal Nature: between 1260 and 1390 with 95% certainty. But for thirty years, researchers have asked the laboratories for raw data. These have always refused to provide them. In 2017, I submitted a legal request to the British Museum, which supervised the laboratories. Thus, I had access to hundreds of unpublished pages, which include these raw data. With my team, we conducted their analysis. Our statistical analysis shows that the 1988 carbon 14 dating was unreliable: the tested samples are obviously heterogeneous, [showing many different dates], and there is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the sheet, are representative of the whole fabric. It is therefore impossible to conclude that the shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages.” As I mentioned at the beginning - I'm a Shroud agnostic at this point. I've heard various reasons to debunk the 1989 dating of the Shroud for years, and I've heard people confidently quote that dating as if that completely and utterly convinced them. I remain unpersuaded either way...at this point. 3.. The blood stains on The Shroud appear to be human blood. From Historycollection.co: Many skeptics regarding the Shroud of Turin's authenticity have long claimed that the image seen on the linen cloth is nothing more than a figure that an artist painted. In 1978, scholar John Jackson got permission from the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist to carry out tests to determine what kind of paint may have been used. What he found when he tested pieces of the cloth is that no binding or mixing agents were used in the color, meaning that it did not correspond with the known painting practices of the fourteenth century. In fact, what was used to create the image on the shroud wasn't paint at all. It was blood. Jackson's truly astounding find, though, was that it was human blood on the shroud. The blood type has been identified as type AB. Furthermore, there are two distinctive types of blood found on the cover: pre-mortem blood, the kind before a person dies, and post-mortem, which has undergone changes following death. 4. The Shroud has withstood the rigors of time, and multiple disasters. This, of course, doesn't guarantee its authenticity, but it is curious. In 1503, the Shroud was displayed at Bourg-en-Bresse for Archduke Philip the Handsome, who was the grandmaster of Flanders. A contemporary account by a courtier that was present named Antoine de Lalaing writes about the 1503 display of the Shroud: "The day of the great and holy Friday, the Passion was preached in Monsignor's chapel by his confessor, the duke and duchess attending. Then they went with great devotion to the market halls of the town, where a great number of people heard the Passion preached by a Cordeilier. After that three bishops showed to the public the Holy Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and after the service it was shown in Monsignor's chapel." Of more interest to us here, Lalaing also mentions that the authenticity of The Shroud is seemingly proved by its having been tried by fire, boiled in oil, laundered many times 'but it was not possible to efface or remove the imprint and image.' 29 years after Lalaing wrote this, the entire chapel that held The Shroud burned, and its protective case melted. The Shroud itself suffered little damage beyond some scorching and one small hole that was brought about by melted silver dripping through. 5. Whether you believe the Shroud is the true burial cloth of Jesus or not, all agree that the Shroud is very old and very fragile. Most cloth from hundreds of years ago has long since disintegrated, so to protect the Shroud from damage, it is kept inside a hermetically sealed box that is filled with 99.5 percent argon and .5 percent oxygen. Why argon? Well, if you remember your high school chemistry, then you might remember that Argon is a noble gas, and noble gases are largely inert, meaning that they don't react with many other elements. This means that decay and breakdown are much less likely6. The burial cloth of Jesus is indeed mentioned in the Bible. Luke 23: 50 There was a good and righteous man named Joseph, a member of the Sanhedrin, 51 who had not agreed with their plan and action. He was from Arimathea, a Judean town, and was looking forward to the kingdom of God. 52 He approached Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 53 Taking it down, he wrapped it in fine linen and placed it in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever been placed. Luke 24: 9 Returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven and to all the rest. 10 Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them were telling the apostles these things. 11 But these words seemed like nonsense to them, and they did not believe the women. 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. When he stooped to look in, he saw only the linen cloths. So he went home, amazed at what had happened. John 19: 40 Then they took Jesus' body and wrapped it in linen cloths with the aromatic spices, according to the burial custom of the Jews. 41 There was a garden in the place where He was crucified. A new tomb was in the garden; no one had yet been placed in it. 42 They placed Jesus there because of the Jewish preparation and since the tomb was nearby. John 20: 3 At that, Peter and the other disciple went out, heading for the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and got to the tomb first. 5 Stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, yet he did not go in. 6 Then, following him, Simon Peter came also. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. 7 The wrapping that had been on His head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself. It is quite significant that both Luke AND John mention the burial cloth of Jesus. Luke is part of what is called the synoptic gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke. They are considered highly related and all three contain very similar wording and material in places, which have caused some to speculate that there was an earlier oral (or written) source that all three accounts drew from, sometimes that source is called ‘Q,' which stands for the French word Quelle (which means ‘what' in French, but can also mean ‘source.' John, however, is not usually considered to be derived from the Q source, so it is an additional layer of attestation that Jesus was buried in a linen cloth. 7. It is also mentioned multiple times by Early Church Fathers. For instance: ORIGEN (184-253 AD): “He wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and put it in a new tomb” where no one was buried, thus preserving the body of Jesus for its glorious resurrection. But I think that this shroud was much cleaner from the time it was used to cover Christ's body than it ever had been before. For the body of Jesus retained its own integrity, even in death, so that it cleansed everything it touched and renewed even the new tomb which had been cut from rock. Manlio Simonetti, ed., Matthew 14-28, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 300. HILARY OF POITIERS (310-367): Joseph of Arimathea, having asked Pilate to return Jesus' body, wrapped it in a shroud, placed it in a new tomb carved out from a rock and rolled a stone in front of the entrance to the tomb. Although this may indeed be the order of events and although it was necessary to bury him who would rise from the dead, these deeds are nevertheless recounted individually because each of them is not without some importance. Joseph is called a disciple of the Lord because he was an image of the apostles, even though he was not numbered among the twelve apostles. It was he who wrapped the Lord's body in a clean linen shroud; in this same linen we find all kinds of animals descending to Peter from heaven.7 It is perhaps not too extravagant to understand from this parallel that the church is buried with Christ under the name of the linen shroud.8 Just as in the linen, so also in the confession of the church are gathered the full diversity of living beings, both pure and impure. The body of the Lord, therefore, through the teaching of the apostles, is laid to rest in the empty tomb newly cut from a rock. In other words, their teaching introduced Christ into the hardness of the Gentile heart, which was uncut, empty and previously impervious to the fear of God. And because he is the only one who should penetrate our hearts, a stone was rolled over the entrance to the tomb, so that just as no one previous to him had been introduced as the author of divine knowledge, neither would anyone be brought in after him. From Hilary's commentary on Matthew. Manlio Simonetti, ed., Matthew 14-28, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 300. BEDE: The vanity of the rich, who even in their graves cannot do without their riches, receives its condemnation from the simple and unassuming interment of the Lord. Hence indeed the custom of the church was derived, that the sacrifice of the altar should not be commemorated by wrapping the elements in silk, or any colored cloth, but in linen; as the body of the Lord was buried in clean fine linen Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall, eds., Mark (Revised), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 227. 8. Sadly, devotion to the Shroud (which might be idolatry...more on this later) has actually led to deaths. For example, in May of 1647 at a public showing of the Shroud, some members of the large crowd die of suffocation. What a terrifying way to go! 9. In September of 1939 at the dawn of World War 2, the Shroud is secretly taken to the Benedictine Abbey of Montevergine approximately 588 miles away. During the journey, the Shroud passes through Naples and Rome. The Shroud was returned to Turin in 1946, post war. In explaining the decision to move the Shroud, Father Andrea Cardin (the library curator at Montevergine) wrote, “"The Holy Shroud was moved in secret to the sanctuary in the Campania region on the precise orders of the House of Savoy and the Vatican. "Officially this was to protect it from possible bombing (in Turin). In reality, it was moved to hide it from Hitler who was apparently obsessed by it. When he visited Italy in 1938, top-ranking Nazi aides asked unusual and insistent questions about the Shroud." It should be remembered here that Italy was allied with Germany during WW2, but the Italians still sought to protect their most precious artifact from Hitler. Interestingly, Father Cardin notes that the Nazis almost located The Shroud, "In 1943 when German troops searched the Montevergine church, the monks there pretended to be in deep prayer before the altar, inside which the relic was hidden. This was the only reason it wasn't discovered." 10. In 1898, Secondo Pia, an Italian photographer, takes the first ever photograph of The Shroud. Just four years afterwards, in 1902, an agnostic professor of anatomy named Yves Delage wrote and presented a scientific paper (to the Academy of Sciences in Paris) that made a strong case for the Shroud not being a forgery, but a genuine medical artifact. Dr. Delage concluded that the image therein was likely the body of Christ. With that, I'll close this episode with a word from Shroud critic, and personal hero Charles Spurgeon: Next to this, our faith most earnestly and intensely fixes itself upon the Christ of God. We trust in Jesus; we believe all that inspired history saith of him; not making a myth of him, or his life, but taking it as a matter of fact that God dwelt in very deed among men in human flesh, and that an atonement was really and truly offered by the incarnate God upon the cross of Calvary. Yet the Lord Jesus Christ to us is not alone a Saviour of the past. We believe that he has “ascended up on high, leading captivity captive,” and that he “ever liveth to make intercession for us.” I saw in the cathedral at Turin a very remarkable sight, namely, the pretended graveclothes of the Lord Jesus Christ, which are devoutly worshipped by crowds of Romanists. I could not help observing as I gazed upon these relics, that the ensigns of the death of Christ were all of him that the Romish church possessed. They may well show the true cross, for they crucify him afresh; they may well pray in his sepulchre, for he is not there, or in their church: and they may well claim his graveclothes, for they know only a dead Christ. But, beloved brethren, our Christ is not dead, neither has he fallen asleep, he still walks among the golden candlesticks, and holds the stars in his right hand. AMEN. C. H. Spurgeon, The Sword and Trowel: 1872 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1872), 150.

god jesus christ church lord bible house passion french germany nature ms italy german italian jewish rome academy jews nazis kingdom of god miracles fiction adolf hitler theology ab supernatural sword amen gentiles pilates eleven coins baptist quelle sciences outsiders world war vatican antoine saviour calvary ww2 mary magdalene cathedrals naples middle ages origen cs lewis roman catholic sanhedrin turin simon peter our lord handsome protestants british museum shroud flanders spurgeon charles spurgeon savoy arimathea oden signposts judean our lord jesus christ campania bourg shroud of turin john jackson argon casa bianca monsignor trowel aberystwyth screwtape early church fathers bresse thomas c gospel sermon stooping delage saint john the baptist christopher a walter hooper benedictine abbey il intervarsity press montevergine biblemysteries

Walter Hooper: The Life and Writing of C.S. Lewis - Part 3

Socrates in the City

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 25, 2019 72:08

Eric Metaxas interviews Walter Hooper, friend and secretary of C.S. Lewis, about Lewis’s life and writings–uncovering fascinating stories about the beloved Oxford don.

Walter Hooper: The Life and Writing of C.S. Lewis - Part 2

Socrates in the City

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 18, 2019 84:26

Eric Metaxas interviews Walter Hooper, friend and secretary of C.S. Lewis, about Lewis’s life and writings–uncovering fascinating stories about the beloved Oxford don.

writing oxford cs lewis eric metaxas walter hooper

Episode #4 Aliens and the Bible

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 17, 2019 77:14

Note: The Shownotes and Transcript below are a bit of a trainwork editing wise. I'll polish them up soon! C.S. Lewis from His essay The Seeing Eye, found in Christian Reflections: 1963, 6 years before the Moon Landing. (Discussing Space travel) a more practical issue will arise when, if ever, we discover rational creatures on other planets. I think myself, this is a very remote contingency. The balance of probability is against life on any other planet of the solar system. We shall hardly find it nearer than the stars. And even if we reach the Moon we shall be no nearer to stellar travel than the first man who paddled across a river was to crossing the Pacific.This thought is welcome to me because, to be frank, I have no pleasure in looking forward to a meeting between humanity and any alien rational species. I observe how the white man has hitherto treated the black, and how, even among civilized men, the stronger have treated the weaker. If we encounter in the depth of space a race, however innocent and amiable, which is technologically weaker than ourselves, I do not doubt that the same revolting story will be repeated. We shall enslave, deceive, exploit or exterminate; at the very least we shall corrupt it with our vices and infect it with our diseases. We are not fit yet to visit other worlds. We have filled our own with massacre, torture, syphilis, famine, dust bowls and with all that is hideous to ear or eye. Must we go on to infect new realms? It was in part these reflections that first moved me to make my own small contributions to science fiction. In those days writers in that genre almost automatically represented the inhabitants of other worlds as monsters and the terrestrial invaders as good. Since then the opposite set-up has become fairly common. If I could believe that I had in any degree contributed to this change, I should be a proud man.1 The same problem, by the way, is beginning to threaten us as regards the dolphins. I don't think it has yet been proved that they are rational. But if they are, we have no more right to enslave them than to enslave our fellow-men. And some of us will continue to say this, but we shall be mocked. C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper, EPub Edition. (HarperOne, 2014), 173–174. This science (astronomy) ought to be the special delight of ministers of the gospel, for surely it brings us into closer connection with God than almost any other science does. It has been said that an undevout astronomer is mad. I should say that an undevout man of any sort is mad,—with the worst form of madness; but, certainly, he who has become acquainted with the stars in the heavens, and who yet has not found out the great Father of lights, the Lord who made them all, must be stricken with a dire madness. Kepler, the great mathematical astronomer, who has so well explained many of the laws which govern the universe, closes one of his books, his Harmonics, with this reverent and devout expression of his feelings:—“I give thee thanks, Lord and Creator, that thou hast given me joy through thy creation; for I have been ravished with the work of thy hands. I have revealed unto mankind the glory of thy works, as far as my limited spirit could conceive their infinitude. Should I have brought forward anything that is unworthy of thee, or should I have sought my own fame, be graciously pleased to forgive me.” And you know how the mighty Newton, a very prince among the sons of men, was continually driven to his knees as he looked upwards to the skies, and discovered fresh wonders in the starry heavens. Therefore, the science which tends to bring men to bow in humility before the Lord should always be a favourite study with us whose business it is to inculcate reverence for God in all who come under our influence. C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students: The Art of Illustration; Addresses Delivered to the Students of the Pastors' College, Metropolitan Tabernacle, vol. 3 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1905), 145. Today's Question: At the very beginning of this podcast, I promised you that we would sometimes delve into wild and wacky areas of the Bible, and today is the day we begin that journey! Most of the time, we will play it straight, but the fact is that there are many interesting/mysterious and downright strange parts of the Bible, and I don't think we should ignore them, nor explain them away with a handwave. Let's embrace the weird! And, by the way, if this topic is interesting to you at all, then please check out my book Monsters in the Bible. It's my bestselling book of this year, which is funny, and from time to time, it ranks in Amazon's top ten for Occult Satanism...which is strange, to say the least, for a southern Baptist pastor. (I did NOT choose that category!) Vanderbilt astronomer David Weintraub reports that 55 percent of atheists believe in alien life, but only 32 percent of Christians. Weintraub wrote, "Most evangelical and fundamentalist Christian leaders argue quite forcefully that the Bible makes clear that extraterrestrial life does not exist. From this perspective, the only living, God-worshipping beings in the entire universe are humans, created by God, who live on Earth." DOES THE BIBLE REALLY, REALLY MAKE THAT CLEAR??! Calvary Chapel Church in Roswell, New Mexico (80 miles away from the Mac Brazel ranch, Roswell 1947 incident), would half-way agree. for instance, “Biblically IF there are aliens, there is no way we would have contact with them or God would have told us about it in the Bible and He did not. The Bible never speaks of Aliens from another planet. Further, there is no way they would crash and die here on planet earth. Death entered our world through Adam and effected everything on this planet. If there are Aliens, they would not be exposed to this curse.” LOTS OF SUPPOSITIONS HERE THAT AREN'T BACKED UP BY SCRIPTURE. “She smiled at me, therefore she likes me.” maybe, maybe not. It's a supposition, but is it supported by fact?? Let's take that first sentence and see how it logically holds up. “If there are aliens, there is no way we would have contact with them or God would have told us about it in the Bible, and He did not.” How about this: “IF Man were to travel to the moon, God would have told us about it in the Bible, and He did not.” “If the United States of America would be the dominant superpower of the world in the 21st century, God would have told us about it in the Bible, and He did not.” “If atoms were the building blocks of all matter, God would have told us about it in the Bible, and He did not.” Such statements suppose that God is OBLIGATED to tell us about everything in the Bible. He is under no such obligation, so we can't assume things that we are left in the dark about. All the love in the world to Calvary Chapel, Roswell, though. I'm a fan. So, I'm also a fan of podcasts...a podcast connoisseur. I am subscribed to over one 100 podcasts of all shapes and sizes. Many of them are Christian podcasts, but many are not. In case you're curious, here's my current top ten podcasts. I'd love to hear yours too - tweet them to me at @bibleqpodcast. In no particular order: Ask Pastor John - John Piper, excellent biblical counsel. The Omnibus with Ken Jennings and John Roderick. Hilarious and informative. Ryen Russillo podcast - ESPN sports. My favorite sports commentator. SYSK with Josh and Chuck, have been a listener for over ten years. Astonishing Legends with Scott Philbrook and Forrest Burgess. Rainer on Leadership - Thom Rainer The Bible Project with Tim Mackie and Jon Collins Fantasy Focus Football - Matthew Berry (Avengers Endgame) True Crime Garage (warning: swearing) Payne Lindsey Podcasts - Monster, + Up and Vanished. Anyway...I was listening to one of the above, the Astonishing Legends podcast a few weeks ago. They were talking about a fairly fascinating object called the Betz Sphere that a family in Florida found in the woods in the 70s. The Betz Sphere demonstrated all sorts of unusual properties, and drew the interest of some news organizations and government people, including the former head of Project Blue book, Dr. J. Allen Hynek. Project Blue Book:(wikipedia): Project Blue Book was one of a series of systematic studies of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) conducted by the United States Air Force. It started in 1952, the third study of its kind, following projects Sign (1947) and Grudge (1949). A termination order was given for the study in December 1969, and all activity under its auspices officially ceased in January 1970. Project Blue Book had two goals: To determine if UFOs were a threat to national security, and To scientifically analyze UFO-related data. J.Allen Hynek was the science advisor to Grudge, Sign and Blue Book. Wikipedia: Josef Allen Hynek (May 1, 1910 – April 27, 1986) was an American astronomer, professor, and ufologist.[1] In later years he conducted his own independent UFO research, developing the "Close Encounter" classification system. He was among the first people to conduct scientific analysis of reports and especially of trace evidence purportedly left by UFOs.[ Anyway, during his time researching the Betz sphere, Dr. J. Allen Hynek became good friends with the Betz family, getting to know them pretty well over the course of several visits. According to the Betz family, Dr. Hynek told them that the U.S. government was aware of several alien encounters/visitations, including Roswell, and had covered up most of them, so that the general public wouldn't freak out. Why would the public freak out? Well, apparently Dr. Hynek believe that, at least in part, that major religions, including Christianity, would have a large negative reaction to the existence of aliens, because that would seemingly contradict the teachings of the church, and the teachings of the Bible. Hynek believed that society might fall apart, if people knew that aliens actually existed. Now, let me pause for a moment. As much as I'm interested in this sort of thing, today's episode is NOT fundamentally about whether aliens exist and have made contact with us or not. I do actually know the answer to that question, but I can't give it to you now, its classified. ;) In truth, actually, I have no idea. BUT, because I can't help myself, I will say this one thing about the possibility of aliens. A Washington Post article at the end of April really got my attention: Recently, unidentified aircraft have entered military-designated airspace as often as multiple times per month, Joseph Gradisher, spokesman for office of the deputy chief of naval operations for information warfare, told The Washington Post on Wednesday. He said, “We want to get to the bottom of this. We need to determine who's doing it, where it's coming from and what their intent is. We need to try to find ways to prevent it from happening again.” Luis Elizondo, a former senior intelligence officer, told The Post that the new Navy guidelines formalized the reporting process, facilitating data-driven analysis while removing the stigma from talking about UFOs, calling it “the single greatest decision the Navy has made in decades.” Elizondo, who ran the AATIP, (This is the multi-million dollar Pentagon program that investigates UFOs and was on the government budget books until 2012, when it was delisted on those budget books) said the newly drafted guidelines were a culmination of many things, most notably that the Navy had enough credible evidence — including eyewitness accounts and corroborating radar information — to “know this is occurring.” “If I came to you and said, ‘There are these things that can fly over our country with impunity, defying the laws of physics, and within moments could deploy a nuclear device at will,' that would be a matter of national security,” Elizondo said. With the number of U.S. military personnel in the Air Force and Navy who described the same observations, the noise level could not be ignored. “This type of activity is very alarming,” Elizondo said, “and people are recognizing there are things in our aerospace that lie beyond our understanding.” Before you get excited that this new initiative might finally clue in the public, I need to tell you that the WaPost ran an article the next week that basically said that the Navy was NOT going to be released to the public. Mr. Gradisher said, ““Furthermore, any report generated as a result of these investigations will, by necessity, include classified information on military operations. He added, “Therefore, no release of information to the general public is expected.””” So yeah, expect to be in the dark a few more years, at least. But today's question is not whether or not the U.S. Government will finally disclose Alien interactions, but whether or not the Bible rules out the existence of aliens at all! Is Dr. Hynek correct - if the Government suddenly announced alien contact of some kind - would that somehow invalidate the Bible? And the answer is…. I don't think so. Not at all. But, I could be wrong, and many theologians disagree with me. Let's look at the anti-alien case: GotQuestions https://www.gotquestions.org/aliens-Christian.html, “We do not believe that aliens exist. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe; in fact, the Bible gives us several key reasons why there cannot be. Those who contemplate the existence of aliens and the impact their existence would have on the Christian faith commonly discuss the identity and work of Jesus. God sent His only begotten Son, God incarnate, to save mankind and redeem creation. Does that redemption include life on other planets? Or would God have manifested Himself on those other planets, as well (in the manner of Aslan in Narnia)? Does “only begotten” mean “only physical representation”? Or is it more limited, referring only to the human species? WE DON'T KNOW!! Another topic of discussion concerning the existence of aliens and Christianity is what it means to be made in the “image of God.” Since God has no physical body, we take this to mean a reflection of God's non-physical aspects—rationality, morality, and sociability. Would aliens, if they exist, embody the same characteristics? WHY NOT? Considering what we know about space and life and the world as the Bible portrays it, we already have an explanation for so-called alien activity on Earth. Reports of “close encounters” describe the ethereal, transient, deceptive, and malevolent. Accounts also record that encounters with supposed aliens can be stopped by a real, authentic call to Jesus. Everything points to the activity of demons, not extraterrestrials. In fact, it is plausible that the “powerful delusion” spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 will involve an alien-abduction theory to explain away the rapture. I actually don't think most UFO reports - reported by seasoned Navy and Air-Force pilots, for instance, really has much in common with demonic episodes we see in Scripture. The “discovery” of alien life would have no effect on genuine Christianity. COMPLETELY AGREE The Bible stands as written, no matter what secular theories are advanced or discoveries are claimed. The Bible says the earth and mankind are unique in God's creation. God created the earth even before He created the sun, moon, or stars (Genesis 1). Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and He called the darkness “night.” Evening came and then morning: the first day. (It actually seems to say that God created the Heavens first...then the earth.) Matt Slick/CARM: The Bible does not mention extraterrestrial or alien life. However, it does mention angels and demonic forces which are, in a sense, not of this world. This is not the kind of alien, extraterrestrial life that most people are talking about when the subject comes up. Nevertheless, the Bible makes no mention whatsoever of aliens from other planets who might be visiting us. Now, Slick goes on from here to argue against alien life being likely, because he believes that the Bible declares all creation on all worlds fallen by what Adam did. That is certainly one way of reading the text, but I don't think that is the necessary way of reading the text. Paul could be speaking of all of creation on the earth. For instance, in Colossians 1:23, Paul writes: This gospel has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become a servant of it.What does this mean- that the Gospel has been proclaimed on Pluto? I don't think so. I believe Paul meant that the Gospel had been proclaimed in all of KNOWN creation. Michael Houdmann: Above all, let me say, I do not believe aliens exist. Let's also differentiate between sentient aliens and non-sentient aliens. While I would not necessarily have a theological problem with the concept of non-sentient beings (fish, birds, dogs, etc.) existing on other planets, I do have a huge theological problem with the concept of other sentient beings existing elsewhere. It just does not mesh with the teachings of the Bible. The Bible presents humanity as uniquely created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). Angels are not created in the image of God. Animals are not created in the image of God. According to the Bible, we are unique, specifically created to have a personal relationship and connection with God the Creator. Intelligent/sentient life in other parts of the universe destroys, or at least weakens, this uniqueness. And it raises all kinds of questions. When did God create the aliens? Do the sentient aliens have an eternal soul? Did they fall into sin? Did God reveal Himself to them? Does their understanding of God match what the Bible says? Did God provide them with an alien Bible? Did God provide for and offer them redemption and salvation? If so, how? Did Jesus die for them too?Genesis 1:26 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.” Notice how it doesn't say Let us make man - and man alone in all of the universe - in our Image. Houdmann goes on to say: All joking aside, if God intended for humankind to meet alien life, He would have outlined these encounters in the Bible, along with an answer to what He has done for them regarding sin.I just don't agree with that speculation. I like Houdmann and Got questions a ton, and find them very faithful to the Bible, but this is speculation that I find unbacked by biblical truth. HOW do we know that God would do this? How can we prove such a thing? I just don't think we can. I feel like such speculations are very similar to Lactantius' (an early church father in the 200s) scoffing at the possibility that the earth was round. He could NOT cite a Scripture to prove the earth was flat - as he thought - but he assumed that Scripture taught such a thing, WHEN IT DOES NOT. Similarly, Augustine poo-pood the existence of Antipodes on the other side of the world, thinking that Scripture backed that belief up, but it doesn't, and Augustine was wrong. GIVE ME CLEAR SCRIPTURE THAT SHOWS LIFE ON EARTH IS UNIQUE and I will believe it against all charges...but such a Scripture does NOT exist. TBR Baptist Facebook Group: Jim I thought this was a serious group Well - He's new. Also, I genuinely think this is a serious topic! Wes Apparently, some were aliens at one point Ephesians 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God Similarly Doug Hibbard 1 Peter suggests that *you* are the aliens Jim Spiritual Wickedness in heavenly places, Rulers and authorities. Demons dressed up like them. Jacob I think the possibility of aliens falls apart when discussing the fall. As best as we can tell the whole universe is subject to the natural effects of the curse. If that is true, then another rational species, which did not fall, is out there subjected to the consequences of it. Do these aliens have their own Salvation history? Did they, somehow, simultaneously fall alongside Adam, and have their own Jesus? If, in keeping with Scripture, the crucifixion of Christ is a one time event, then another race would be subject to a punishment that they do not deserve with no possible hope for salvation. Pro Brandon Ambrosino on BBC.Com http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161215-if-we-made-contact-with-aliens-how-would-religions-react : But how could a believer reconcile this with their faith that humans are the crowning achievement of God's creation?. How could humans believe they were the apple of their creator's eye if their planet was just one of billions? The discovery of intelligent aliens could have a similar Copernican effect on human's self-understanding. Would the discovery make believers feel insignificant, and as a consequence, cause people to question their faith? According to the Talmud, God spends his night flying throughout 18,000 worlds I would argue that this concern is misguided. The claim that God is involved with and moved by humans has never required an Earth-centric theology. The Psalms, sacred to both Jews and Christians, claim that God has given names to all the stars. Billy Graham as a notable exception, as he was vocal about his beliefs that "there are intelligent beings like us far away in space who worship God." J. Warner Wallace: What impact does this question (and even more importantly, the answer to this question) have on the claims of Christianity and the truth of the Christian worldview? Jeff Zweerink, astrophysicist and Christian: Many people seem to think that discovering life on another planet would mean that naturalism is correct and Christianity is wrong. One thing I found fascinating is that for centuries Christians have thought about the implications of intelligent life in the universe. As I investigated the truth claims of Christianity, I realized that the existence of life of any sort beyond the confines of Earth is a great theological question—without a definitive answer. At this time, I am convinced that any hypothetical discovery of life in the universe will still point to God's creative work and ultimately help us understand God's revelation better. I'm with Jeff here. Some people do indeed seem to think that finding life on other planets would prove the Bible - or Christianity wrong somehow. To that, I saw - How and Why would such a thing disprove God or the Bible? If God made life on planet Earth - and He did - then why couldn't He make it elsewhere? To those Christians who seem to think that God would only make life on earth - I say, again, why would He do that? Why would He create billions of planets - most outside of our ability to see or observe...and leave them devoid of any inhabitants? In absence of Scripture, or absolute proof of alien life, conjecture proves nothing, but that cuts both ways. Merely speculating that God would not create life on other planets does not prove that it is so. The question we are grappling with today is this one: Does the Bible rule out alien life, and the answer - the CLEAR answer...is NO! It does not. William Lane Craig, 2008 episode of Reasonable Faith: Dr. Craig: Yeah. Well, I think that it's possible. [that there is alien life] One would argue that if there is life on other planets it would have had to be created by God because on a naturalistic basis I think we'd say that the evidence against there being intelligent extraterrestrial life anywhere in the observable universe is extremely great. The probabilities on naturalism that there is extraterrestrial intelligent life is virtually nil. So actually being a theist would be the best grounds for thinking that it could be possible because as a theist you think God created life here on this planet so then you could say, well, maybe God created life as well on some other planet somewhere in the universe. It is really the theist who is, I think, a lot more open to the possibility of extraterrestrial life than the non-theist…. Kevin Harris: This brings up the issue of UFOs and aliens invading earth and all the things that are in pop culture to this day – flying saucer phenomena and things like that. Well, the Vatican astronomer has just said it could be. You can make up your own mind about that. It seems, Dr. Craig, that the Bible is largely silent about this issue. Dr. Craig: I think it is silent, Kevin. The Scriptures are given to human beings as God's revelation to people on this planet. Therefore, there is no reason to think that there could not be persons that God has created in some unknown galaxy that we have no idea about, and he has provided a revelation of himself to them as well. I think it would be presumptuous to say that we know that he hasn't done that. Kevin Harris: He says that the possibility of extraterrestrial life does not contradict our faith. In other words, if a flying saucer landed on the White House lawn today, nobody could stand up and say Christianity is false. Dr. Craig: That is right. That seems to me to be correct. I am puzzled by folks who seem to think that if intelligent life were discovered somewhere else or that if it were to come here that somehow this would be a disproof of Christianity. That seems to me to be a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow because Christianity simply doesn't speak to the question of whether or not God has created life elsewhere in the universe. If somebody tells you that there could be no aliens from a Bible/Christian perspective, ask them to show you clear backing for such a thing from Scripture. If you believe that, then please, please, please send me your Scriptural reasons for such a belief. Just Be sure you aren't making VAST leaps in logic. For example, the Bible clearly says Jesus died for our sins, if there are aliens, then how would God redeem them? That's a great question, and I don't know the answer, but it certainly doesn't prove that there are no aliens. Perhaps our hypothetical aliens did not fall, like Adam and Eve did. Perhaps they are indeed redeemed by Christ's sacrifice in a way that we don't understand. Who Knows?! But I do know that I can find no Scripture that clearly denies the possibility of alien life, or that clearly affirms the existence of alien life. I can also find no Scripture, the implications of which would logically rule out either outcome. Praise the Lord. Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise him in the heights above. Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his heavenly hosts. Praise him, sun and moon; praise him, all you shining stars. Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for at his command they were created. (Ps. 148:1–5) Are there aliens? I've no idea. I think the wisest and best and most biblical answer is either “Maybe” or “I don't know.” To assert otherwise is borderline irresponsible. BUT - if there ARE aliens, does this pose a threat to Scripture? Absolutely not. You can't contradict what isn't there. In 1928, Alexander Fleming discovered Penicillin, the first true antibiotic. Did this MASSIVELY IMPORTANT DISCOVERY contradict the Bible? Of course not - because the Bible never discussed nor addressed such a thing. Similarly, the discovery of alien life - if it happens at all - will not at all shake any Scriptural truth in the Bible - NOT A ONE. Will it shake our lives? Maybe so. But, you can't find aliens in the Scripture. Not clearly. Likewise, you can't find the United States in Scripture either, and that ‘omission' seems to rightly bother no one. It is not incumbent upon God to reveal to man all important future events in His Word. Ultimately, I stand with Spurgeon, and actually stood with Spurgeon before I knew his position on this question. It took a lot of research to find this quote, but here you go: What God has done in the eternity which we call the past (but which to him is as the present), we do not fully know. We have no reason to believe that we know much of what God has done. There may be as many other worlds and sorts of beings existent as there are sands upon the sea shore, for aught we know; and the Lord may have been occupied in ages past with ten thousand glorious plans, and economies, as yet unrevealed to man. We cannot tell what he doeth, or what he hath done. We are creatures of a day, and know nothing; we are like insects that are born on a leaf, and die amid our fellows at the setting of the sun, but he lives on for ever. We talk of the “eternal hills,” but they are babes that were born yesterday, as far as he is concerned. “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God.” We say, “Roll on, thou ancient ocean!” but the ocean is not ancient; it is a drop that fell yesterday from the tip of the Creator's finger. C. H. Spurgeon, “The Eternal Truth of God,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 21 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1875), 651. Spurgeon: To us, to-day, the coming of Christ to seek and to save the lost is an accomplished fact, a matter of history, most sure and certain. And what a fact it is! You have often thought of it, but have you ever worked your mind into the very heart of it,—that God has actually visited this world in human form,—that he before whom angels bow has actually been here, in fashion like ourselves, feeding the hungry crowds of Palestine, healing their sick, and raising their dead? I know not what may be the peculiar boast of other planets, but this poor star cannot be excelled, for on this world the Creator has stood. This earth has been trodden by the feet of God, and yet it was not crushed beneath the mighty burden, because he deigned to link his Deity with our humanity. The incarnation is a wonder of wonders, but it does not belong to the realm of imagination, or even of expectation, for it has actually been beheld by mortal eyes. C. H. Spurgeon, “Christ the Seeker and Saviour of the Lost,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 58 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1912), 314. SKIP. INCLUDE IN BOOK. There are also triple stars, or systems, and quadruple systems, and there are, in some cases, hundreds or thousands all spinning round one another, and around their central luminaries. Wonderful combinations of glory and beauty may be seen in the stellar sky; and some of these stars are red, some blue, some yellow, all the colours of the rainbow are represented in them. It would be very wonderful to live in one of them, and to look across the sky, and see all the glories of the heavens that God has made. On the whole, however, for the present, I am quite content to abide upon this little planet, especially as I am not able to change it for another home, until God so wills it. C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students: The Art of Illustration; Addresses Delivered to the Students of the Pastors' College, Metropolitan Tabernacle, vol. 3 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1905), 177. CLOSE WITH EXTENDED READING OF LEWIS' ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION: From Christian Reflections: an essay Called, “The Seeing Eye” Some people are troubled, and others are delighted, at the idea of finding not one, but perhaps innumerable rational species scattered about the universe. In both cases the emotion arises from a belief that such discoveries would be fatal to Christian theology. For it will be said that theology connects the Incarnation of God with the Fall and Redemption of man. And this would seem to attribute to our species and to our little planet a central position in cosmic history which is not credible if rationally inhabited planets are to be had by the million. Older readers will, with me, notice the vast change in astronomical speculation which this view involves. When we were boys all astronomers, so far as I know, impressed upon us the antecedent improbabilities of life in any part of the universe whatever. It was not thought unlikely that this earth was the solitary exception to a universal reign of the inorganic. Now Professor Hoyle, and many with him, say that in so vast a universe life must have occurred in times and places without number. The interesting thing is that I have heard both these estimates used as arguments against Christianity. Now it seems to me that we must find out more than we can at present know—which is nothing—about hypothetical rational species before we can say what theological corollaries or difficulties their discovery would raise. We might, for example, find a race which was, like us, rational but, unlike us, innocent—no wars nor any other wickedness among them; all peace and good fellowship. I don't think any Christian would be puzzled to find that they knew no story of an Incarnation or Redemption, and might even find our story hard to understand or accept if we told it to them. There would have been no Redemption in such a world because it would not have needed redeeming. ‘They that are whole need not the physician.' The sheep that has never strayed need not be sought for. We should have much to learn from such people and nothing to teach them. If we were wise, we should fall at their feet. But probably we should be unable to ‘take it'. We'd find some reason for exterminating them. Again, we might find a race which, like ours, contained both good and bad. And we might find that for them, as for us, something had been done: that at some point in their history some great interference for the better, believed by some of them to be supernatural, had been recorded, and that its effects, though often impeded and perverted, were still alive among them. It need not, as far as I can see, have conformed to the pattern of Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection. God may have other ways—how should I be able to imagine them?—of redeeming a lost world. And Redemption in that alien mode might not be easily recognizable by our missionaries, let alone by our atheists. We might meet a species which, like us, needed Redemption but had not been given it. But would this fundamentally be more of a difficulty than any Christian's first meeting with a new tribe of savages? It would be our duty to preach the Gospel to them. For if they are rational, capable both of sin and repentance, they are our brethren, whatever they look like. Would this spreading of the Gospel from earth, through man, imply a pre-eminence for earth and man? Not in any real sense. If a thing is to begin at all, it must begin at some particular time and place; and any time and place raises the question: ‘Why just then and just there?' One can conceive an extraterrestrial development of Christianity so brilliant that earth's place in the story might sink to that of a prologue. Finally, we might find a race which was strictly diabolical—no tiniest spark felt in them from which any goodness could ever be coaxed into the feeblest glow; all of them incurably perverted through and through. What then? We Christians had always been told that there were creatures like that in existence. True, we thought they were all incorporeal spirits. A minor readjustment thus becomes necessary. But all this is in the realm of fantastic speculation. We are trying to cross a bridge, not only before we come to it, but even before we know there is a river that needs bridging. C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper, EPub Edition. (HarperOne, 2014), 174–176. Religion and Rocketry - 1958 RELIGION AND ROCKETRY In my time I have heard two quite different arguments against my religion put forward in the name of science. When I was a youngster, people used to say that the universe was not only not friendly to life but positively hostile to it. Life had appeared on this planet by a millionth chance, as if at one point there had been a breakdown of the elaborate defences generally enforced against it. We should be rash to assume that such a leak had occurred more than once. Probably life was a purely terrestrial abnormality. We were alone in an infinite desert. Which just showed the absurdity of the Christian idea that there was a Creator who was interested in living creatures. But then came Professor F. B. Hoyle, the Cambridge cosmologist, and in a fortnight or so everyone I met seemed to have decided that the universe was probably quite well provided with inhabitable globes and with livestock to inhabit them. Which just showed (equally well) the absurdity of Christianity with its parochial idea that Man could be important to God. This is a warning of what we may expect if we ever do discover animal life (vegetable does not matter) on another planet. Each new discovery, even every new theory, is held at first to have the most wide-reaching theological and philosophical consequences. It is seized by unbelievers as the basis for a new attack on Christianity; it is often, and more embarrassingly, seized by injudicious believers as the basis for a new defence. But usually, when the popular hubbub has subsided and the novelty has been chewed over by real theologians, real scientists, and real philosophers, both sides find themselves pretty much where they were before. So it was with Copernican astronomy, with Darwinism, with Biblical Criticism, with the new psychology. So, I cannot help expecting, it will be with the discovery of ‘life on other planets'—if that discovery is ever made. The supposed threat is clearly directed against the doctrine of the Incarnation, the belief that God born of God ‘for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was . . . made man'. Why for us men more than for others? If we find ourselves to be but one among a million races, scattered through a million spheres, how can we, without absurd arrogance, believe ourselves to have been uniquely favoured? I admit that the question could become formidable. In fact, it will become formidable when, if ever, we know the answer to five other questions. 1. Are there animals anywhere except on earth? We do not know. We do not know whether we ever shall know. 2. Supposing there were, have any of these animals what we call ‘rational souls'? By this I include not merely the faculty to abstract and calculate, but the apprehension of values, the power to mean by ‘good 'something more than ‘good for me' or even ‘good for my species'. If instead of asking, ‘Have they rational souls?' you prefer to ask, ‘Are they spiritual animals?' I think we shall both mean pretty much the same. If the answer to either question should be No, then of course it would not be at all strange that our species should be treated differently from theirs. There would be no sense in offering to a creature, however clever or amiable, a gift which that creature was by its nature incapable either of desiring or of receiving. We teach our sons to read but not our dogs. The dogs prefer bones. And of course, since we do not yet know whether there are extra-terrestrial animals at all, we are a long way from knowing that they are rational (or ‘spiritual'). Even if we met them we might not find it so easy to decide. It seems to me possible to suppose creatures so clever that they could talk, though they were, from the theological point of view, really only animals, capable of pursuing or enjoying only natural ends. One meets humans—the machine-minded and materialistic urban type—who look as if they were just that. As Christians we must believe the appearance to be false; somewhere under that glib surface there lurks, however atrophied, a human soul. But in other worlds there might be things that really are what these seem to be. Conversely, there might be creatures genuinely spiritual, whose powers of manufacture and abstract thought were so humble that we should mistake them for mere animals. God shield them from us! 3. If there are species, and rational species, other than man, are any or all of them, like us, fallen? This is the point non-Christians always seem to forget. They seem to think that the Incarnation implies some particular merit or excellence in humanity. But of course it implies just the reverse: a particular demerit and depravity. No creature that deserved Redemption would need to be redeemed. They that are whole need not the physician.Christ died for men precisely because men are not worth dying for; to make them worth it. Notice what waves of utterly unwarranted hypothesis these critics of Christianity want us to swim through. We are now supposing the fall of hypothetically rational creatures whose mere existence is hypothetical! 4. If all of them (and surely all is a long shot) or any of them have fallen have they been denied Redemption by the Incarnation and Passion of Christ? For of course it is no very new idea that the eternal Son may, for all we know, have been incarnate in other worlds than earth and so saved other races than ours. As Alice Meynell wrote in ‘Christ in the Universe': I wouldn't go as far as ‘doubtless' myself. Perhaps of all races we only fell. Perhaps Man is the only lost sheep; the one, therefore, whom the Shepherd came to seek. Or perhaps—but this brings us to the next wave of assumption. It is the biggest yet and will knock us head over heels, but I am fond of a tumble in the surf. 5. If we knew (which we don't) the answers to 1, 2, and 3—and, further, if we knew that Redemption by an Incarnation and Passion had been denied to creatures in need of it—is it certain that this is the only mode of Redemption that is possible? Here of course we ask for what is not merely unknown but, unless God should reveal it, wholly unknowable. It may be that the further we were permitted to see into His councils, the more clearly we should understand that thus and not otherwise—by the birth at Bethlehem, the cross on Calvary and the empty tomb—a fallen race could be rescued. There may be a necessity for this, insurmountable, rooted in the very nature of God and the very nature of sin. But we don't know. At any rate, I don't know. Spiritual as well as physical conditions might differ widely in different worlds. There might be different sorts and different degrees of fallenness. We must surely believe that the divine charity is as fertile in resource as it is measureless in condescension. To different diseases, or even to different patients sick with the same disease, the great Physician may have applied different remedies; remedies which we should probably not recognise as such even if we ever heard of them. It might turn out that the redemption of other species differed from ours by working through ours. There is a hint of something like this in St Paul (Romans 8:19–23) when he says that the whole creation is longing and waiting to be delivered from some kind of slavery, and that the deliverance will occur only when we, we Christians, fully enter upon our sonship to God and exercise our ‘glorious liberty'. On the conscious level I believe that he was thinking only of our own Earth: of animal, and probably vegetable, life on Earth being ‘renewed' or glorified at the glorification of man in Christ. But it is perhaps possible—it is not necessary—to give his words a cosmic meaning. It may be that Redemption, starting with us, is to work from us and through us. This would no doubt give man a pivotal position. But such a position need not imply any superiority in us or any favouritism in God. The general, deciding where to begin his attack, does not select the prettiest landscape or the most fertile field or the most attractive village. Christ was not born in a stable because a stable is, in itself, the most convenient or distinguished place for a maternity. Only if we had some such function would a contact between us and such unknown races be other than a calamity. If indeed we were unfallen, it would be another matter. It sets one dreaming—to interchange thoughts with beings whose thinking had an organic background wholly different from ours (other senses, other appetites), to be unenviously humbled by intellects possibly superior to our own yet able for that very reason to descend to our level, to descend lovingly ourselves if we met innocent and childlike creatures who could never be as strong or as clever as we, to exchange with the inhabitants of other worlds that especially keen and rich affection which exists between unlikes; it is a glorious dream. But make no mistake. It is a dream. We are fallen. We know what our race does to strangers. Man destroys or enslaves every species he can. Civilised man murders, enslaves, cheats, and corrupts savage man. Even inanimate nature he turns into dust bowls and slag-heaps. There are individuals who don't. But they are not the sort who are likely to be our pioneers in space. Our ambassador to new worlds will be the needy and greedy adventurer or the ruthless technical expert. They will do as their kind has always done. What that will be if they meet things weaker than themselves, the black man and the red man can tell. If they meet things stronger, they will be, very properly, destroyed. It is interesting to wonder how things would go if they met an unfallen race. At first, to be sure, they'd have a grand time jeering at, duping, and exploiting its innocence; but I doubt if our half-animal cunning would long be a match for godlike wisdom, selfless valour, and perfect unanimity. I therefore fear the practical, not the theoretical, problems which will arise if ever we meet rational creatures which are not human. Against them we shall, if we can, commit all the crimes we have already committed against creatures certainly human but differing from us in features and pigmentation; and the starry heavens will become an object to which good men can look up only with feelings of intolerable guilt, agonized pity, and burning shame. Of course after the first debauch of exploitation we shall make some belated attempt to do better. We shall perhaps send missionaries. But can even missionaries be trusted? ‘Gun and gospel' have been horribly combined in the past. The missionary's holy desire to save souls has not always been kept quite distinct from the arrogant desire, the busybody's itch, to (as he calls it) ‘civilise' the (as he calls them) ‘natives'. Would all our missionaries recognise an unfallen race if they met it? Could they? Would they continue to press upon creatures that did not need to be saved that plan of Salvation which God has appointed for Man? Would they denounce as sins mere differences of behaviour which the spiritual and biological history of these strange creatures fully justified and which God Himself had blessed? Would they try to teach those from whom they had better learn? I do not know. What I do know is that here and now, as our only possible practical preparation for such a meeting, you and I should resolve to stand firm against all exploitation and all theological imperialism. It will not be fun. We shall be called traitors to our own species. We shall be hated of almost all men; even of some religious men. And we must not give back one single inch. We shall probably fail, but let us go down fighting for the right side. Our loyalty is due not to our species but to God. Those who are, or can become, His sons, are our real brothers even if they have shells or tusks. It is spiritual, not biological, kinship that counts. But let us thank God that we are still very far from travel to other worlds. I have wondered before now whether the vast astronomical distances may not be God's quarantine precautions. They prevent the spiritual infection of a fallen species from spreading. And of course we are also very far from the supposed theological problem which contact with other rational species might raise. Such species may not exist. There is not at present a shred of empirical evidence that they do. There is nothing but what thelogicians would call arguments from ‘a priori probability'—arguments that begin ‘It is only natural to suppose', or ‘All analogy suggests', or ‘Is it not the height of arrogance to rule out—?' They make very good reading. But who except a born gambler ever risks five dollars on such grounds in ordinary life? And, as we have seen, the mere existence of these creatures would not raise a problem. After that, we still need to know that they are fallen; then, that they have not been, or will not be, redeemed in the mode we know; and then, that no other mode is possible. I think a Christian is sitting pretty if his faith never encounters more formidable difficulties than these conjectural phantoms. If I remember rightly, St Augustine raised a question about the theological position of satyrs, monopods, and other semi-human creatures. He decided it could wait till we knew there were any. So can this. ‘But supposing,' you say. ‘Supposing all these embarrassing suppositions turned out to be true?' I can only record a conviction that they won't; a conviction which has for me become in the course of years irresistible.Christians and their opponents again and again expect that some new discovery will either turn matters of faith into matters of knowledge or else reduce them to patent absurdities. But it has never happened. What we believe always remains intellectually possible; it never becomes intellectually compulsive. I have an idea that when this ceases to be so, the world will be ending. We have been warned that all but conclusive evidence against Christianity, evidence that would deceive (if it were possible) the very elect, will appear with Antichrist. And after that there will be wholly conclusive evidence on the other side. But not, I fancy, till then on either side. SPURGEON: I suppose you are all aware that among the old systems of astronomy was one which placed the earth in the centre, and made the sun, and the moon, and the stars revolve around it. “Its three fundamental principles were the immobility of the earth, its central position, and the daily revolution of all the heavenly bodies around it in circular orbits.” Now, in a similar fashion, there is a way of making a system of theology of which man is the centre, by which it is implied that Christ and his atoning sacrifice are only made for man's sake, and that the Holy Spirit is merely a great Worker on man's behalf, and that even the great and glorious Father is to be viewed simply as existing for the sake of making man happy. Well, that may be the system of theology adopted by some; but, brethren, we must not fall into that error, for, just as the earth is not the centre of the universe, so man is not the grandest of all beings. God has been pleased highly to exalt man; but we must remember how the psalmist speaks of him: “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him; and the son of man, that thou visitest him?” In another place, David says, “Lord, what is man, that thou takest knowledge of him! or the son of man, that thou makest account of him! Man is like to vanity: his days are as a shadow that passeth away.” Man cannot be the centre of the theological universe, he is altogether too insignificant a being to occupy such a position, and the scheme of redemption must exist for some other end than that of merely making man happy, or even of making him holy. The salvation of man must surely be first of all for the glory of God; and you have discovered the right form of Christian doctrine when you have found the system that has God in the centre, ruling and controlling according to the good pleasure of his will. Do not dwarf man so as to make it appear that God has no care for him; for if you do that, you slander God. Give to man the position that God has assigned to him; by doing so, you will have a system of theology in which all the truths of revelation and experience will move in glorious order and harmony around the great central orb, the Divine Sovereign Ruler of the universe, God over all, blessed for ever. C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students: The Art of Illustration; Addresses Delivered to the Students of the Pastors' College, Metropolitan Tabernacle, vol. 3 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1905), 149.

united states god america jesus christ american amazon death lord father earth bible spirit man lost college fall gospel passion religion christians holy spirit christianity creator spiritual government moon guns universe resurrection scripture angels salvation students bbc white house espn aliens praise ephesians jews redemption ufos clear animals alien navy washington post psalms ps monsters demons colossians new mexico scriptures cambridge supernatural air force pacific thessalonians skip reports palestine physicians paranormal bethlehem baptist older pentagon pastors his word newton hilarious worker antichrist incarnation accounts vatican intelligent pluto saviour calvary x files heavens vanderbilt roswell god himself illustration conversely vast narnia close encounters seeker united states air force cs lewis grudge scriptural deity billy graham moon landing lectures slick vanished rulers rainer talmud omnibus kepler st augustine spurgeon aslan god genesis got questions darwinism calvary chapel obligated project blue book penicillin weintraub betz elizondo ken jennings blue book hoyle william lane craig seeing eye just be harmonics harperone alexander fleming hynek antipodes we christians luis elizondo allen hynek aatip ryen russillo tim mackie copernican rocketry eternal truth john roderick astonishing legends biblical criticism bible christians betz sphere jeff zweerink lactantius david weintraub sysk christian reflections scott philbrook forrest burgess walter hooper craig yeah christian many biblemysteries

Episode #4 Aliens and the Bible