Alienation

   I like music.  I have seen some incredible concerts in the past 45 years.  My mom says that I liked music when I was young.  Early on in elementary school, I went to my first concert with my family, which was my mom's all time favorite artist, John Denver.  I would see him seven more times in my life.  Yet most of the concerts I have seen were "rock" groups, and I have seen many great rock performers in concert.  Two that I never got to see that I would still like to see are Paul McCartney and Boston.  As a Christian, I have seen many great Christian concerts.  I am especially a Rebecca St. James fan.  Yet I still enjoy "classic rock," though I'm careful about my song selection.  I try not listen to songs that are raunchy, confusing, or vindictive.
   I like a variety of music, yet in some ways, the music I like is a part of my personal expression.  When I was in high school, I was spiritually struggling.  And I look back and realize there were problems in my family that would eventually lead to my parents getting a divorce.  As opposed to music that I liked when I was younger which was more cheery and fun, like the Cars and Paul McCartney, I started really getting into Pink Floyd music.  In retrospect, I think my feelings of alienation, due to spiritual struggles, along with being in a family that was coming apart, resonated with the alientation that Pink Floyd expressed.  After years of listening to their music, I got the opportunity to see Pink Floyd in concert,  minus Rogers Waters, in early summer after my junior year at Virginia Tech, in June of 1988.  I was excited.  I thought David Gilmour was a great guitarist, and I was seeing one of "my" bands.
   The concert was at RFK in Washington, D.C., and as was the case for the majority of concerts I attended, I went alone.  I was sitting in the second tier, but I was over on a far side, so I was not a mile from the stage, and there were few people around me.  I really got into the show, and the performance was top notch.  Now normally when I went to D.C., I took the subway, but for that evening I had asked my mom to take her car for some reason.  I was unfamilier with that part of town, and upon leaving the parking lot of R.F.K., I was on a road which I did not recognize at all.  Yet I have a good sense for direction, and I figure I would detect where I was soon, and get on a road in the correct direction.  A local rock radio station was playing an old Pink Floyd album due to the hometown concert, and so I had that music on as I headed for home.  Driving to the instrumental music, which was kind of eeire, I ended up getting so lost that I was driving down in an area of town where I was totally turned around, and the weirdest part was that all of the stoplights were blinking yellow as the eeire Pink Floyd music whined.  I was lost.
   I use this as a metaphor for the fact that at that time, I was spiritually lost as well.  I was not living by the love of a loving God, rather I was doing what seemed sensible, but it was not bringing love.  I was not getting healing in the wake of my parent's separation after 21 years of marriage.  I was hurting deep down in my heart.  I needed love, even if I did not fully realize it.
    I will tell you, I enjoy music, and even more, I enjoy singing.  Yet sooth or excite as it does, music never brought me love.  God gives true love.  You may not go to oodles of concerts alone like I did.  You may not share hurts with the lyricists in rock bands like I did.  Yet if you are void of the love of God, my heart yearns to say that if you believe in Jesus, you will be forgiven of your wrongdoings, and the Love of God will come into your heart.  It may not be as noticeable as the rush from hearing your favorite song.  Yet your heart will begin to know it.  Jesus came to save those who are lost, and I am grateful that He saved me.
God is love.
Hunter

John 11: 17-27

Sermon by Hunter Irvine on June 17, 2012

at Wheat Ridge United Methodist Church.

JOHN 11:17-27

   There was a family of two sisters and one brother. The sisters were Martha and Mary, and their brother was Lazarus. All three had a friendship with Jesus. Yet Lazarus has died, and Martha goes to greet Jesus as He is traveling into the town of Bethany. I jump to the verse where Jesus states: “Your brother will rise again.” Martha responds, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” What is Martha talking about? Daniel 12:2 speaks of resurrection. Martha believed the prophet Daniel, and believed that resurrection would take place.

   Why then was there such a huge debate during that time regarding resurrection between the religious leaders who were Pharisees, and the religious leaders who were Sadducees? The Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection, yet Sadducees did not. The point of theological debate may have come from Ezekiel! In Ezekiel 37, there is the passage that is now termed “the valley of dry bones.”

   The background of Ezekiel 37 in a one phrase synopsis is that because the Israelites, the Jewish people, had disobeyed God, a disaster was underway which would result in Jerusalem being destroyed, and which would result in many of the Jewish people ending up as captives in Babylon. In my opinion, the odds were zero that the Jewish people would ever see Jerusalem again.

   The prophet Ezekiel was taken captive in the second wave of exiles in 597 B.C., only 11 years before the fall of Jerusalem. God told him how Israel was going to fall to Babylon. Yet then in Ezekiel 37, there is a vision of a valley of bones.

   The prophet Ezekiel was given a vision which started with a valley where bones were lying all over the place. God tells Ezekiel to instruct the bones to come to life. Ezekiel does so, and sure enough, these bones start rattling, then they take on flesh, and the next thing you know, there is a huge group of alive human beings.

   Then God explains the purpose of this vision! God gave Ezekiel this vision as a metaphor to tell the Israelites that as a nation, even though they are dead, that He will resurrect them and bring them home in the future to Jerusalem. This vision was a prophecy of the miracle of God bringing the Israelites home from captivity in Babylon in the year 536 B.C.

   Regarding the Pharisees, I think they recognized that this vision was a metaphor, but they added on to it, making it a double entendre, which is a bad Biblical interpretation practice, which some scholars even steadily employ today. A double entendre is different than the hermeneutics of what is called “types,” yet that is another sermon. The key here is that the Pharisees went so far as to say that a key need for resurrection was the bones of a person.

   On the flip side, the Sadducees probably reacted against the interpretation of the Pharisees, and simply started saying that there was no bodily resurrection. Thus the division.

   Going back to the Pharisees, the result of their theological belief was the development of “secondary burial.” For a period before 20 B.C., the flesh was burned off of dead bodies, and then they would store the bones. After 20 B.C., dead bodies were put in tombs which often were carved out of the limestone cliffs. A stone would be rolled over the entrance so that wild animals would not get in there. After about one year, someone would go back in the tomb, and the flesh would be rotted off of the bones. The bones would be retrieved and put into bone boxes, or caverns.

   “Bone boxes,” which are technically called ossuaries, are limestone containers which are about 2 feet by 1& ½ feet, and there are bones in them, often of several family members. Archaeologists have been digging up bone boxes for over half a century! They have thousands of these boxes.

Usually these bone boxes were only for the wealthy. For the lower classes, bones might be thrown all together into big rooms in a cavern. And for criminals, their bones were usually not given a proper burial.

   The focus in secondary burial was the bones.

   The bones were ready for resurrection.

   After all of this focus on bones, Jesus totally changes the focus! Resurrection for Him had nothing to do with bones, rather it had to do with Him. Jesus states that if a person believes in Him, then he or she will have eternal life. This is the big idea of the passage. Jesus is the One who makes resurrection possible.

   And for us, there is a personal message. That message is that you need to believe in Jesus to have resurrection, and in order to have eternal life!

Martha believed!

   Martha, the same Martha who once had been in the kitchen cooking rather than listening at the feet of Jesus like her sister, has since decided to listen to Jesus. And now Martha is able to identify Jesus as the Messiah.

   How did she know a Messiah was coming? There are numerous Messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures, yet a big one comes from Daniel, where even the exact time period that the Anointed One would come is foretold. Christ is the Greek word, whereas Messiah is the Hebrew word used. Both mean Anointed One.

   Another prophecy of the Messiah concerns what Ezekiel stated, which is that the Messiah would be a Shepherd! In Ezekiel 34, it is revealed how God Himself would be the Shepherd of Israel. And in John 10, Jesus identifies Himself as the Good Shepherd. Jesus is the Good Shepherd!

I did not grow up in a Christian family. I only went to church a handful of times in my youth. However, I was extremely active in Boy Scouts, thus on most Monday nights I was at the Annandale United Methodist Church in Annandale, Virginia. Our Boy Scout troop went camping every month, except for August and December. Early one Saturday morning, I was in the church gathering equipment for our weekend campout. For some reason, I was having an intense feeling of apprehension! Most of the other Scouts were getting equipment out from our storage closet upstairs. However, I had to go to a closet downstairs by the fellowship hall to get so utensils. As I walked through the fellowship hall, I stopped and looked at the stain glass window. The window was a picture of Jesus with a lamb in His arms. The apprehension left, and I had a complete peace.

I would learn years later that the Good Shepherd not only offers peace, yet He also offers the forgiveness of sins.

   Isaiah 53:6 states, “We all like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (NIV).

That “Him” is Jesus. Jesus died on a cross for the forgiveness of sins of anyone. He was the substitute for the wages of sin, which is death.

If you believe in the Good Shepherd, your sins will be forgiven, and you will have eternal life with God.

   I am not going to call anyone up to the front here, rather I am inviting anyone to an altar call right where you are sitting. If you have never believed in Jesus before, you can do so right now right where you are sitting. To know resurrection and eternal life, you need to believe in Jesus!

Holy Kiss Quotes - my research gem

  I am super grateful to God for the quotes on this blog, which are the result of serious research!
   One of my big papers at Colorado Christian University was on the subject of the "holy kiss."  One of my points was that when churches engage in a time of "greeting" or "the Peace" during worship, they are carrying out a practice of early Christians who gave the "holy kiss" during worship gatherings there in a culture where kissing on checks was the cultural norm.  I also gave the reason why it would not be appropriate to do the holy kiss now, but that having a greeting time in church is appropriate.  I acknowledge some people think a greeting distracts from the focus on God, and I respect their opinion.  (In my opinion announcements distract from worship and I have disliked them for 24 years of being a Christian.)  Following are direct quotes which support the history of the "holy kiss."  Hunter Irvine

* Justin Martyr:   "Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss." (1)

* Athenagoras:    "If any one kiss a second time because it has given him pleasure, [he sins];..." (2)

* Clement of Alexandria:    "The apostle calls the kiss holy." (3)

* Tertullian:    "What prayer is complete if divorced from the 'holy kiss?'" (4)

* Cyprian:    "We look with glad countenances upon confessors illustrious with the heraldry of a good name, and glorious with the praises of virtue and faith; clinging to them with holy kisses..." (5)

* Athanasius:    "Salute one another with a holy kiss.  All the brothers and sisters who are with me salute you." (6)

* Cyril of Jerusalem:    "Then the Deacon cries aloud, 'Receive ye one another; and let us kiss one another.'  Think not that this kiss is of the same character with those given in public by common friends.  It is not such: but this kiss blends souls one with another, and courts entire forgiveness for them.  The kiss therefore is the sign that our souls are mingled together, and banish all rememberance of wrongs." (7)

* John Chrysostom:    "Having then knit them together by his exhortation, he naturally bids them use the holy kiss also as a means of union : for this unites, and produces one body.  This is holy, when free from deceit and hypocrisy." (8)

* John Wesley:    "The faithful afterwards spend a quarter of an hour in prayer, and conclude with the kiss of peace." (9) {He is talking about folks at Hernhut!}


(1) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (1867; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 1:185.

(2) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (1867; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 2:146.

(3) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (1867; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 2:291.

(4) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (1867; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 3:686.

(5) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (1867; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 5:437.

(6) Jack Sparks, ed., The Resurrection Letters; St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria from A.D. 328-373 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979), 56.

(7) Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church; Second Series (1893; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955), 7:153.

(8) Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church; First Series (1889; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956), 12:265.

(9) John Wesley, The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, A.M. (London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1872), 1:142.

Unlimited Atonement - John Wesley

   Enclosed is a brief excerpt from a paper I wrote at Colorado Christian University concerning John Wesley's doctrine of atonement.  His doctrine went against the standard doctrine of the time in the denomination of which he served as a minister, the Church of England, which is captured in Article 17 of the Church of England's Articles of Religion, popularly termed the Thirty-nine Articles, which can be found in the back of any The Book of Common Prayer.

   "A professor of theology at Emory University in the 1960’s, William Ragsdale Cannon, made the following statement regarding John Wesley’s theology involving the work of Christ on the cross: '…the work of Christ, which is the sole cause of redemption, is interpreted in a universal sense, so that Christ is said to have lived and died for every [person] whether a [person] accepts the gift of his atonement or not. The effects of Christ’s work for the individual are conditional, however, being dependent on [a person’s] willingness to receive them'" (8).

(8) William Ragsdale Cannon, The Theology of John Wesley (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1946), 250.

{From The Roots of Wheat Ridge United Methodist Church, by Hunter Irvine, a paper submitted on 4/13/12 to Dr. Aaron Smith for Theology 302: Evangelical Theology, at Colorado Christian University.}

Happy Easter

A dear friend asked me today, "How do you know there is a God?"

My answer: "Faith in Jesus.  He revealed Himself in the flesh.  Jesus gives me joy and peace in my heart, both attributes of love, which I did not have before I gave my heart to Him."

He is risen.

May your Easter be blessed.

love, Hunter

Four quotes from four people of faith

   In my Evangelical Theology class at CCU with the dedicated and special professor Dr. Aaron Smith, we discussed four proposed points of evangelicalism given by Dr. David Bebbington of the University of Stirling in Scotland.  His attributes of evangelicalism is called the Bebbington quadrilateral, and is based on his thesis in his book, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s. 
   The four points are: biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism, and activism.

   Here I give a quote from disciples of Jesus concerning each point.

The Bible:    "'Father, I am going to accept this as Thy Word--by faith!  I'm going to allow faith to go beyond my intellectual questions and doubts, and I will believe this to be Your inspired Word.'  When I got up from my knees at Forest Home that August night, my eyes stung with tears."

Billy Graham

Billy Graham, Just As I Am: The Autobiography of Billy Graham (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), 139.

The Cross:   "...Christ died as our substitute -- instead of us -- so that we might not have to die for our sins..."

Dr. John R.W. Stott
John Stott, Evangelical Truth: A Personal Plea for Unity, Integrity, and Faithfulness (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 81.

Conversion:   "When Christ cried out on Calvary, 'It is finished!' He meant what He said.  Now all [people] have to do is just accept the work of Jesus Christ."
"In John 3:14-15 we read, 'As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.'"

Dwight Moody

D.L. Moody, The Way to God (Pittsburgh: Whitaker House, 1983), 31 & 35.

Activism:    "At four in the afternoon I submitted to be more vile, and proclaimed in the highways the glad tidings of salvation, speaking from a little eminence in a ground adjoining to the city, to about three thousand people." (Quote by John Wesley)
"The speaker was John Wesley (1703-91). In order to preach the gospel to the poor, he was willing to break the religious conventions..." (Statement by Mark Noll).
Mark A. Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1997), 223.

Jesus Wept - support of unlimited atonement

   One of my dear friends in this world is a woman who is like a sister, even though she is not physically my sister.  We were having lunch together sometime in 2001 or such, and the conversation went to a book she was reading by R.C. Sproul, a minister, author, and scholar.  R.C. Sproul advocates what is popularly called the "Calvinist" position which involves a doctrine which advocates God being in complete control of the eternal destiny of people, since that is a role of being "sovereign."  So concerning soteriology, he teaches "double predestination," which claims that God determined, even before creating the heavens and the earth, the eternal fate of each individual human being.  Thus He elected some people to be saved and have the destiny of heaven, whereas He elected some people to not be saved and have the destiny of h-ll.  I completely disagree with this doctrine.

   When it comes to soteriology, I do not fit strictly in the Calvinist or Arminian camp.  I agree with the Calvinist points of penal substitution and eternal security!  And I agree with the Arminian point that salvation is available for everyone, and that people have free will in accepting or rejecting Christ!  {My 5/28/13 blog entry on I Peter 3:18-22 examines this.}

   So there at lunch with my dear friend, I quickly brought the conversation to the topic of predestination.  I was adamant in my unique argument that the Biblical context for predestination concerns sanctification, not justification, and that people have "free will," namely they have the option of choosing the mercy and grace offered by Christ.  Likewise people have the option to also dismiss that gift.

   Indeed people are marred and on a path to spiritual death due to "original sin," yet even though God had Adam and Eve depart from the Garden of Eden, which caused a separation between God and people, God has not abandoned people, rather He keeps reaching out to all people, offering the Gospel.  And people, created in the image of God, though sinners, are still capable of receiving or rejecting Him.

   I was real focused and intense in the conversation on the subject with my dear sister-in-Christ.  A brilliant woman with a law degree from UVA, we debated, in a loving manner.  After we concluded that topic, I noticed that all of the people who were sitting in the close quarters of the booths and tables around us in the restaurant had cleared out.  No one was near us!  They probably were not expecting such a theological discussion within earshot during their lunch hour that day, and they headed back to the office early.  There were probably some surprised bosses that day in Broomfield.

   Yet it was not until I started studying at Colorado Christian University that I learned how much strife there has been in Christian history between "Calvinists," "Arminians," and thirdly, folks like me who do not fit completely into either of those theological camps.

   (I add I recall reading a commentary by a very popular 20th century Bible teacher who said that both Calvinists and Arminians were correct.  Regarding this fourth position, I can hear Leonard Nimoy say: "That is illogical, Captain.")

   The primary battle ground of this controversy is Christian universities and seminaries, and I have been told by more than one person that there are Christian colleges where some professors prohibit dialog on this subject.  Instead, a student must simply go with the conviction of the professor.  That is not the case at CCU where I am a student, since all students are allowed to professionally state their convictions, though some professors give more such opportunities than others.  (And I add this statement at a later time: At CCU there was more of a "TULIP Calvinist" influence for a number of years after a new president presided at the university.)

   And all churches with their various positions on atonement impact the members of their specific congregations.

   May we allow Jesus to speak to us on this critical subject.  Considering R.C. Sproul's doctrinal basis for "double predestination," which is God's sovereignty, we can better understand that reality by viewing the action of Jesus which has rung out for the past two thousand years: "Jesus wept" (John 11:35 NIV).  That is the ultimate illustration of the fact that God chose to sacrifice some sovereignty.

   A scholarly book, which was a textbook for my "Evangelical Theology" class at CCU, which presents both sides of various debates, states concerning the "Calvinist" view: "The absolute sovereignty of God is implied in the very concept of God.  If anything can thwart God's will, then that thing is more powerful than God" (1).  However, God chose to sacrifice within His sovereignty.  Yet He is still all powerful, because such a sacrifice was His will!  Also, the sacrifice did not change His nature.

   This sacrifice is shown by the fact that Jesus cried after His friend Lazarus had died.  Jesus had the power to keep His friend from dying.  And we find out as we continue on with the story that Jesus had the power to resurrect His friend.  Yet Jesus allowed Lazarus to die, not because He wanted to show off His resurrecting power, which is what many people think He was doing.  Rather Jesus sacrificed sovereignty so we can continue to know that even when terrible things happen in this world, even when people die, there is hope from Jesus, who is Sovereign in His kingdom.  Jesus had complete sovereignty in the universe when He created it!  Yet He has allowed others to have power in this world.  Jesus even said, "...My kingdom is not of this world..." (John 18:36 NIV).  Yet I add that we know from Revelation that one day Jesus is going to return to earth and regain His complete sovereignty!!

   If Jesus had never relinquished any control, He would never need to cry!  In fact, how many psychologists would diagnose Jesus, who was fully human and also fully God, as having a psychological problem if He was completely in control of every detail in the universe, and yet He cried over the death of a friend.

   John Calvin, who was correct regarding the penal substitution nature of the atonement, was tragically wrong as he limited that atonement.  His conviction that Jesus' atonement was limited goes against the clear teaching of Scripture, teachings such as: "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God..." (I Peter 3:18 NIV).  Calvin's tragic doctrine of limited atonement falsifies the fact that Jesus loves everyone, and that He died on a cross to offer salvation to anyone.

   Now a person must still receive the gift, and the manner is by faith in Jesus.  The Reformation principle of salvation being "by grace through faith alone" is correct.  Yet there has never been a human being who was deprived by God of the opportunity to be saved, because Jesus loves everyone.  "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9 NIV).  He leaves the decision to us; that is His ultimate will.

   So I will conclude this piece by applying my convictions.  Please know, whoever you happen to be, that Jesus died for you, the substitution atonement for any wrongs you have ever done, the results of which would have been spiritual death, because Jesus loves you!

Hunter

(1) Gregory Boyd & Paul Eddy, Across the Spectrum: 

Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 38.