Sunesis | ��ԭ�� Baptist Seminary

500th Anniversary of the Reformation – Sola Fide (Part 2)

��ԭ�� — Sun, 05 Nov 2017 09:05:15 +0000

Luther was right to reject the Roman Catholic concept of justification. Catholicism makes no significant difference between justification and sanctification – they are a process which begins at baptism and continues through a person’s life (and even afterward through purgatory and continued sacrifices for a person’s sanctification). For the Catholic justification refers to the free forgiveness of sins and the re-creation of the sinner through the infusion of justifying grace, which can also be called sanctifying grace. This process begins with the sacrament of baptism, which forgives original sin. Luther rejected the belief that justification is a process; instead he argued that it is a one-time action.

The Roman Catholics held the Council of Trent in reaction to the Reformation. Justification was addressed: “If anyone says that the godless are justified by faith alone . . . let him be anathema” (Trent, VI, canon 9). And, “For faith, unless hope and charity are added thereto, neither unites one perfectly with Christ nor makes one a living member of his body” (Trent, VI, ch. 7). Catholics were (and are) not opposed to justification by faith, but they were opposed to justification by faith alone.

In Luther’s commentary on Galatians, he stated, “This one and firm rock, which we call the doctrine of justification, that is, that we are delivered from sin, death, and devil, not through ourselves (nor certainly through our works which are of lesser value than we ourselves), but through outside help, through the Only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ.” In the introduction to Romans in Luther’s German Bible, he states, “[F]aith is God’s work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever.”

This Baptist, however, has a problem with Luther’s view of faith and justification. If Luther had rejected infant baptism, as the Anabaptists of his day did and as we Baptists do today, his view of justification by faith would have been more acceptable. While he rejected the Catholic view of justification, he never rejected the practice and doctrinal implications of infant baptism and thus infant justification. Therefore, he had to argue that infants could and did have faith. He could do this for he viewed faith as a gift from God completely divorced from any activity of the individual, and thus bestowed by God upon the child at baptism. This position demands then that faith is entirely from God and requires nothing from man. So while this writer accepts the concept of sola fide, he rejects the belief that faith is imposed upon man by God with no expectation on the part of man to exercise faith. There is an intellectual and volitional aspect of faith which requires that a person understand the basics of the Gospel and that he willfully chooses to place his trust in Christ as his Savior.

500th Anniversary of the Reformation – Sola Fide

��ԭ�� — Fri, 27 Oct 2017 15:32:36 +0000

Throughout much of the world, people are celebrating the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation. It was 500 years ago on October 31 that Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses on door of the church in Wittenberg (please understand that this was a normal place to post announcements; this was not a disrespectful act). It is important for us, as Baptists, to recognize the role that Luther played in history without bowing to “Reformation Theology.” We can respect the Reformers without revering them.
Over the next few weeks I will examine those areas of the Reformation in which we Baptists can agree, and I will examine those areas of the Reformation in which we Baptists disagree. The Reformation is frequently identified by its 5 “Solas” – Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria. In this post we will look at Sola Fide.
Luther was born into a fairly wealthy family. At the age of 13 he began to attend a school that was operated by the Brethren of the Common Life in Madgeburg, Germany. This Catholic group began in the Netherlands and emphasized the inner life and meditation. One of their goals was to educate Christians and promote the reading of devout literature. While in school Luther became interested in the monastic movement.
Luther did not abandon his studies, however. In 1512, he received his doctorate and became a professor of biblical studies. It was his theological studies that eventually led him to seek changes in the Roman Catholic Church.
While the 95 Theses focus on the problem of indulgences (buying forgiveness for sins), the underlying assumptions are more critical to the Reformation. Luther was not the first to question the Catholic Church. Many before Luther had rejected some teachings of Catholicism and others rejected the Church completely, but they were in the minority and their voices were often unheard.
Although the German authorities had outlawed the selling of indulgences in Germany, the Roman Church continued the practice. In 1517 a friar named Johann Tetzel began to sell indulgences in Germany; that action is what led to the 95 Theses. By this time, Luther was basically committed to the idea that salvation could be obtained through the faith of the individual and by the grace of God. Therefore, he wrote what he called the “Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences,” but what became better known as the “95 Theses.” This was not a direct challenge to Catholicism, and it did not address most of Catholic theology. It was an invitation to discuss and debate Luther’s contention that salvation was by faith, that works could not result in salvation, and that the selling of indulgences was contrary to Scripture. We realize, however, that this emphasis on salvation by faith was an attack on the foundation of Catholic soteriology.
In 1518, Luther debated Cardinal Thomas Cajetan for three days. It took a while but on January 3, 1521, Pope Leo excommunicated Martin Luther from the Catholic Church.
Luther had no desire to leave the Catholic Church, and the term “Reformation” reflects that. Luther’s goal was to reform the Catholic Church. Had the leadership of Catholicism been a little less arrogant and more agreeable to some measure of compromise, Luther may well have remained a faithful Catholic. That was not to be, and the first of the Reformation “Sola’s” was established – Sola Fide, Faith Alone. Good Baptists agree with Luther and other reformers that salvation comes by faith, not by works.

Dr. Charles Ryrie – 1925-2016

��ԭ�� — Sun, 21 Feb 2016 21:59:11 +0000

Dr. Charles Ryrie was promoted to Glory last week. His influence on evangelicalism and fundamentalism was highly significant. He did not claim to be a fundamentalist, but his position on dispensationalism was the common one for most of the fundamentalist movement during that last half of the twentieth century and had an impact on the evangelical movement, as well.

A well-written eulogy can be found at . We will not repeat what was written there. We will, however, note one item that was not mentioned. Near the end of the article, written by the editor-in-chief of the Dallas Theological Seminary DTS Magazine, is a short list of his more significant books – his study Bible, The Miracles of our Lord, So Great Salvation, and Balancing the Christian Life. What is significantly missing is Ryrie’s Dispensationalism Today, now in its third edition and renamed Dispensationalism: Revised and Expanded.

While the writings mentioned in the eulogy are important, Dispensationalism Today continued the emphasis in conservative Christianity on a means of interpreting the Bible that maintains a consistently literal interpretation. Made popular by Scofield’s Reference Bible, dispensationalism was the hermeneutical method espoused by the majority of early fundamentalism. Ryrie expanded on the early dispensationalism of Scofield, Walvoord, Chafer and others and established an “essentialist” approach to systematizing dispensational thought. While Ryrie was a student and then professor at Dallas, the seminary held to a traditional view of dispensationalism.

That Dallas would ignore this key work says much about how Dallas has shifted in the past twenty years. Ryrie retired as Dean of Doctoral Studies in 1983 and a decade later, two Dallas professors, Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising began to promote the new progressive dispensationalism with a hermeneutic that sees more continuity between Israel and the church. This new position is closer to covenant theology than Ryrie or more traditional dispensationalists are willing to accept.

Charles Ryrie is home. His work in dispensational interpretation lives on.

Supreme Court Judgment – The Family

��ԭ�� — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 21:57:27 +0000

The Supreme Court has declared that gay marriage is now the law of the land. As a sign of postmodern politics, this new law was not voted upon by the people (in fact, where the people had a choice, they overwhelmingly rejected the legality of gay marriage), nor was it enacted by the peoples’ representatives in Congress.

While there has been discussion of protecting the church’s religious beliefs, there has been little discussion of the protection of the individual’s rights or of the family’s rights. Families are going to have to navigate some interesting territory in the coming years. Let me give you some suggestions.

First, the family was God’s first institution, created before the fall of Adam. It is not a Western invention or a concept invented by the Jews or the early church. The family is as old as humanity. This gives us confidence that we are on the right side of history!

Second, because we live in a culture that argues that anything someone thinks is true must be accepted as true, parents need to teach their children the reality of absolutes. I am not necessarily restricting us to Biblical absolutes here. God, who is absolute, created a universe that has absolute laws that cannot be violated. No matter what someone’s philosophy or belief states, there are some things that just are not going to change. Step off your home’s roof without a ladder, and you will fall. No matter how fervently a child believes in the truth of his Superman cape, he will fall. Stop eating and your body will begin to shut down. You can declare yourself to be a fish and hold fervently to that belief, but you can still stay under water for only so long. Our children need to learn that God has created a universe filled with absolute truth to demonstrate that He is an absolute God. Therefore, when He makes a declaration in Scripture (functioning then as the Lawgiver for the universe), we have only two choices – believe and obey or disbelieve and disobey. Now, I understand that in some places in Scripture there are hermeneutical issues at stake, but God’s definition of marriage, given early in Genesis and repeated throughout Scripture, is clearly the union of one man and one woman. Any sexual activity (or even the desire for sexual activity) outside of this definition is deemed by God as sin. This definition is absolute. Since God is the absolute Lawgiver, we have no right to rewrite God’s commands or expectations.

Third, I would encourage parents who are sending their children to public schools to consider a Christian school or a home school. The gay movement won the legal battle, but they understand that they have not won the hearts and minds of America. If they had, the state and federal legislators would have passed laws making gay marriage legal. They chose instead to force gay marriage upon the nation. That means, then, that they are not done with their agenda. To gain full acceptance in society, the gay marriage must be shown to be a normal part of human life. Gay marriage will become a part of the curriculum of every secular school in the country. Story books in the elementary grades will have to show two fathers or two mothers (or, to be politically correct, I guess, two parents) doing family activities. History books will have to promote the homosexuals (and we will probably find that at least some historians will castigate the straight “heroes” of the past as they do now with the “white” heroes or “Christian” heroes of the past). Students will be taught safe gay sex alongside safe straight sex in the public schools. Gay marriage will be required to be demonstrated as a normal part of American life.

Fourth, we need to teach our children to stand up for their beliefs. When the Supreme Court declared that abortion was legal, the abortionists thought they had won the battle. Now, however, decades later, the abortion battle is still being waged. The marriage battle, I suggest, is only beginning. Because something is legal does not mean it is moral, and Christians are more interested in the moral than the legal. Political liberals want nothing more than to marginalize Christianity and restrict our freedom of religion to the four walls of our homes and churches, and Christian families should do everything possible to disappoint them!

Finally, Christian families, real Bible-believing families, need to be part of a true Bible-believing church. Numerous evangelical churches are going to bow to the gay community (see, for instance, or ). The fellowship, encouragement, support, and assistance provided to the family in a good church can be invaluable in standing for the truth, for properly understanding the teaching of Scripture, and in raising our children to be lights in a darkening nation.

When England was at one of its lowest spiritual points, God use two brothers to change the nation. John and Charles Wesley were raised by parents who sought to teach their children truth. I do not agree with all of the Wesley’s theology, but these men and others were used by God to bring a revival that changed England for decades. May God give us godly families to stand for truth. We do this, however, not by attacking individuals with whom we disagree, but by being gracious and compassionate toward them. When the Bible says that God loves the world, it does not mean that God loves the straight world (or any other segment of the world). Christ’s death on the cross and God’s gracious offer of salvation are universal. Jesus came into this world to save sinners. When a prostitute came to Jesus, He did not condemn her; He saved her. If we are to follow the example of Christ, then our families, including our children, must love the lost and be gracious and kind to them, but at the same time share the truth of God’s judgment on those who reject His truth and of God’s free gift for the sinner.

Supreme Court Judgment – The Church

��ԭ�� — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:26:14 +0000

The Supreme Court has declared that gay marriage is now the law of the land. As a sign of postmodern politics, this new law of the land was not voted upon by the people (in fact, where the people had a choice, they overwhelmingly rejected the legality of gay marriage), nor was it enacted by the peoples’ representatives in Congress. It was simply a power play – and the church needs to remember this. While there is discussion of protecting the church’s religious beliefs, this Supreme Court has demonstrated that it does not care what the Constitution says, it does not concern itself about precedent (how long ago was it that when this Court ruled on the Defense of Marriage Act, it declared that the definition of marriage should be reserved for the States?), and it does not care what the people as a whole think.

So what should a church do? First, we need to remind ourselves that the local church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Had the churches of America upheld the truth of Scripture as they should have, perhaps we would not find ourselves in our current situation. One problem, of course, is that there are “evangelical” churches that have reinterpreted Scripture to argue in favor of gay marriage. We were not surprised to hear that liberals would embrace gay marriage, but it is disappointing to see how many supposed evangelicals have been willing to accept this new definition of marriage.

Second, the church needs to honor government. Baptists have always accepted the validity of human government (Rom 13:1). God’s covenant with Noah (Gen 8:20-9:19) gave to mankind the right and responsibility to govern. Romans 13:1-7 gives several reasons for human government. One is to maintain good in society (v 3-4). Pagan states have the human conscience (Rom 2:14-15) and God’s revelation in nature (Rom 1:18-20) as a foundation for their laws. Nations that have a Judeo-Christian background have historically based their laws on this tradition. In Paul’s discussion of law in Romans 1 and 2, he concluded that those without the Scriptures and those with the Word have similar laws. Because all men are created in the image of God and have a common conscience, basic laws around the world tend to be very much alike. Another reason for human government is to punish offenders (Rom 13:4). When the state restrains evil and rewards good, it is the “minister” or “servant” of God. Paul does not address this, but logically it follows that when the state restrains good and rewards evil, it ceases to be a “minister” of God. A final purpose is to promote the general welfare of the population and praise those who do good. In 1 Tim 2:1-4, Paul commanded Christians to pray for civil rulers. It is notable that the Emperor of Rome at this time was Nero, the man who would eventually order Paul’s execution. What we find today, however, is that the State has rejected God. The current administration has made it abundantly clear that religious liberty is to be restricted to quiet whispers to one another inside the walls of our respective churches – religious liberty for them does not allow religion in the marketplace.

Third, Bible believing churches must take the truth to the marketplace. At this point, we must take an Acts 5:29 position – “We must obey God rather than man.”We have been too quiet and have thus played into the hands of the liberal politicians who seek to silence the church. Political liberals want nothing more than to marginalize Christianity (making us more like England or France, their “exemplary” nations), and we should do everything possible to disappoint them!

Fourth, there are some practical and “political” steps a church should take. Each church should include a definition of marriage somewhere in its official documents – either its constitution or its statement of faith. This does not have to be elaborate. Something as simple as, “Marriage is defined in Scripture as the formal union of one man and one woman (Gen 2:24; Eph 5:31) and a covenant between a man and a woman before God (Mal. 2:14). As such, a wedding ceremony is an act of worship (Prov. 18:22; 19:14; Eph 5:22-33). Weddings in our church are a type of worship service. All sexual activity (i.e., fornication, adultery, pornography and homosexuality) outside this covenanted union is sin.” Churches may want to consider limiting the use of its facilities to its members. Churches that rent out its facilities to the general public may find themselves forced to rent their buildings for same-sex marriage services. Understand that the LBGT advocates are not finished. They have won the court battle, but they are not content that their position is now merely legal. They will continue to pressure those who do not promote their position.

Finally, a church that is not part of an organization or association should consider becoming a part of a larger unit. Biblically, a church is an autonomous organization, but there is an emphasis on church fellowship and association in the New Testament. Politically, a single church has a small voice in the courts. Being part of a larger association may provide some additional protection. Consider becoming a part of your state association or a national organization such as the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (), the New Testament Association (), or the Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America ().

Supreme Court Judgment

��ԭ�� — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 15:31:55 +0000

Some Christians have argued that the recent Supreme Court decision overriding the decision of some states to maintain the traditional definition of marriage will bring God’s judgment upon America. Paul the Apostle would tend to differ. The Supreme Court decision was instead a formal, political, and, more importantly, a moral declaration of a judgment that has already begun.

As Paul began the great book of Romans, he declared that God’s wrath has been revealed against godlessness and unrighteousness (1:18). This godlessness comes about because unrighteous people suppress the truth. The truth that is suppressed is God’s revelation (1:19). Verse 20 tells us that God has revealed both His power and His nature through His creation. These “invisible attributes” have been available to mankind since creation. Instead of acknowledging God, however, some foolishly exchange God’s glory for idolatry (1:23), which Paul identifies as the worship of the creature rather than the Creator. Verse 24 begins with a “therefore.” This verse is the result of the preceding actions. Because people reject the truth which God has revealed to them and replace that truth with a lie, God has given them over to “uncleanness” or “sexual impurity.” Paul identifies this sexual impurity as homosexuality in verses 26-27. Paul does not refer to “men” and “women,” but to “males” and “females,” focusing his attention on sexual differentiations. In God’s definition of marriage in the creation account, the sexual differentiations are foundational. The emphasis of “gave them over” refers not to a natural result of man’s actions; instead it is the sovereign act of God. Paul also includes a string of other sinful activities in verses 29-30. Paul concludes this section with the final sin – not only do these people commit these sinful deeds, but they applaud others who commit them as well.

The Supreme Court decision has thus formalized in America what Paul declared is God’s judgment on a sinful people. This is not a recent problem. The rejection of God’s revelation in creation began in the 19^th century. It gained momentum in the 20^th century and continues into the current century. The truth of Genesis 1 is rejected by the broader scientific community, the US government, and the public school system. More importantly, however, it is increasingly rejected by evangelical Christianity. BioLogos argues for an old earth, but also for some engagement of God in the creative process. Its mission statement declares: “BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.” They further state that they uphold the inspiration and authority of Scripture, but also affirm billions of years of “evolutionary creation.” John Stott, an otherwise fairly conservative scholar but also representative of too many evangelicals, declares, “Not many Christians today find it necessary to defend the concept of a literal six-day creation, for the text does not demand it, and scientific discovery appears to contradict it. The biblical text presents itself not as a scientific treatise but as a highly stylized literary statement (deliberately framed in three pairs, the fourth ‘day’ corresponding to the first, the fifth to the second, and the sixth to the third). Moreover, the geological evidence for a gradual development over thousands of millions of years seems conclusive. . . . It is most unfortunate that some who debate this issue begin by assuming that the words ‘creation’ and ‘evolution’ are mutually exclusive.” John R.W. Stott, Understanding the Bible, 54-56. Theologian Millard Erickson in his Christian Theology argues eloquently that in the case of creation, general revelation supersedes special revelation. This is a telling admission. Nowhere else does he argue for the submission of special revelation to science, but for the creation process, Scripture is insufficient.

This rejection of the truth of creation is exacerbated by the loss of the absolute. With the loss of absolute truth in our society, only absolute power is left. Since our political system has determined that the Supreme Court has ultimate power, then all must bow to their declarations, whether they are biblical or not, whether they are Constitutional or not, or whether there is legal precedent or not. It makes no difference. They are the power, and they do what they please. This is the ultimate in postmodern politics, and this new political system will affect Bible believers, initially indirectly but soon directly.

The LBGT movement will not bring God’s judgement on America. According to Paul, it is the end result of God’s judgment on a nation that has already rejected the Creator, has replaced the worship of the Creator with that of the created, and has now officially approved and applauded sin. The only possible solution to this sinful state, the only solution that has ever been available for sin, is repentance. The hope of America does not lie in the right Republican candidate. It lies only in the Savior. Revival, not replacing our current President, is the hope of the believer.

Gabriel

��ԭ�� — Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:14:21 +0000

The angel Gabriel, “the man of God,” was an integral part of the Christmas story. While Zechariah burned incense to the Lord, an angel appeared to him, telling him that God was going to answer the prayers of him and his wife and that they would have a son. Reminiscent of Abraham, Zechariah declared that he and his wife were too old to have a son. How could he believe this being? The answer was dramatic. “I am Gabriel, the one having stood and still standing in the presence of God.” The verb “to stand” is a perfect participle and emphasizes the continuing activity of standing in the presence of the Lord. This was the authority by which Gabriel declared his good news.

Six months later Gabriel returned, this time declaring to Mary that she was to be the mother of the Messiah. In the presence of Gabriel, Mary moved from fear and surprise to faith and acceptance.

Two other references to an angel are included in the birth story. In one an angel told Joseph what was happening to Mary; in the other an angel proclaimed the good news of the birth of Jesus to the angels. Were these Gabriel as well? We do not know, because no name is mentioned. Gabriel was not the focus of Luke’s narrative.

Gabriel was introduced to the Bible reader long before the birth of Christ, however. Gabriel appears twice in the book of Daniel. In Daniel 8: 15ff Gabriel explained to Daniel the events associated with the end times. In Daniel 9:20ff Gabriel came to Daniel as he prayed and again explained some of the eschatological events that will be associated with the end times.

Thus, the only two contexts in which Gabriel appears are the first coming and prophesies concerning the second coming of the Messiah.

His Name shall be Called

��ԭ�� — Tue, 09 Dec 2014 23:00:18 +0000

I had the joy of listening to the ��ԭ�� orchestra and choirs play and sing Handel’s Messiah again this year. It is always a joyous occasion.

Handel built this oratorio on Scripture and one of the key passages is Isaiah 9:6, which concludes, “and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

Most commentators today would suggest removing the comma between the first two terms, leaving four parallel names:

Wonderful Counsellor
Mighty God
Everlasting Father
Prince of Peace

Jesus was called Immanuel, but any Jewish boy could have had that name, just as any Jewish boy could have been called “Jesus” or the Hebrew form of that name, Joshua. No Jewish boy, however, could have been called any of these four names.

Jesus certainly is a wonderful counsellor, but the Hebrew may be translated “a wonder of a counsellor.” David’s key counsellor, Ahithophel, was regarded as a messenger from God (2 Sam 16:23), but who is the Messiah’s counsellor? No one! For Jesus does not need one to deliver a message from God; He Himself is His own counsellor.

The second name, Mighty God, emphasizes the deity of Jesus. Psalm 24:8 refers to the Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle.” The Messiah is truly God. Through the incarnation, Jesus, who has always been deity, also became man. Thus we speak of the God-man. Theologians do not argue that He was half-god and half-man; that is the kind of deity that the pagans worshiped. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. Thus, we may clearly declare Him to be the Mighty God.

The name, Everlasting Father, has created some confusion. Some in the early church believed that there was only one God (and only one Person); they believed that sometimes God wore His “Father” hat, sometimes He wore His “Son” hat, and sometimes His “Spirit” hat. (This is theological “modalism.”) They would generally argue that God was the Father in the Old Testament, the Son in the New Testament, and the Spirit in the church age. This is not, however, what this name teaches.

Young’ Literal Translation phrases this name as “Father of Eternity.” Most commentators agree that Isaiah was not speaking of Jesus as the Father, because the context is not a trinitarian context. It is the context of Jesus as man. “Everlasting” would argue that Jesus has always existed. I don’t want to get off into some theological weeds here, but consider this – before creation, there was nothing besides God. There was no “place” for Him to exist, for space was not yet created. There was no “time” in which He existed, for time had not yet been created. He has not always been in the universe; I would contend that the universe is only about 6000 years old. Thus, Isaiah declares the Jesus has always existed. If we translate the name as Father of Eternity, then we could argue that Isaiah was speaking of this Mighty God as the Creator of all things, including humanity. I think we need to go a bit further, however. In John 14:9 Jesus said that if you have seen Him, you have seen the Father. The relationship between the members of the Trinity is beyond our understanding.

The final name is Prince of Peace. In the incarnation, Jesus came to bring peace. He was meek and mild, although He was never weak and silent in the face of sin. We know that in His second coming, He will rule with a rod of iron, but His kingdom will not be a violent one. He will bring peace in the millennium, because He will be the absolute King of the Earth; according to verse 7, He will rule with justice and righteousness, two characteristics lacking in the lives of the kings of Israel and Judah and sadly lacking in the governments of the world today.

So we can sing with Handel, “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

Day of Infamy

��ԭ�� — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 17:40:04 +0000

December 7, 1941, is the day which has gone down in history as the Day of Infamy. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it brought the United States into World War 2. The following four wars saw the heroism and sacrifice of the Greatest Generation.

��ԭ�� Baptist Seminary expresses its appreciation and thankfulness to all those who serve and have served in our military. We are also thankful for the military veterans who served their country and now have come to the Seminary to train to serve their King.

��ԭ�� Baptist Seminary expresses its appreciation and thankfulness to all its alumni who have entered the military as chaplains and who are preparing for the chaplaincy.

We do not depend upon our politicians or our military for our salvation, sanctification, or our ultimate hope, but we are thankful for those who seek to preserve the freedoms we have enjoyed throughout our nation’s history.

Christmas

��ԭ�� — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 22:51:31 +0000

The word “Christmas” is problematic for some. This English word comes from “Cristes Maesse,” a phrase that meant “Christ’s Mass.” As is the case so often, we use terms that originated in another language and even another religion. The “mass,” of course, is the Roman Catholic continuing sacrifice of Christ. If you check the internet, you will find some who are gravely concerned should we ever say, Merry Christmas, for the phrase would be understood as “May the death of Christ be joyful.” They may complain that Santa, who proclaims, “Ho, Ho, Ho, Merry Death of Christ,” is actually a symbol for Satan who rejoiced at Christ’s death.

While there may be etymological truth to this, the meaning of a word is not necessarily found in its etymology. Our word “enthusiastic” comes from “en” and “theos” and, therefore, has the idea, etymologically, of being in God. I live in Green Bay Packer country, and I can attest that the vast majority of the enthusiastic fans are not “in God.”

If you look up “Christmas” today in a typical dictionary, it will say nothing about a mass. It will declare that “Christmas” is the celebration of the birth of Christ. When you tell the typical person on the street, Merry Christmas, they will accept it as a declaration of joy at the birth of Jesus.

May I suggest, however, that there is some truth in this etymological background? We do celebrate the death of Christ. We understand that he was born for the purpose of dying. We do rejoice in his death, for had he not died, we could not obtain salvation. The public ministry of Jesus began with these words from John the Baptist: “Behold the Lamb of God!”

The next time you tell someone, Merry Christmas, look for an opportunity to tell them the other side of Christmas.

Sunesis | ����ԭ�� Baptist Seminary