How is grace working for you?

Dear Friends, prayer and financial partners,

Consider this, the Apostle says of himself,

"I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13).

Notice, he did not say,

"Because I was faithful, I obtained mercy;" but, "I obtained mercy to be faithful."

There's a world of difference here—the difference between works and grace. This is why Paul so aptly spoke when he said—

"I have obtained mercy to be faithful"

I fear that often we Christians feel—or, perhaps, I should say, we act as if we feel that God's grace is really not enough to get us to Heaven. This, no doubt, is because we confuse works with the work of grace. Now, please understand, grace produces works—as in 'does good works.’

However, it can never be said that works ever produces grace. Otherwise, we get our cart of good works pushing grace along. Whereas, in God economy, grace pulls our cart full of good works along—not the other way around.

Complicated? No, not really. Think of works and grace as a kind of spiritual pyramid. Grace is the foundation and works is the superstructure. 

Thus, we must ask ourselves what foundation we are building on? Paul said,

“By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder (1 Corinthians 3:10)”

Again notice, Paul did not say,

“I laid a foundation as a wise builder”

and left it at that. No, he said,

“By the grace God has given me, I laid the foundation as a wise builder.”

Grace in this, as in all such cases precedes works! Nothing you do that is worthwhile in the Kingdom of God is of your own initiative; nor does works stand alone, grace always precedes works. But let us not forget that you never find grace standing alone, either.

Now, let’s get practical. Have you ever spent an inordinate amount of time trying to convince yourself and perhaps others—including God, that really deep down inside you are a good person by all the good things you have done? If so, I am sorry to inform you that good works initiated by a desire to prove yourself worthy is useless, because, as far as your salvation is concerned it is as Paul said, just a lot of (pardon the crude French) crap (Philippians 3:7-9).

Look it up! Those are Paul’s words, not mine.

Now, may I ask you—“How is grace working for you?”

Do you find living like Christ a task? Is it tedious? Perhaps, even boring? Could it be that you are struggling on your own to do the right things. Things like paying a tithe. Giving to missions. Thinking positive. Staying focused on Christ. Whatever! Then may I suggest that you step back, take a deep spiritual breath and breathe in some of God’s grace. It works every time. And, thank God it does.

Still confused. Here try these verses—

Each time he said, “My grace is all you need. My power works best in weakness.” So now I am glad to boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ can work through me. (2 Corinthians 12:9(NLT)

I can do all this through him who gives me strength. (Philippians 4:13)

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. (1 Corinthians 15:10 NIV)

Through it all, just remember, we are not on this journey alone. He walks beside us.

Jim_/

Faith Without Works is Dead . . . Useless

Sola fide—that is, by faith alone, when left to stand alone is an invitation to heresy. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that we are saved by faith only. No, not one place. We are, however, told that we are not saved by faith alone, for you see, the Scripture says in plain English that “faith by itself isn't enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless. (James 2:17).”

Yes, it is true that we are justified before God by faith alone, but faith does not stand alone. Saving faith is also an obedient  commitment—a recognition of the Lordship of Christ. We mustn’t “just listen to God’s word. We must do what it says. Otherwise, we are only fooling yourselves (James 1:22).” “For merely listening to the law doesn't make us right with God. It is obeying the law that makes us right in his sight (Romans 2:13).”

Consider this, the Apostle says of himself, "I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "Because I was faithful, I obtained mercy;" but, "I obtained mercy to be faithful."
In other words, faith always produces works! Good works. Not to save us, but as proof of our salvation. I am afraid that many of us have been sucked into the lie that we can just live like the devil and make it to Heaven. This “cheap grace” as Bonhoeffer called it is not what Christ had in mind when he said,

“[But] like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY." If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth (1 Peter 1:15-17 NIV))”

As you know, I love to write. Perhaps, my next book should be “Whatever Happened to Holiness?” But then to do so, I must define holiness.

In a nutshell, holiness is simply living your life as Christ would live it.

As a matter of fact, that is precisely what Paul had in mind when he said,

“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20).”

Now, may I ask you, would Christ frolic in the foolishness that some Christians do?  I think not, for as Paul says we must—

Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. (Ephesians 5:1-7 NIV)

But, please understand me carefully. These verses are not a list of don’ts but one simple do. That is, we must walk in the way of love . . . just like Christ!

So, the works that accompany a sanctifying faith is always positive—not a list of don’ts.
Of course, there is much more that I could say, but by now I am sure you get the picture, if you haven’t already.

With that said, please keep in mind that we are not in this journey alone. He walks beside us each step of the way.

JimR_/

 

Faith by any other is still faith . . . or is it?

How do we reconcile sola fidei—by faith alone, with James 2: 4, which reads:

You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”?

Well, in a word, you don’t. It is just as simple as that!

One is Scripture, which we know is God’s word; whereas the other is the word of man—primarily a catch phrase developed during the Protestant Reformation, a kind of shibboleth used to check and see if  all we Protestants were on the same page.

However, in counter distinction to that, I will be so bold as to say that pure faith does not stand  alone; and as a matter of fact faith as a simple thought process cannot save a fly from being zapped! So, let us now backup and take a closer look at the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

Now it is true that “the just shall live by faith (Hebrews 10:38); that we cannot deny. However, that is just the point! Sola fidei denies the very definition of what faith is. Faith is not just wishful thinking. Faith is not just a mental assent to the facts of theology, or one’s sectarian agenda, religious or otherwise.

Faith has substance that is sufficient enough to standup in court as evidence. “Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)

Faith may include “assurance,” it may include “confidence” or “being sure of something”; but none of these alone is really faith. Faith is a substance; something you can see, feel, sense, and touch—it is real. There’s evidence in faith. It does not stand alone as some kind of mental exercise.

Now, I know that some will get all bent out of shape when they read what I have just said, but hang in here, there’s more to come.

For faith to have any meaning at all, two things are necessary—they are, someone to exercise that faith, and the substance of that faith to be evident. The devils believed and trembled, the Scripture says; however, they were faithless—in other words, their behavior belied them.

So, do we admit that one’s behavior is the evidence of one’s faith? Faith, as I have said, does not stand alone. Works follows as proof of that substance. It’s kind of like love and marriage, you can’t have one without the other. Well, not really, because I know many married folks that aren’t really all that much in love. But, that’s just the point. The only proof that you have that they are a happily married couple is that they show it. The word “love” is just a lot of hot air, otherwise.

The same with faith. The word faith can be, and often is just a lot of hot air. Real faith has legs. You can see it in action. Yes, you can see, feel, sense and touch it—it’s real.

Faith can never stand alone, no not ever, and since God in His wisdom knew that, He sent His Son, in the flesh so that He could be seen, felt, sensed, and touched! Yes, He is the substance, and evidence all wrapped up in one.

What a marvelous gift faith is!

I am sure you have heard the old saying that “the proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof.” Well, so is faith. So, along with the psalmist, may I invite all those that will to come—

“Taste and see that the LORD is good; and blessed are those who takes refuge in him (Psalm 34:8)”?

Just remember, we are not on this journey alone. He walks beside us.


Blessings,

Jim/

Why? What about, "Because?"

According to George Dvorsky there are 8 great philosophical questions that we'll never solve. His opinion is that there's a spat brewing between some theoretical physicists and philosophers of science. He writes—

"Philosophy goes where hard science can't, or won't. Philosophers have a license to speculate about everything from metaphysics to morality, and this means they can shed light on some of the basic questions of existence. The bad news? These are questions that may always lay just beyond the limits of our comprehension."

Here the 8 hard questions he asks for you to look at and ask yourself if you have ever asked them—

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

2. Is our universe real?

3. Do we have free will?

4. Does God exist?

5. Is there life after death?

6. Can you really experience anything objectively?

7. What is the best moral system?

8. What are numbers?

Chances are, you have asked yourself the first 7 questions, but not the last (unless, of course, you’re a nerd. No offence intended). How you answer them is, of course, another matter altogether. Personally, I like what one student of philosophy wrote on her final exam when the final, and only question was: “Why?”

It took her less time to answer that than it took me to write this sentence; her answer was: “Because!” And, guess what? She was right. I must say that she was a whole lot sharper than most of my students.

Hers was a simple answer, and as usual, the simple answer is generally the best.
May I say in regards to these 8 questions that after teaching apologetics to prepare students to answer these major concerns that I have, that I have given the simply answer up front. We start with “BECAUSE” and work out from there.

My reasoning is this. There is no “WHY?” unless there is a “BECAUSE.” God never expected us to start with the “WHYS of life.” So, we need to get busy and figure out the “BECAUSES.”

To put it another way. Faith is a given, not something we need to muster up. Pray tell me, where in all the pages of Scripture do we find God trying to convince us of His very existence, including His creation (numbers included!)? Where in the pages of Scripture do we find the Bible asking us if we have free will? As a matter of fact, where do we find any of these basic questions asked? The Book of Job comes about as close to addressing these questions systematically; however, the question is never an independent “WHY?” The question always rest on a “BECAUSE” this happens, then “WHY?”

Then why trust the Bible on these issues? Well, primarily because the Bible starts and ends with the “BECAUSES” of reality, not the “WHYS.” And, I trust it because it best answers the “WHYS” of life.

Complicated? No, not really. Think of it this way. What satisfies you most, the “WHYS” of God, or His “BECAUSES?” Think of the greatest “BECAUSE” of all,

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son.” (John 3:16)

Need we ask, “Why?” His “BECAUSE” already tell us why. God loves us, that why. As, a matter of fact, proof of that love is anchored in His very nature, since He loved us first, then he washed us. (Rev. 1:5) Normally, we want to clean someone up first, then love them, not the other way around. No so with God. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8) And, the proof of that love?

Well, perhaps that old song by Minnie Steele says it best—

I REMEMBER WHEN MY BURDENS ROLLED AWAY⁺

I remember when my burdens rolled away;I had carried them for years, night and day.When I sought the blessèd Lord,And I took Him at His word,Then at once all my burdens rolled away.

Refrain 

Rolled away, rolled away,I am happy since my burdens rolled away.Rolled away, rolled away,I am happy since my burdens rolled away.I remember when my burdens rolled away;That I feared would never leave, night or day.Jesus showed to me the loss,So I left them at the cross;I was glad when my burdens rolled away.

Refrain

I remember when my burdens rolled away,That had hindered me for years, night and day.As I sought the throne of grace,Just a glimpse of Jesus’ face,And I knew that my burdens could not stay.

Refrain

I am singing since my burdens rolled away;There’s a song within my heart night and day.I am living for my king,And with joy I shout and sing:Hallelujah, all my burdens rolled away!

Now, I ask you, once we have experience that, must we ask “Why?” We already know “Why?” His ‘BECAUSE” tells us why. He loves us. 

Now, I am yours for the journey,

 Jim

P.S. The response to my latest book has been encouraging. If you haven't already, check it out. And, don't forget to pray for our ministry in the meantime.

⁺ Words & Music: Minnie A. Steele, 1908 (♫  ).

Suffering for suffering's sake? Think again!

My last desire—

When the time comes for me to die,

To-morrow, or some other day,

If God should bid me make a reply,

“O God, thy world was great and fair!

Have thanks for all my days have seen;

Yet grant me peace from things that were

And things that might have been.”
Thomas W. Hazen Rolleston

Dear Friends, prayer and financial partners,

We Pentecostals, "bless our little pea-picking hearts," as Ernie Ford used to say, have yet to scratch the surface on the value inherent in suffering.

Now, I am not talking about self-inflicted suffering like the Flagellants (from Latin flagellare, to whip) who beat themselves or are nailed to a cross in the Philippines and elsewhere by misguided fanatics, either. No, I cannot find anywhere in Scripture that we are expected to suffer just for suffering's sake. 

What I have in mind is the type of suffering that many of our Christian brothers and sisters are experience in the Middle East right now. Entire Christian villages have been overrun by fanatical jihadists who often time behead the men, women and children to shock the rest who are lucky enough to survive and thereby get them to convert to Islam.

Is it happening? Sure, it's happening. Has been, and will continue to happen, too!

Read your Bible. This is precisely what the false prophet in league with the beast will, and has done for centuries. That aside, however, since you might look at history and the Bible differently on this subject than I do. So, please understand, I am not one to argue the matter. But, I am one to sound the alarm.

Indeed, the time is short.

So, it is with the backdrop of all that is going on around us that I write this brief essay on suffering. Paul, for one, thought that a suffering Christian was helpful in that it identified us with the suffering of Christ and give us an opportunity to emulate his character with the sole purpose of shaping us into the likeness of Christ. All things work together. All things, not just some things. So, suffering must be included.

Sound too Catholic to you? Well, it shouldn’t. It’s Bible. Need I reference that? If so, for starters may I suggest Romans 8:28-29 and Colossians 1:24. Here, let me print them for you:

 

First Romans 8:28-

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son … (NIV)

 

Now, Colossians 1:24

Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. (NIV)

Now, let’s not just stop there. Think with me for a moment. Do you see how beautifully these verses all blend together in one Divine plan? It is obviously plain to me that firstly uninvited suffering of any sort serves to change us into the image of Christ if we are willing; and secondly, how we handle the suffering can act as a Christian example of purity and mentorship to encourage others to respond similarly.

 

Complicated? No, not really. Here read what the poet Patricia Persons, a cancer patient had to say:

If you believe in the Word of God

You'll know trials only make us strong

And in Christ anywhere you are in life

Is just where you belong

Take time to read the Book of Job

And you will plainly see

That God will never leave you alone

He's always been there for me

It's not what you are going through friend

It's how you stand the test

Just put your hands in the hands of God

And let Him do the rest

I go through life with a made up mind

I know God has my back

I'm not the one for a pity party now

I pray and get on the right track

I am a living testimony

For all the world to see

And I want the whole wide world to know

I have cancer…..cancer doesn't have me

© Patricia Persons 2014

 

 

So, take courage. A lesson well learned is a lesson well kept. Take courage, therefore, and cherish Christ's promise to never leave you or forsake you. Life is not without purpose.

Yours in the journey,

JimR/

P.S. My latest book on Islamic jihadism was published and is available. 

The Islamic State Revealed
Click Cover to Buy!
The Brotherhood of Death

The latest book on Kindle $5.99
AMAZON.COM

When history ain't really history . . .

A reasonably unreasonable conclusion …

“All that an insane person has left is his reason”– G. K. Chesterton 1874 – 1936

*****

All reason is circular. That’s a fact. False premise, false conclusion. True premise, true conclusion. It is just as simple as that. The theorems of science are presupposed to be factually true, and reliable once tested and proven as such; however, science at its best is only a blueprint on how we are expected to investigate reality.

The truth is, however, much of what we believe to be true—reality, as it were,  is just a matter of opinion, sometimes an educated guess at best. I have no quibbles with science. What I do have problems with, however, are the invested prejudices found embedded in much of what tries to pass itself off as pure science regardless of the disciple under consideration—be that, theology, history, or something else.

Purported truth, therefore, must be checked against the facts. Church history as a disciple is no exception, either. As any student of Church history knows, such history is loaded with outright forgeries, and revisionism is defended on the principle of throwing a better light on the subject at hand. By ‘a better light’ I do not mean a fairer assessment, or necessarily changing the facts— although, this is always a possibility— I simply mean this, that history is often filtered through the sieve of today’s standards, particularly as it pertains to the politically correct ‘hot issues’ inherent in contemporary society like racism, sexuality, egalitarianism, or social or financial inequalities. Scripture, for example, can, and is, often twisted to fit the mores of a convenient contemporaneity.

Sadly, however, this has been a reoccurring standard throughout history, above all is it evidence in sacred history. History is not just retold, it is retold with a theological slant in mind. Collins Dictionary, as a matter of fact, defines sacred history as “history that is retold with the aim of instilling religious faith and which may or may not be founded on fact.” Which illustrates, at least to me, that it is a reputation well-earned considering the fact redactors down through ecclesiastical history have felt justified to change entire passages to suit their fancy.

Further, what I have in mind is a reductionism that does not just try to simplify a certain passage or translation to say essentially the same thing, but to change its meaning entirely by injecting an acceptable orthodoxy into the text to comply with some perceived or otherwise real standard.

Rufinus Aquileiensis, a nemeses of St. Jerome who quibbled with him over the orthodoxy of Origen who to prove a point spent considerable time redacting much of the Early Church Father’s work to make him sound more in line with the theology of Rome—i.e., Pope Anastasius I (399-401). Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, part of which he also translated was redacted considerably, etc.

These are well-known fact, attested by William A. Jurgens, as well as Mark Vessey, from Cambridge another  well know scholar of the period.

Nor does it stop there. Take for example, Jacques Paul Migne (25 October 1800 – 24 October 1875) a French priest who took on the task of publishing volumes of theological works, encyclopedias and the texts of the Church Fathers, with thought of providing books to train young men for the Catholic priesthood. Problem is, he rushed these translations through at such a rate that he left a trail of questionable documents. Not that they were all wrong, but it does take some of the enthusiasm out of reading them because one is not sure of when on certain occasions something is bogus or not.

Protestants do the same thing. Need I go into that? Well, there is not a whole lot to go into prior to the 1500’s.

So, although I shall continue to read, I have sadly come to the conclusion that I cannot base my faith on history, it must have a firmer foundation than that.

Of course, we all know what that foundation is, it is the foundation of all truth—that is, the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

---

[i] http://www.collinsdictionary.com/

[ii] Mark Vessey, 'Jerome and Rufinus', in Frances Young, Lewis Ayres and Andrew Louth, eds, The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, (2010), p325 

Love as Primal Knowledge

"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (1 John 4:8 NIV)

Primarily, we understand that primal knowledge is first of all revealed or intuitive, a priori knowledge, though not contrary to reason, faith is nonetheless superior to reason. Reason apprehends faith, not the other way around. God makes no apologies as to who he is; but simply states, “I am that I am.”—thereby affirming, his self-sustaining existence. However, because of His generous grace and love toward us, he by revelation makes himself known unto us. This act of grace, though unmerited, is nonetheless a necessary grace in as much as it is an expression of His divine nature. God is love, and in him is no shadow of darkness within him. Thus, we can count on the transparency of his love to clearly reveal his inwardness by his outwardness. So, we therefore understand that his inwardness and outwardness are one and the same, but not in that order.

Love is foundational to his outwardness. Faith, therefore, is based on the outwardness of his inwardness to assure us of the perfection of his inwardness. We who depend on his outwardness to understand his inwardness clearly understand that now abide these three: faith, hope, and charity; but the greatest of these is charity. Each of these, however, do not stand alone, as they are but the natural consequences of the foundational principle of love. Without love there is no hope—for all may end in naught, and, therefore, confidence is lost. Also, we may easily understand that without love there is no charity—for there is no reason for charity. Furthermore, it can also be safely said that “perfect love castes out fear, for there is no fear in love [1 John 4:18].”

 We, therefore, are securely anchored in love by hope with full confidence in His promises to us through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior [Hebrews 6:17-20].

A Pentecostal Christian takes a second look at Mary

The Mother of Our Lord

I suppose one of the most distracting Catholic practices that continues to annoy the Protestant community is the adoration (which they see as excessive, and for all intents and purposes unwarranted) ascribed to Mary.

Doctrinal issues aside for a moment; however, let me see if I can help by suggesting that this prejudicial view of Marian devotions is, in my opinion, the same as judging Pentecostals by the practices of their snake handling cousins.

Next, may I also suggest that devotion is not necessarily adoration or worship; it may also result from fear as we seen present as a result of the Fatima aberration—also known as the aberration of Our Lady of the Rosary— when Mary supposedly appeared to three peasant Portuguese children and entrusted them with three secrets which reportedly involved Hell, Hell, World War I and World War II, and the attempted assassination by gunshot of Pope John Paul II (the details of which would be discursive at this point). However, providence would have it, the Lady of the Rosary (Mary) offered a way out which (not so surprising to the critics) included not just wholescale repentance, but a rigorously praying of the rosary, as well. Of course, we all know the results. Apparently, the faithful did not pray the rosary enough; because, God forbid that Our Lady of the Rosary could fail at such a crucial time as that. 

So, in my opinion—because of so far unproven practices such as this, we must set devotional practices aside when considering Marian theology. As someone remarked long ago, “What is, is not necessarily what ought to be.” However, after having made that comment, it should be noted that the Lady of the Rosary cult has a huge following, including the late Pope, now saint, John Paul II who credits her with saving his life.

On the same token, for instance, even a distorted and fearful worship of God although wrong does not necessarily negate the worship of God all together—any more than an excessive Mariolatry, rules out  a proper respect for the role of Mary, The Mother of Our Lord, in the Church.

The problem, however, for the Protestant community (although, not all non-Catholics or Orthodox like high Anglicans; and, yes, even Luther and Calvin) is rooted not in who she was, but who she is. For those that pray to her, she is very much alive—as a matter of fact, more alive than ever. Now, if to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, as Paul said, then we must believe that death for the saint is only a move; and in her case, a move upward.

Now, if these saints—modern or otherwise, are alive and present with the Lord, the reasoning goes, then why can we not also pray to them? Furthermore, they continue, the book of Hebrews tells us that we are surround by a great cloud of witnesses, those heroes and heroines of the Faith that have gone on before us—people like: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and Moses; and, yes, a prostitute named, Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, and the list goes on and on to include Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, David and Samuel and the prophets. Oh, my, quite a cloud, I would say. None-the-less, it is needless to say, that any one of them was saintly than Mary, the Mother of God’s only begotten Son.

Furthermore, is she not the second Eve, if contrasted with Jesus, the new Adam who is God incarnate? If not, the reasoning continues, then who is the woman in the book of Revelation, chapter 12, that was clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars, who was pregnant and gave birth to a son, if not Mary? Neglecting, of course, to see that even though the vision appears in Heaven, it is on earth that all the action takes place. None-the-less, they are able to get around this by saying that Mary, since she embodied the Son of God—which makes her the Theotokos, the mother of God, also gave birth through Christ in a spiritual sense to all of God’s children. So, if you are able to follow this line of reasoning, since the Church is the Body of Christ, she is also the Mother of the Church which is composed of all the saints living and dead.

Convoluted to say the least; however, this is in essence what is believed.

So, when Protestant theologians say that the lady mentioned in above reference is the Church, they, of course will hardily agree, but they are not willing to stop there.

How then, do make sense of all of this?

We don’t, unless we are willing to admit that it is extra-Biblical, as it were to the naked eye. It makes perfect sense, however, if one is willing to accept the testimony of sacred history. There we find as early as the latter half of the second century. Here is what Father Matthew R. Mauriello writing on the behalf of The Marian Library/International Marian Research Institute^[i], Dayton, Ohio 45469-1390, has to say—

The first insight regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given by the Church Fathers was the vision of Mary as the New Eve. The earliest patristic texts regarding the Eve-Mary parallel begin in the latter half of the Second Century. St. Justin, the Martyr, (+165) in his work, Dialogue with Trypho, states that, "Christ became a man by a virgin to overcome the disobedience caused by the serpent ...in the same way it had originated."

The name Eve is taken from the Hebrew word, HAWAH, a verb which means "to live." "The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living."(Gen. 3:20) Eve, the first woman, was a virgin at the time that she was tempted by the serpent in the garden. Thus, Eve, a virgin, conceived disobedience and death, whereas, Mary, a virgin, conceived the Word in obedience and brought forth Life.

St. Ireneus, Bishop of Lyons, (+202) is considered the first theologian of the Virgin Mary. He took up St. Justin's Mary-Eve theme and further integrated it into his theology. Therein, Mary is treated as the New or Second Eve who is the beginning of the second Creation or re-creation of humanity through the Redemption.

He wrote, "The knot of Eve's disobedience was loosened by Mary's obedience. The bonds fastened by the virgin Eve through disbelief were untied by the virgin Mary through faith." (Adv. haereses, 3:22)

Jesus Christ is the New Adam, the Lord of the New Creation (I Cor. 15:45-49) and Mary the New Eve who undid what the first Eve had done. The first Eve disobeyed God and thereby brought sin and death into the world. The New Eve, Mary, obeyed and believed God's message which was given to her at the Annunciation (Lk .1:26-38), and brought salvation and life to the world in her son, Jesus, who crushes the head of the serpent. Mary, like us, shares in this victory.

Tertullian (+220), another Church Father, used the Eve-Mary parallel as a secondary argument in favor of the virginal conception of Jesus Christ and emphasizes the act of faith involved. Building on the insights of Justin, Ireneus and Tertullian, the theme of the Eve-Mary parallel was expanded upon after the Council of Nicaea in the year 325.

St. Ambrose of Milan (+397) writes, "It was through a man and woman that flesh was cast from paradise; it was through a virgin that flesh was linked to God." St. Jerome (+420) succinctly stated, "Death through Eve, Life through Mary." (Epist. 22, 2 I). St. Peter Chrysologus (+450) picked up on this theme in his writings, "Christ was born of a woman so that just as death came through a woman, so through Mary, life might return."

In our own century. Pope Pius XII is responsible for the principle papal contributions on this theme. In the Encyclical, Ad Caeli Reginam. Dated Oct. 11, 1954, he wrote: "Mary, in the work of Redemption was by God's will, joined with Jesus Christ, the cause of salvation, in much the same way as Eve was joined with Adam, the cause of death."

The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council recall the Eve-Mary parallel in the document on the Church. Lumen Gentium, Chapter 8, the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They quote from the Church Fathers, Sts. Ireneus, Jerome, and Epiphanius: "What the virgin Eve bound by her unbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.”(L.G. 56)

In the same document, the Eve-Mary parallel is treated in relation to the Church: "For believing and obeying, Mary brought forth on earth the Father's Son. This she did, knowing not man but overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, as the New Eve, who put absolute trust. not in the ancient serpent, but in the messenger of God.( L.G. 63) We, the faithful of the Church are called to follow Mary's example of trusting faith and fidelity to the Holy Will of God."

Further, we find that—

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296 – 373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the 2^nd century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides.” Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.

(Thus, I find it ironic that we can trust [and quote] Athanasius on matters as delicate as the Holy Trinity, but ignore him on matters pertaining to Mary, the Mother of Our Lord.)

Gregory the Wonderworker (c. 213 – c. 270) an early Christian teacher wrote: “Let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, “Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou, and the Ark of Thy sanctuary.” For the holy Virgin is in truth an Ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary.^[ii]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church echoes the words from the earliest centuries, “Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is “the dwelling of God . . . with men.”  (CCC 2676).

In summary, the strongest argument for the Old Testament type that prefigured Mary is The Ark of Covenant over which the Spirit hovered. Contained inside the Ark was the golden jar of manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the table of Commandments—foreshadowing, some feel Christ as the Bread of Life, The  Eternal High Priest, and The body of Jesus Christ—the Word of God in the flesh. Thus, in the true sense Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant—which is illustrated in the charts below:

Mary as the Ark Revealed by the Items inside the Ark
Inside Ark of the Old Covenant	Inside Mary, Ark of the New Covenant
The stone tablets of the Law—the word of God inscribed on stone	The body of Jesus Christ—the word of God in the flesh.
The urn filled with manna from the wilderness—the miraculous bread come down from heaven.	The womb containing Jesus, the bread of life come down from heaven (Jn 6:41)
The rod of Aaron which budded to prove and defend the true High Priest	The actual and eternal High Priest

Mary the Ark as Revealed in Mary’s Visit to Elizabeth
Golden Box: Ark of the Old Covenant	Mary: Ark of the New Covenant
Traveled to House of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam 6:1-11)	Traveled to house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea (Lk 1:39)
Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the Ark (2 Sam 6:14)	John the Baptist of priestly lineage leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary (Lk 1:41)
David asks “Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9)	Elizabeth asks “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43)
David was shouting in the presence of the Ark (2 Sam 6:15)	Elizabeth “cried out” in the presence of the Mary (Lk 1:42)
The Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Sam 6:11)	Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Lk 1:56)
The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the Ark (2 Sam 6:11)	The word “blessed” used three times and surely the house was blessed by God (Lk 1:39-45)
The Ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the Temple (2 Sam 6:12; 1 Ki 8:9-11)	Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem where she presents God enfleshed in the Temple (Lk 1:56; 2:21-22)

The Virgin Mary, too, is easily thought of symbolically as the New Ark of Covenant also overshadowed by the Holy Spirit who miraculously infused God into her womb, after which she gave birth to Jesus, the only begotten Son of the Father,  who became the Chief Architect of the New Covenant, Jesus, the Christ, and so-forth.

There are many quotations, comparisons and charts that I could provide because the early Christians taught the same thing that the Catholic Church teaches today about Mary, especially about her being the Ark of the New Covenant.^[iii].

For sure, Scripture is full of types; however, we as Protestants without a clear exegetical insight must not accede to our imagination in this regard—unless, we are willing to concede to sacred tradition and take the Catholic Church’s word regarding on this matter. Be that as it may, however, I do not see how we can take the Scriptures serious if we are not willing to concede that Mary was prefigured in the Old Testament by the Ark of the Covenant.

The remaining task, for me—at least, is figure out just what the role of Mary is in contemporary Christianity. That task, I am sure, will begin with a clear understanding of what we are to believe when we recite the Apostles creed and repeat the words—

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

And, further, how all of this is to be acted out as Christians.

Jim/--

---

[i] The International Marian Research Institute (IMRI) was founded in 1975 in affiliation with Marianum, a pontifical institute in Rome, allowing students to study in America instead of having to travel to Rome to complete their studies. IMRI's programs include a doctorate in sacred theology (S.T.D.) and licentiate in sacred theology (S.T.L.); students can also earn credits towards a master's degree through the Department of Religious Studies of the University of Dayton.

^[ii]Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. VI : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Fathers of the Third Century: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius The Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

[iii] For a comprehensive collection of patristic quotations, click here http://www.catholic-convert.com/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282-c6475cdb7ee7/Documents/MaryArkPatristics.doc

Who were the morning stars that sang together, and all the sons of God who shouted for joy at creation? Job 38:7

Question:

When God created the universe HE was in trinity, but then, who are the ,'' When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?'' (KJV)?

My Answer:

Couple of observations here: One, what is a son? Apparently, a created being can be a son (as was Adam and prior to that the angels, including Lucifer); and men can be adopted as sons (as are we); there can be an only begotten son (as with Jesus). So, the word son is not a static term; it has multiple meanings. Some speculate that the phrase: "In the Beginning God created" as a process, which obviously it was. The heavens were created first, apparently, and this would indicate all those that dwell in Heaven were part of that process which would include angels. However, I prefer accept the fact that we can push rational thinking beyond rational limits if we are not careful.

Consider for instance, where did God come from? Who created him? Well, obviously we do not know; although logic and reason alone would tell us that He did not create himself. We do, however, accept the fact that only belief in a God or an intelligent Being can account for creation. The law of irreversible atrophy alone informs us that creation is incapable of regenerating itself. Scientist will tell us that the earth or the cosmos is winding down and even if it were to implode and start the Big Bang all over again eventually it would reach the limits of doing just that.

So back to where did God come from? The answer is nowhere since that is by definition not His nature; nor is it a natural retrogression. However, it is our nature and that of creation to have come from somewhere. The point being, I don't have to posit God to believe in God that I can do intuitively. As with angels, I do not have to posit them, either, other than we know that nothing was created without Him, including angels. So, these sons of God of reference were His sons in a creative and spiritual sense, but not like His Only Begotten who proceeded from the bosom of Father or like we Born Again Christians who have be adopted into the family of God through His Spirit. (Romans 8:15)

In your opinion, does Ephesians 4:11 speak of a five-fold ministry or a four-fold one?

Your Question:

In your opinion, does Ephesians 4:11 speak of a fivefold ministry or a fourfold one? In other words, does ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους (pastors and teachers) refer to one office or two?

My Answer:

When we read in Ephesians 4:11 is that "he gave…some, pastors and teachers." Here "pastors and teachers" refer back to the single "some," describing two facets of the same work.

Now, the big question is: Who were these apostles and prophets? For we find that the Church was "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." Eph. 2:20 and further, even more disturbingly for we Protestants is that very Church is called "the pillar and foundation of truth" 1 Tim 3:15 Not, the Scriptures, mind you, but the Church.

So, I've got to be honest with you. When every Tom, Dick and Harry is a magisterium of one, I get a little nervous. Perhaps, it would do us all good to do a little research into church history and see what Christians before us taught; and please let's not start at 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses onto a Wittenberg Church door.There's more history before that, than afterwards.

Could we possibly learn something from our Catholic and Orthodox, yes, and Anglican brethren? What about the Apostolic Fathers— Clement of Rome or Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp of Smyrna? What about the Greek Fathers—Irenaeus of Lyons or Clement of Alexandria or Origen of Alexandria or Athanasius of Alexandria? What about the Cappadocian Fathers—John Chrysostom or Cyril of Alexandria or even John of Damascus? Oh, my, we can’t skip the Latin Fathers, either. There’s that old tongues speaker Tertullian and oh yes, another one called Hilary of Poitiers . . . whew, I am running out of breath. Oh, did I fail to mention St. Augustine, a favorite of both Luther and Calvin?

The point is, we don’t have to scratch out our theology like chickens in a barn yard. Most of it has already been packaged for us and is there for the taking.

Now, as far as the Greek goes believe me I have terrible trouble with a God who expects me to ferret out these truths when we have perhaps over 4,000 manuscripts to choose from, and again every Thomas, Richard, and Harold has his opinion on that, too. Surely, there must be a teaching magisterium besides old Tom, and old Dick, and old Harry. We have better resources that just that of someone with a correspondence school diploma from Podunk Hollow pontificating on every nuance that suits their fancy.