Do You Have Faith in Your Faith?

Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was a long way from the land, beaten by the waves, for the wind was against them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.”

And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.” Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” Matthew 14:22-33

Throughout the gospels, Christ performs miracles commending people for their faith and claiming that it was on account of the people's faith that the miracle took place. This has led some groups to conclude that if someone wants a miracle, all they have to do is have enough faith and it will happen. The resulting fallacious conclusion is that if your miracle doesn't happen, then you didn't have enough faith.

So we hear about pseudo-Christian parents who deny medical help for their children because they have faith that God will heal them. And when their children die because they didn't receive medical care and they wonder with anger at how the media makes a big deal out of the fact that charges are brought against them for negligence.

My kids love to recount the story how the man in a flood turned down evacuation by bus, boat and helicopter because he had faith that God would rescue him. When he reached heaven after drowning, he asked God why he didn't rescue him and God replied, "I sent a bus, a boat and a helicopter. What more did you want?"

Peter called out to Christ in faith, "Command me to come to you on the water." In faith Peter was able to walk on the water. But faith in what? He knew he couldn't walk on the water without Christ's command. But he also knew that he needed faith of his own in order to walk on water otherwise unaided. So Peter also had faith in his faith.

However, when Peter saw the wind and the waves, his faith waned and he sunk in the water. In his sinking, he called out to Christ, "Lord, save me." He still had faith, otherwise he would have no reason to call out to Christ to save him. What had changed is that he he no longer had faith in his faith.

Do we boast in our faith or do we recognize our own weak faith? If we had faith like a grain of mustard seed, then we could tell a mountain to move it would obey. (Mat 17:20) Clearly, we don't have the faith of a mustard seed. Perhaps our attitude should be that of the father of a demon-possessed boy who told Jesus, "I believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24)

Christ asked the disciples in the boat, "Oh you of little faith, why did you doubt?" The question was rhetorical. The answer is that we will have doubt. But Peter was there soaked but completely un-drowned. The question should help us conclude that even if we had Christ in person standing before us working miracles with the example of Peter that we could do the same, we would not have enough faith.

Peter himself worked many miracles from Pentecost on, but taught this about faith:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and l unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith — more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire — may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and a gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. 1 Peter 1:3-9; 20-21

Inasmuch as faith is trusting in Christ, I dare say it is unfaithful to trust in our faith. We must have faith in Christ alone. Our faith may falter, but Christ is faithful to save all who the Father has given him.

How Do You Do Church?

I don’t mean to keep harping on the Regulative Principle, but the matter of ecclesiology keeps pegging away on the radar screen of my intellectual air space and I can’t help but to think that if I write about it it’ll go away and leave me to write about other things.

Tominthebox News Network continues to use exquisite humor (with the caveat that this compliment comes from someone whose sense of humor has been described recently as “corny”) to illumine our penchant for theological error. A recent article shared the pamphlet of a fictional church that combined a poor hermeneutical principle with the Regulative Principle to produce some interesting ecclesiological (how we do church and why we do it that way) results.

Hermeneutics are the principles we use to understand what the Bible means. For example, we use hermeneutics to determine if the word “all” in a passage means everyone everywhere, or just all of a certain type of people (population of a city or faith affiliation), or all ethnic groups but not everyone of every ethnic group. Perhaps you’ve heard a preacher refer to the number of times the Bible says something. I’ve heard this with regard to the teachings of Christ. It is noted by good teachers of the Bible that Christ mentions eternal condemnation at least as much as He mentions the kingdom of heaven. This isn’t necessarily a bad observation, but it makes for a poor hermeneutical principle. In other words, all Christ had to do was mention it once for us to know about it. Multiple mentions may indicate emphasis, but not necessarily.

In the case of this fictional church, they took this principle and counted the number of times different types of worship were mentioned in the Bible to determine their importance in worship. If it’s mentioned in the bible, it’s fair game as far as the Regulative Principle is concerned. If it’s not in there, don’t do it. Here’s the breakdown according to this pamphlet:

• Singing: "The Bible mentions "singing" 20 times (NIV)."
• Lifting Hands: "Not coincidentally, the Bible also mentions the lifting of hands 20 times (NIV) proving that the lifting of hands is equally important as singing."
• Dancing: "In the Bible, dancing is referenced 14 times in the NIV. It's referenced 19 times in the KJV! So hop to it!"
• Ripping Clothes: "Mentioned 29 times in the NIV (32 in the KJV), individuals would "tear," had "torn," or unashamedly "tore" their clothes as a sign of humility [in worship]... Why not participate in an activity that is 50% more important than singing or hand lifting and up to 100% more important than dancing? Sackcloth is available in the foyer for 1st time visitors."

The logic sounds plausible, but the conclusion is silly. So what’s the answer?

Dusman has posted a couple of articles [one and two] at Triablogue regarding the form and function of church. These articles are a response to a theological error fueling a movement of house churches called the New Testament Reformation Fellowship. There’s nothing wrong with house churches, but it’s erroneous to think that meeting in homes is the only legitimate way to do church. (Tominthebox has addressed this one as well recently.)

Dusman’s articles trace the form of church back to the conversion of believers. Soteriology (the gospel – the area of theology that deals with our salvation) is the crown jewel of theology with Christology as it’s setting and Theology Proper (the doctrine of God) as the crown itself. This means that Christ’s work on the cross is singularly important to our being able to know God. Pneumatology, Anthropology, Harmatology, Bibliology, etc. all encircle this crown jewel and are unknowable without the gospel. The act itself, written accurately in the passages of Holy Scripture, transcends the capacity of mere words to convey the depth of God’s self-cohesion.

This cohesion is to be illustrated in our local fellowship as we bear one another’s burdens. Dusman argues therefore, that the function of a local fellowship follows conversion. Only then do we derive the form of church – from the function. Whether a fellowship of believers is a small house church or a megachurch, the form must bring believers together for the sake of propagating the gospel. He offers an abbreviation of 58 “one-anothers” found in the New Testament for our consideration:

In sum, we promise to…

honor one another,
be members of one another,
live in harmony with one another,
build one another up,
be like-minded towards one another,
accept one another,
care for one another,
serve one another,
bear one another's burdens,
be kind to one another,
forgive one another,
abound in love towards one another,
comfort one another,
encourage one another,
stir one another up to love and good deeds,
confess our sins to one another,
be hospitable to one another,
greet one another,
fellowship with one another,
submit to one another while
not passing judgment on one another,
not provoking one another,
not envying one another,
not hating one another,
not slandering one another,
and not bearing grudges against one another.

We do all this because Christ has loved us in each of these ways and this frees our hearts to love one another as He has loved us (John 13:34; 8:32).

And He loved us sacrificially. Consider this: do you focus on the form or the function of the church with regard to the glorification of Christ and the ministry of the gospel? Do you treat your fellow Christians like this?

The Regulative Principle and Theological Focus

I first saw the following video before the ordeal with Timmy Brister’s question to Mark Driscoll. I’ve posted my thoughts on this before. The Regulative Principle of Worship that only those elements explicitly permitted for worship in the Bible are permissible for worship. The converse is called the Normative Principle of Worship which is that everything not prohibited in worship by the Bible is permissible. The Regulative Principle is like the old German philosophy of law where everything is prohibited except where explicitly permitted and the Normative Principle is like the old Italian philosophy of law where everything is permitted except where explicitly prohibited. (It seems anymore these days in most places in the world that everything is permitted even where explicitly prohibited as long as you can get away with it.) That said watch this video and tell me if this falls within the Regulative Principle camp.



My purpose here is not to persuade anyone for or against either of these principles, but rather to ask where our focus is. The purpose for limiting worship in the Regulative Principle is to consider that God has the right to specify how He should be worshiped. The benefit of holding to the Regulative Principle is to ensure that he is worshiped in truth. Liturgical churches as well as contemporary churches are full of elements not specified in the Bible. These very elements have proven to divide us and draw us into the forms of worship while lacking the substance of the truth of God.

However, even the elements of worship that god has ordained have been compromised. Without adherence to truth, even these elements can serve the same purpose. The pre-messianic Jews were warned by the prophets that God wasn’t interested in their sacrifices because their hearts were far from God.

And the Lord said: "Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me… Isaiah 29:13 (ESV)

Jesus taught the Samaritan woman:

19The woman said to him, "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship." 21Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. 24God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." John 4:19-24 (ESV)

Paul taught the Romans:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Romans 12:1 (ESV)

So what principle does Paul teach?

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 1 Corinthians 14:26 (ESV)

…and:

For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh- Philippians 3:3 (ESV)

It seems that he gives a good foundation for this principle in the gospel itself as he expounded in Hebrews 9. I encourage your to read the whole chapter, but Ill only include a couple of verses here (quoted from the ESV):

1Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness. 2For a tent was prepared...

11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)... 15Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance,

Christ, therefore, is not in the outward elements of worship, but in our submission by the spirit to His truth. Paul admonishes us in I Timothy 2 to be modest and have self-control in worship. However, if worship is spiritual then we must always consider ourselves in worship. If God is omnipresent, then we must consider that we who are His people are always in his presence. Therefore, we must always consider ourselves in worship, not only when we gather with our brothers and sisters in Christ for corporate worship.

I say this to bring up another issue. The satirical Tominthebox News Network, recently ran an article that one commenter labeled “stealth satire”. The title announces another book by N.T. Wright entitled, “What Moses Really Saw: Did Moses Really Meet with God on the Mountain?” I can’t claim much knowledge of N. T. Wright’s beliefs. It would seem on first blush that this merely satirizes liberal theology. I think it goes deeper that that.

Almost daily I see new Christian (some good, some bad) books being announced. We look through these hoping for some new nuggets of understanding that we didn’t previously have available to us in the pages of Holy Writ. I blog some of my own observations and read the blogs of others for the same reason. It’s a good thing to learn and encourage each other by teaching the truth. It’s easy, however, to lose focus.

I think the debate between Regulative and Normative is one of those areas. The reason is that the focus of the debate is the external elements rather than on the person of Christ. The Regulative Principle has much to teach us about moderation and modesty. The Normative Principle has much to teach us about Christian liberty. The purpose of worship is to exercise our submission to Christ. Inasmuch as we do this constantly and consistently on our own, we will do this corporately. This means that we must submit not only in those ways only covered by scripture, but in everything we do. The Regulative principle, in this light becomes permissive as long as we follow the rules and the Normative Principle becomes merely expressive. Both fall short.

Therefore, we must be careful how we handle theology that we don’t get caught in a debate between two schools of thought that are equally inadequate but appear to cover the spectrum of theological thought. We can avid this when we maintain Christ as the focus. And we can do this without compromising the truth. Are you hungry on the Sabbath? Let’s glean a little wheat why don’t we? (Matthew 12:1-8)

Spiritual Welfare: Grazing on the Word

I read the phrases that I used to compose the title in an article by Coach Dave Daubenmire and it made me think:

Are you engaged in spiritual warfare or are you on spiritual welfare?

My fellow sheep, do you graze or do you harvest?

The one subsists only on what one is given. The other gathers in abundance to give to others.

Don't misunderstand what I say. I'm talking about your fellowship with the Word. Do you only listen to what others say, or do you struggle with the revelation of Christ in your own life that you might share Him with others in truth and encourage them to likewise seek His face?

How Well Do You Love?

Let me start off with some fun stuff from Blogthings. Then I'll have some more serious commentary afterward. As a disclaimer, these are not necessarily accurate, but I'm having fun with them...

Your Five Variable Love Profile

Propensity for Monogamy: Your propensity for monogamy is medium. In general, you prefer to have only one love interest. But it's hard for you to stay devoted for too long! [actually, I'm intensly loyal] There's too much eye candy to keep you from wandering. [it's not "eye candy" that attracts me] Experience Level: Your experience level is high. You've loved, lost, and loved again. You have had a wide range of love experiences. And when the real thing comes along, you know it! Dominance: Your dominance is low. This doesn't mean you're a doormat, just balanced. You know a relationship is not about getting your way. And you love to give your sweetie a lot of freedom. Cynicism: Your cynicism is low. You are an eternal optimist when it comes to love and romance. No matter how many times you've been hurt - you're never bitter. You believe in one true love, your perfect soulmate. [How does this comport with the monogamy thing above?] And if you haven't found true love yet, you know you will soon. Independence: Your independence is low. This doesn't mean you're dependent in relationships.. It does mean that you don't have any problem sharing your life. In your opinion, the best part of being in love is being together. [Yes!!!!!]

The Five Variable Love Test

Your Psyche is Green [I was hoping for Purple!!!!]

You radiate love, empathy, and acceptance. You are able to relax almost everyone you meet. You are naturally comforting. [Too often I just make people nervous.] Balanced and flexible, you only seem perfect! When you are too green: you are jealous, manipulative, and deceptive [I swore off being manipulative in High School] When you don't have enough green: you feel sluggish and out of sorts

What Color Is Your Psyche?

Your Love Type: INFJ

The Protector In love, you strive to have the perfect relationship. [Why not?] For you, sex is nearly a spiritual experience, a bonding of souls. [Amen!] Overall, you have high expectations for any relationship you're in. However, you tend to hold back a part of yourself. [I have to. Who can handle all of me at once? Besides, I'd just be full of myself if I let loose. Gotta give it all to the other person.] Best matches: ENTP and ENFP

What's Your Love Type?

You Are 50% Passionate, 50% Compassionate

You possess an ideal balance of passion and compassion. You definitely can get swept away and lose your head a little. [A Little?!?!?!?!?] But you're rarely a fool for love! [Ahem. Too often a fool for love is more like it...]

Is Your Love Style Passionate or Compassionate?

You Are A Realistic Romantic

It's easy for you to get swept away by romance... [Yup...] But you've done a pretty good job keeping perspective. [Yup...] You're still taken in by love poems and sunsets [Absolutely... Anyone ever read Song of Solomon?] You just don't fall for every dreamy pick up line! [Who needs a pick up line? I vote for a tickle fight...]

Are You Romantic or Realistic?

Your Kissing Technique Is: Perfect [Woo-hoo!!! My wife can confirm this... Honey? Honey? Stop laughing...]

Your kissing technique is amazing - and you know it. You have the confidence to make the first move. And you always seem to know what kissing style is going to work best. Sometimes you're passionate, sometimes you're a tease. And you're always amazing!

Are You a Good Kisser?

It's easy to love the lovable.
CAN I GET YOUR ATTENTION HERE?!?!?!
Scroll down and stop salivating over the little romantic pictures...
I said...

It's easy to love the lovable.

Here's a quote:

"We only love Christ as much as the person we love the least."

I don’t remember where I heard this quoted recently. It may have been on a Xanga blog or one of the other Christian source blogs I peruse regularly. However, I’ve been pondering it with respect to some of what I read in the Bible about true love. I have to wonder how much I truly love Christ. Psalm 116 begins with the statement “I love the Lord…” How could the psalmist write this honestly? I think about John 14:15, look inside my heart, and recognize that I do not have enough love in my heart for perfect obedience. Does any of us? If we don’t have perfect obedience, then does it not follow that we wouldn’t have perfect love?

Peter learned his lesson. He said, “Even though all may fall away because of You, I will never fall away… Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You.” He ate his words.

Was Christ not lovable enough for Peter to love Him to the extreme? Ah. So we have trouble loving even the most lovable.

How then can we resonate with Psalm 116 and fulfill John 14:15? The fun "love" tests that resulted in the "blogthings" above seem as they are: shallow, material, and self-centered. If I have made a decision FOR Christ, what decision have I made? I have noticed improvement in my spiritual development. However, I have not arrived at a point where I can say, "I love the Lord" and mean it perfectly.

Nevertheless, He loves me enough to die on the cross for me. He chose me. I have nothing but to be grateful. I cannot be grateful unless I admit that I have not loved Him enough, for if I have loved Him enough then there is something I can boast about. He loves me and I desire it. In spite of myself, my gratitude opens me up to occasionally show the love of Christ to others. This is the Holy Spirit of God at work. In the meek and lowly I see the mark of my Lord and I desire Him. I reach down and lift up. I love the Lord.

Resurrection Greetings

Curse Ishtar...

We're celebrating the resurrection of Christ!


I would wish God to bless you, but He already has. He has come to earth in the person of His Son, Jesus the Christ. He has not only paid the penalty for sin, but has won the victory over death.

Rejoice and praise the LORD for what He has done!

Hebrews: A Human Messiah in Chapter 2

There are many issues briefly addressed in the last verses of chapter 2 of Hebrews that I've been pondering. Paul skips through them like they were nothing. However, they are weighty nuggets and Paul links them together in this context.

To restate, the context here is that Paul is encouraging the Hebrews to grow in their faith in Christ. He is doing so in this part of his letter by revealing Christ through related comparative dichotomies, in that Christ was revealed in the law and the prophets with which the Hebrews were already well familiar. Verse 14 begins with "therefore", but this is hardly the culminating passage of the letter. So, we can take the following passage (vv14-18) as an intermediate conclusion of some sort derived from this first section of the letter.

The first thing I notice is the reference to "flesh and blood." It sounds like he's writing about the Lord's Supper. The "children" are a reiteration of the quote from Isaiah 8:18 in the previous verse and is a reference to the elect, otherwise I would say that the apparent reference is merely coincidental and this has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper.

The debate between sacrament and ordinance is founded on the question, "What is the bread and wine?" On the one hand we have the hermeneutical principle that we should take the Bible literally except where it is obviously figurative. On the other hand, how could Christ have meant it as His literal body at the Feast of Unleavened Bread when He was standing right there? Did He create some meat and blood miraculously that had his DNA in it? Besides, Christ was known to speak figuratively and be misunderstood as speaking literally. On the way to raise Lazarus from the dead, Christ said Lazarus had "fallen asleep." The disciples didn't have a clue because they took Him literally. The fact is, the Bible doesn't answer the question clearly enough. In my mind, that means it's the wrong question. The question should be, "What is the body and blood of Christ?" Paul answers this clearly in I Corinthians 10:3-4;16-17:

2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 and all ate the same spiritual food;

16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ
17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.


Compare also Heb 2:18 with I Cor. 10:13:

18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.


The underlying truth is that the elect, while made up of individuals, is a corporate entity that shares a failure to resist temptation. We also share the grace whereby Christ came as one of us to be tempted as one of us, but to exhibit divine resistance. He did this to demonstrate His worthiness to pay for our failure on the cross. But Paul jumps over this as though the Hebrews don't need much explanation. This because the context of the crucifixion during Passover was still fresh in the minds of the Hebrews who understood Christ already as the Lamb of God - the only Passover Lamb who could remove sin once and for all. They understood their identity as the ones for whom the token lamb had been slain each year prior.

A curious comment is made by Paul regarding the means by which He rendered "powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil..." I notice it only because we've been studying this in Sunday School. I need to do a study of the Greek to see if this is accurate, but I notice that the English of the NASB is here rendered temporally: "had". If accurate, this means that the devil no longer has the power over death. Paul writes later about those of faith who came prior to Christ. If their faith is accounted to them as righteousness, then the devil never really had power over death. I'll take any insight to the meaning of this. Perhaps Paul merely took a turn to the rhetorical. I'd like to ascribe better accuracy to Paul's comments than that, however.

Another observation is that this appears to be what Christ HAD to do in order to render the devil powerless. It could be that this is simply the way God CHOSE to handle it because it was more fitting to demonstrate His gracious nature than simply denying any of the devil's requests to work ill in the hearts and lives of men.