I just got another email from a congregant who had been attempting to defend his faith from and unbeliever. At issue was Jesus’ statement that only the Father knows the time of Christ’s coming (Matt 24:36). I answered the congregant by explaining the dual natures of Christ. However, have you ever wondered exactly how the human and divine natures of Christ worked in conjunction with each other? I am not suggesting that I can fully explain this and I am sure there are many others who are far more capable, but let me give it a shot.

In Jesus of Nazareth his human nature had its proper human form and powers by which it acted. Likewise, in Jesus, there was his divine nature which had its own form and powers (infinite, of course). In other words, the human and divine natures of Christ had their distinct and proper functions in-and-of-themselves. Yet, the divine nature of Christ made use of the action of the human nature much like a musician would use his/her instrument. Additionally, Christ’s human nature participated in the action of the divine nature much like an instrument participates in the actions of a musician. An example would be that when Jesus healed people it was his divine nature empowering and working through his human nature to cleanse the leper or raise Lazarus from the dead. Of course, his human nature was the instrument of the divine healing power of God and, yet, the leper did really and truly feel the touch of a human hand upon his broken body. When we listen to a skilled clarinetist play a piece by Mozart, we thrill at the sound of the instrument but we also realize that the real maker of the beautiful music is the musician. However, we are not to push this analogy too far. As opposed to a clarinet, Christ’s human nature had a will, intellect, soul and animated body. Yet, the human and divine natures of Christ worked in complete harmony.

It is wise and helpful for Christians to reflect on the mystery of the incarnation because it is the very heart and soul of our religion and it has huge implications for our salvation.

“The need for reconciliation also explains why the movements for disordered sexuality—homosexual, pederastic, sadomasochistic—cannot be satisfied with toleration, but must propagandize, recruit, and convert. They do not suffer from sexual deprivation, for partners are easy enough to find. They suffer from social deprivation, because they are cut off from the everyday bonds of life. They want to belong; they want to belong as they are; there can be only one solution. Society must reconcile with them. The shape of human life must be transformed. All of the assumptions of normal sexuality must be dissolved: marriage, family, innocence, purity, childhood—all must be called into question, even if it means pulling down the world around their ears…you cannot be content that your critics are feeble and ineffective, you cannot be content with their practical tolerance for your activities. You want, in a sense you need, actual acceptance, open approval. If you cannot convert your critics by argument, at least by law you can make them recognize that your course is the course of the country.” – J. Budziszewski, “What We Can’t Not Know,” Spence Publishing Company, 2003, p. 153-154.

In the above statement, J. Budziswewski, professor of government and philosophy at the University of Texas, makes the case that those who advocate “tolerance” for deviant sexual and social behavior are actually compelled to demand acceptance of their “lifestyle choices.” Consequently, Christians and others who, for conscience sake, cannot give such acceptance will find that the force of law will eventually bear down upon them. In other words, do not be fooled into thinking that those who complain that conservative Christians are “judgmental” and “intolerant” will themselves be—when they have captured the legislative and judicial reigns of power—tolerant of those who do not agree with their disordered philosophy.

I have for years been fascinated by a statement from St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 about the “man of lawlessness.” He says:

2 Thess. 2:3-4 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

Of course, many Evangelical teachers take this passage to mean that the Antichrist will set himself up to be worshiped in the restored and rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem. I’m not so convinced of this view. I think a compelling case can be made that when Paul refers to “God’s temple”, he is writing about the church. In my view, the Antichrist will come from within the church. An interesting factor is the title itself, “the man of lawlessness.” What law? Obviously, this refers to God’s law. The Antichrist will be one who is very much “spiritual” and worshipful; however, he will oppose God’s law. Does this remind you of anything or make you think of anything? Have you ever wondered why those who oppose traditional biblical morality seem compelled to seek high office within the church? Why do they not just boldly and brazenly disagree with church teaching and set up their own institutions and organizations? Why must they work with amazing energy from within the church to overthrow traditional moral teaching? I think Budziszewski has the answer.

I’ve gathered a few nuggets from the blog-o-sphere about the recent Trinitarian controversy within the Presbyterian Church (USA). The following are some interesting insights and tidbits:

The Presbyterian decision to allow congregations to substitute various formulations for the Trinity in place of the Scriptural “Father, Son and Holy Spirit was, “Written by a diverse panel of working pastors and theologians, the report noted that the traditional language of the Trinity portrays God as male and implies men are superior to women.

The panel’s report went on to make this astounding statement, “For this and other distortions of Trinitarian doctrine we repent,” the report said. . . .Wow! We must now all bow before the god of feminism.

One wag wrote the following, which I think captures the heart of the matter: “Clearly the time has arrived to select and embrace a new, life-affirming symbol of our sophisticated and superior post-modern faith in absolutely anything we feel good about. Something that celebrates the bounty of creation, rather than sin, suffering, and death…I suggest a golden calf.” – R. Kang

Another less-reverent wag suggested the Presbyterian panel consider this formula: “Larry, Moe, and Curly??”

On the bright side it was reported that, “Within a week of the close of the PCUSA’s General Convention, the First Presbyterian Church of Fresno - Fresno’s oldest and largest Presbyterian church - announced its ‘trial separation’ from the denomination because of the general drift of the PCUSA into heterodoxy culminating in the last General Convention.

Combine this with the Fresno based Diocese of San Joaquin’s decision to ask Canterbury for oversight within one week of the close of the ECUSA’s General Convention, and it has been a big week for religious news in Central California.

(The author continued) As near as I can tell, however, media coverage in these stories, or the interesting fact that a single community is seeing a break-up of both denominations over theological issues, has been essentially non-existent.”

I cannot be prouder of my local Christian community. The future of the Presbyterians and Episcopalians in the United States appears to be one of schism with liberals drifting into heterodoxy and heresy while conservatives reformulate themselves within orthodox faith-communities. However, at least in my area, traditionalists have heroically taken a stand for biblical Christianity.

In my next post I will reflect upon why heterodox theology and practice—which constantly beats the drum of tolerance--will not be satisfied until traditional orthodoxy is muzzled, driven from the field and made to be intolerable by the force of law.

Well, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) which has been a bastion of orthodox Protestant theology has just decided to go the way of the Dodo bird—extinction. In a shocking move at their 217th annual General Assembly in June, Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman calmly announced that Presbyterians should experiment with “gender-inclusive language for the Trinity.” Recommended alternatives to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit include: “Mother, Child and Womb” or “Rock, Redeemer, Friend” (Rock, Paper, Scissors will come later). As Olthoff stated church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won’t be required to use them. However, the panel that proposed this experiment in heresy noted that the traditional language “has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women” thus stigmatizing the traditional language as oppressive.

At least one courageous young woman, Dorothy Hill, a student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, had the guts to tell the Assembly that the panel’s paper on the Trinitarian language was in “tension” with what Presbyterians have always held to be true about God and that the Ten Commandments say “the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.” Hill deserves the Christian equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

All of this nonsense about mother, child and womb (this does not deserve the dignity of capitalization) is pure acquiescence to the Zeitgeist (the spirit) of our age. It follows on the heels of “The Da Vinci Code” and the whole search for the divine feminine. Goddess worship, of course, has always been associated with the crudest and vilest forms of sexualized religion. However, in a larger sense, the Presbyterians have fallen prey to the subtler trap set by Satan in the spirit of antichrist. In a vain attempt to soften the hard edges of Christianity, the Presbyterians have allowed themselves to step across the line from the truth to the lie. The lie is that God is not who He says He is nor that what He says should not be done, should not be done. Remember this little question, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?’” Guess who said that—you got it, the old serpent himself. When you begin playing games with God’s name disobedience follows like night follows day.

Those of us on Blogstream that regularly defend orthodox Christianity are deeply saddened by the Presbyterian collapse into false teaching. We also know the repercussions will not only cause an exodus from the Presbyterian Church but will give truck-loads of ammunition to the enemies of the orthodox view of the Blessed Trinity. May God strengthen his true church against the assaults of the enemy.

The other day I got into a conversation with a fellow pastor about heaven. We were discussing Randy Alcorn’s teachings about heaven from his large book on the same subject. I mentioned to my friend that Randy’s view of heaven is more materialistic than mine. This intrigued my friend so he asked me a number of questions. We ended up in a serious discussion about the subject of “change” in heaven. My friend offered that he believes that in heaven we will continue to progress in our intellectual and spiritual growth. I countered—in my usual very opinionated way—that such growth will be impossible in heaven. Here is why.

First, eternity involves immutability—changelessness. The fact is that motion is the cause of time—or, time is the measure of change. In time there is “before,” “now,” and “after.” The cessation of motion puts a stop to before and after; so that nothing remains but eternity, which is simultaneously whole. In other words, in a person’s final consummation he/she attains to eternal life, not only in the sense that he/she lives an immortal life in his/her soul—this, by the way, is already a property of the human soul by its nature—but also in the sense that he/she is brought to the perfection of immutability.

Secondly, when we see God in all of His fullness all of our intellectual striving will come to an end because He is the First Cause of all things, in which all truth can be known. There can be nothing more to know other than God Himself. In His infinite nature is all knowledge of all things in their fullness. Additionally, our wills will cease to strive as well. When we see God directly we will have found our final and last end. God is the fullness of all goodness and nothing further can be desired beyond Him. Presently our wills are subject to change because we crave what we do not possess. Clearly, therefore, the final consummation of man in seeing God directly will create absolute and perfect repose or unchangeableness in both the human intellect and the human will. By the way, this is why we will not sin in heaven.

Don’t expect to progress in heaven. The capacity that you develop in the here and now for enjoying God is what you will have in “by and by.”