Thank God for Academics!
Did you know that without the contribution of scholarship we would not have the current access to words of God that is so essential to the lives with Christ? It a sobering reality how indebted I am to people who are masters of the original languages of scripture. It’s a fact that keeps me humble and searching for more. With that in mind I want to say thanks to following academics. (All names and references are taken from http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbprin.php)
“The translators were carefully chosen from the mainstream evangelical denominational groups and respected Christian institutions of higher learning. Some served on the translation committee itself. This was a committee located, for the most part, in the Southern California area. Others served as consultants who reviewed the translation committee's work and made recommendations for improvements. These consultants were chosen from all sections of the United States.
More than fifty who have earned doctorates in Biblical languages worked on the translation of the Scriptures. They actively teach in colleges and seminaries, including Wheaton College, Northwestern Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Dallas Theological Seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary, Talbot Theological Seminary, California State University, Bethany Nazarene College, Azusa-Pacific College, Bob Jones University, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary, Grace Theological Seminary, Texas Christian University, Seattle Bible School, Southern California College, Westmont College, Point Loma College, and Regent College.
The translators come from Presbyterian, Methodist, American Baptist, Disciples, Southern Baptist, Nazarene, General Association of Regular Baptist, Congregational, Independent Baptist, Free Methodist, and still other denominations. Some have international reputations. All support the philosophy of literal translation and the doctrinal statement of The Lockman Foundation, including the inerrancy of the Scriptures”
|
Dr. Peter Ahn Dr. Warren Allen Dr. Gleason Archer Dr. Herman Austel Dr. Kenneth Lee Barker Dr. Fred Bush Dr. David L. Cooper Dr. Richard W. Cramer Dr. Edward R. Dalglish Dr. Charles Lee Feinberg Dr. Harvey Finley Dr. Paul Gray Dr. Edward F. Harrison Dr. John Hartley Dr. F. B Huey, Jr. Dr. Charles Isbell Dr. David W. Kerr Dr. William L. Lane |
Dr. Timothy Lin Dr. Oscar Lowry Dr. Elmer Martens Dr. Henry R. Moeller Dr. Reuben A. Olson Dr. J. Barton Payne Dr. Walter Penner Dr. John Rea Dr. W.L. Reed Dr. Robert N. Schaper Dr. Moisés Silva Dr. Ralph L. Smith Dr. Merrill C. Tenney Dr. Robert L. Thomas Dr. George Townsend Dr. Bruce Waltke Dr. Lowell C. Wendt Dr. William C. Williams Dr. Herbert M. Wolf Dr. Kenneth Wuest Dr. Fred Young |
Dr. Timothy L. Deahl Dr. Paul Enns Dr. Buist M. Fanning Dr. Thomas Finley Dr. Osvaldo Garcia Dr. Kenneth Hanna Dr. W. Hall Harris Rev. Eduardo Hernandez Dr. Harold Hoehner Dr. J. Carl Laney Dr. David K. Lowery Dr. Ted Martin Dr. H. Bruce Stokes Dr. Duane Wetzler Dr. Dale Wheeler Dr. Don Wilkins Dr. C.S. Lovett Dr. Robert Sloan Dr. Donald Verleur Dr. James White Dr. George Blankenbaker Dr. Frank G. Carver Dr. Robert Saucy |
Because men are involved in the translation process there will always be room for improvement. But I would not be where I am today, in Christ because of the word of God, without the contribution of Academic scholarship whose shoulders I have stepped upon to reach Jesus. (Roman 10:17) So again, thank God for Academics.
Response to “Four Spiritual Laws”
By Jay Fullman
I have considered your request for funds to support the couple who will be working to share Christ. I will not be able to support this effort financially. The primary reason for my inability to support this effort is that the teaching by this couple, as described, will not include all that is required to obtain salvation in Christ. In short, the “Four Spiritual Laws,” which will apparently be the foundation for their work, are inadequate and incomplete.
Although not a major issue, the Bible does not state that there are “four spiritual laws,” or any similar configuration. I do not know if those who present the “Four Spiritual Laws” present them as God-ordained or as otherwise authoritative. However, believers who present the “Four Spiritual Laws” may have a tendency to present them instead of presenting God’s Word, because it is easier than presenting the Gospel as shown in the Bible. If God had wanted us to have “Four Spiritual Laws” He could have written them for us.
I have no dispute with “Laws” 1 though 3. They accurately state Biblical principals and are supported by Scripture.
“Law” Four is where problems arise. First, the text says, “We Receive Christ Through Faith,” and cites Ephesians 2:8-9. Ephesians 2:8-9 does not say that we receive Christ through faith. Rather, Paul states that it is through grace that we are saved, through faith. “Receiving Christ” is not mentioned or discussed in this passage.
Second, “Law 4” then states that when we receive Christ we experience a new birth, citing John 3:1-8. Jesus did not tell Nicodemus that the Christ is received. Instead, Jesus told Nicodemus that to see the Kingdom (i.e., obtain salvation) one must be born of the water and the spirit. Being born of the water and the spirit is not an act of “receiving” Christ. I understand being born of the water and the spirit to mean and refer to coming into contact with the blood of Christ by putting Christ on in baptism. Romans 6:3-18, I Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:26-27.
Third, “Law 4” states we receive Christ through a personal invitation, citing Revelation 3:20. Revelation 3:20 is Jesus talking through John to the church at Laodicea, i.e., those who were already bought by the blood of Christ. When talking to these who were already Christians, Jesus was encouraging them to be obedient believers, and be restored to full fellowship. He was not trying to convince them that they should make him their savior (because He already was their savior), but that they should act in a manner becoming like Christ.
Fourth, “Law 4” states, “You Can Receive Christ Right Now by Faith Through Prayer.” No citation to scripture is offered for this point. When it comes to the most critical part of whether someone will become obedient to Christ or not, the “Four Spiritual Laws” do not refer to, and states any reliance upon, God’s word. I believe the reason for this lack of citation to Scripture on this point is that the Bible does not support this process of praying Jesus into your heart. If you look at all of the biblical examples in the Book of Acts, there is not one example of someone who when separated from Christ became a Christian by praying Jesus into his heart. Please see the Bible examples of salvation in Acts 2:37-41, 8:9-13, 8:26-39, 9:1-22, 10:1-8, & 24-48, 16:13-15, 16:23-33, 18:7-8. If obtaining the salvation of one’s soul required only a pray of faith, then why would the Scripture not identify (a) the pray of faith, or (b) the actual use or application of the pray of faith?
Using the “Four Spiritual Laws” may be an excellent way to try to get someone to think about their lost condition. However, the “Laws” do not go far enough in their teaching of the Gospel. And, the “Laws” stray too far from Scripture in their application. I would not want to lead someone astray by not teaching the whole counsel of God, or suggest that they could obtain salvation in Christ in any manner other than is laid out in God’s Word.
If you believe my assessment of Scripture is inaccurate, incomplete, erroneous, or otherwise lacking, please let me know. May God bless you abundantly as you diligently strive to serve Him.
Sanctification
Sanctification
by Matt Raines
Imagine two children sitting in an office. One is a nicely groomed, calm and proper young man; the other is a dirty and uncivilized child. They both look at each other puzzled, as if they are not really aware of their fate. If you think they are in the principal’s office you would be close; but it is not a school they are in, nor is it trouble they have found. Good news: it is the day of their adoption. A loving father has paid the price, gone through all the red tape, spoken to all the officials, done all the work. Now all that is left is a decision: a choice to go with the loving father or to return as a ward of the state.
What is going through their minds? What must they be thinking about? What are they going to do? Of course they are going to go with the loving father. To refuse that option is insanity, right? Possibly. But from my perspective, people refuse a loving Father all the time. They do so because they struggle with identity. The uncivilized child found his identity in an unruly orphanage. He became the child he is today by means of just surviving. He has fought and stolen and lied and sabotaged others just to stay alive. Doing what he wanted, when he wanted, in the way he wanted became his identity at the top of the heap. The civilized child, on the other hand, found his identity being raised in a strict principled orphanage. This child has formed his identity by following a system of rules. He is a good and proper boy because that is what the rules told him he was. He does what he’s told because that is what gives him value. Both of these children, regardless of how much they would like a loving father, are at risk of running away from their future. If you don’t believe this scenario exists I would encourage you to read Romans 6-8, because this is precisely what Paul is dealing with; two adopted sons who are struggling with getting along with one another and dealing with the subject of grace.
In Romans 6-8 Paul addresses what most scholars describe as sanctification. Paul has just discussed salvation in chapters 1-5. Like the scenario before God is the loving Father that has paid the price, gone through all the red tape, spoken to all the officials and done all the work. (Rom 5:6-1.) Now all that is left is a decision: a choice to go with a loving Father or return as the ward of the state. Enter Paul’s argumentation in chapters 6-8. Paul addresses some questions that are bound to come up when you are dealing with children who have wrapped their identity in someone other than God. This leads us to a good description of sanctification. Sanctification is the process by which you come to grips with your intended identity. Conversion is you getting into Christ; sanctification is Christ getting into you. In the end sanctification means making the choice to go with a loving Father and, as I mentioned a moment ago, sometimes that choice conflicts with our sense of identity.
Both Jew and Gentile seem to be struggling with the same major question: Does grace give me permission to identify myself the way I always have? This question is raised in Romans 6-8. It is written in this way:
“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” And, “What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? …Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me?” (Romans 6:1; 7:7a, 13a.)
Each of these questions deals with identity and each comes from a different source. The child who has identified himself through a process of survival of the fittest, doing whatever he wants because he is in control, immediately looks at the subject of grace and asks, Does grace give me permission to keep control of my life and do whatever I want? The child who has identified himself through a system of rules looks at the subject of grace and immediately asks, Does grace make everything I’ve done in the past pointless and this dirty creature sitting next to me an equal partner? Both of these questions are raised and answered by Paul in a way that brings them to find their identity in Christ!
As to the question about grace permitting control over one’s life, Paul responds by arguing that when you are adopted you get a new master. He calls the old master sin, but don’t let that confuse you, that is just another way of saying self. Sin is what we do; it doesn’t stand outside of us. However, as we all know from experience, sin does have a way of taking control of our lives and becoming a master. Thus, Paul says you have a new master, not because your old master died but because you died to the former master. Paul makes it very clear that sanctification is not the killing of your ability to master your own life; rather, sanctification is your conscious choice to let Christ be your master. What does that look like? Paul would say to ask yourself these questions: Who do you obey? Do you follow Christ or self? The choice is simple, follow Christ as master and live, or follow yourself and return as a ward of the state of sin. In the end it’s as if Paul looks at the unruly child that has been adopted and says grace gives you the choice to find your identity in Christ.
Romans 6:21-23: “But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Paul’s response to the civilized child is equally relational. He basically argues that the rules the civilized child is questioning in light of grace do ultimately have purpose. However, their purpose is in danger of being forfeited if they are not permitted to run their course. When the law ran its course Paul said it accomplished two things: First the law was to make us aware of sin. Paul says we would not have known what sin was had God not told us. Second the law was to create a need for someone other than ourselves. In essence the law was never intended to be the place where one found his identity. Paul says the law pointed out sin in our lives which of course pointed out that we need something other than a law and ourselves to have life. Trusting in ourselves and finding our identity in our own ability is a brilliant plan, as long as you can do it perfectly. However, in the end Paul says you don’t wrap your identity up in the rules because you can’t do it perfectly. Thus, you wrap your identity up in the Ruler! In essence Paul looks to the well dressed little boy and says, you need to find your identity in your God and following after him because that is the only way you will be made perfect.
Romans 8:1-4 (ESV): “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”
Imagine again two children sitting in an office. This time one of them is you. Which one would you be? Would you be the one who finds his identity on the top of the heap doing what he pleases, or the one who finds his identity in his own performance following the rules? Choose to be either of these children and you are going to find the good news of God’s grace to be a stumbling block. As I said in the beginning, I see people refuse a loving Father time after time. Why? Because they believe grace gives them the right to identify themselves the way they always have. To those that find themselves in that chair today, hear Paul’s admonition. Let the grace of God lead you to your new identity in Christ. Let Christ be your master and rules lead you to the Ruler. When you do, you will find you are not an orphan anymore.
Romans 8:14-17 (ESV): “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.”
Find your identity in Christ - be sanctified!
A Message from Above. A Movie from Down Under.
By Matt Raines
"Pride is not power."
A movie from down under with a message from above. That is how I would categorize a recent movie I saw called “Australia.” The movie is set in the 1940s and it centers on an emerging cattle industry. The film has stayed with me now for some hours - not because it was the best movie I have ever seen, but because of a phrase that just will not get out of my mind. One of the leading actors in the movie plays a disgruntled ranch hand that is dismissed at the beginning of the film for rustling cattle. This ranch hand with his very underhanded ways would always find a way to tell the leading actress that “pride is not power.” At first the phrase struck me because it didn’t seem to fit; after all, this guy is a ranch hand and this phrase seemed to be a bit high brow. (Not to mention, a cattle man on a ranch surrounded by manure and thousands of heifers could come up with a much better insult for the lead actress!) Nevertheless, as the movie drew to a close, what at first seemed out of place became crystal clear.
A Plan and Self-Justification
The disgruntled ranch hand worked for Lady Ashley and her aristocrat family for years. In fact, his whole family had worked the Australian ranch for generations. Lifetimes of hard work had become too much for this jealous ranch hand and by virtue of his efforts and “time served” he had come to feel the farm belonged to him. This of course did not sit well with Lady Ashley who had no intention of selling or forfeiting the farm to anyone, especially not a cattle thief. When attempts to steal the farm failed, the frustrated rancher contemplated taking the farm by force. In order to do that he would not only have to come up with a plan but some sort of self-justification. Thus, every chance he had, the ranch hand would tell Lady Ashley, “Pride is not power.” He wanted her to know that her pride didn’t have the power to prevent him from taking whatever he wanted. He wanted to remind himself that her pride was the reason for his hatred. Of course what the ranch hand saw as pride was really just a commitment to values, the supreme of which was love.
".. and did drink deeply of this position"
Lady Ashley’s relentless caring for others was like toxin for the rancher, and he did drink deeply of this poison. The ranch hand, in his effort to take what belonged to him, became the very thing he despised the most - a pompous aristocrat that expected pride to have some power. This came to light as the disgruntled ranch hand married the daughter of a local ranch baron who just happened to get eaten by an alligator, leaving everything to his daughter and by proxy his son-in-law. Now the disgruntled hand had become a powerful aristocrat and ultimately found out the hard way the truth spoken from his own lips. The reason I say that is because in the end he lost everything: his wife, his inheritance, and ultimately his life. As the movie ended the disgruntled rancher in a fit of jealous rage attempted to take the life of someone Lady Ashley loved. As he raised his weapon with every bit of pride and contention he had left, his heart was pierced, and his pride in all its glory ended with a thud. Taking his last dying breaths, although no words were spoken, his lifeless gravity-bound corpse seemed to mutter, “Pride is not power.”
"...pride is not power!"
As I said previously, this movie has really stuck with me. It reminded me of a couple of passages of scripture. The first is Proverbs 16:18 which says, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” In my opinion that could have been the title of this movie. It is pride that leads men to their own destruction, regardless of whether or not the journey at some point makes a rich and influential aristocrat. Tragically one day, like the ranch hand in this movie, those who place their power in their pride will fall. Ironically, many times I believe it will be for the same reason as this film suggested: jealousy, resentment, but mostly because they fail to realize where true power comes from. The bible says it this way: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.” A movie from down under with a message from above...Pride is not power! Love is!
“Web-Slinger” meets “Soul-Saver”
By Matt Raines
Just received an email from a good friend of mine with the title, “Reminds me of Dawson.” I opened it immediately expecting to see a picture of a nuclear reactor or some cartoon character like Dash from the Disney movie “The Incredibles.” Instead of a reference to my son’s energy level the email told a story about one of my son’s favorite superheroes. Dawson loves Spiderman, and has loved him ever since the infamous “web slinger” was first introduced to my little “floor crawler” at the age of three.
"Web-Slinger" meets "Soul-Saver"
Little boys and Spiderman just seem to go together, or at least that’s what this email suggested.
“Little boys and Spiderman just seem to go together”
As a result of his autism and the anxiety associated with attending school for the first time, a little boy in Bangkok, China crawled out on the ledge of the three-story school building. The little boy refused to return to officials; and, afraid of a botched rescue attempt, the authorities called the fire department. When Somchai Yoosabai, a local fire fighter, arrived at the scene, he quickly found out that the little boy refused to let anyone get close to him. Reluctances from people in desperate situations were nothing new for this seasoned firefighter. What was new was the way he eventually rescued the little boy sitting on the window ledge. After speaking with the little boy’s mother and learning that the little boy loved Spiderman, Somchai rushed back to the station and put on an impressive Spiderman costume. Moments later, Spidy was on the scene and the little boy was safe in the arms of his mother. As I said, Spiderman and little boys just seem to go together.
So what’s the point?
After reading this article I sat back in my chair and thought about the amazing rescue from the window ledge. I thought about how a fictitious cartoon character was enfleshed to save a life and how willingly the change was made from official firefighter to costumed hero, all in a moment’s notice. Then I thought about a passage of scripture that appeared to be very appropriate.
19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 1 Corinthians 9:19-22 (ESV)
So what’s the point? It seems a 21st century firefighter and a 1st century Apostle have something in common. They both seem to be aware of people’s tendency to refuse their own rescue…and they are both willing to wear just about anything to make sure they can get close enough to reach people. How about you?
“Why are we bringing it back?”
By Matt Raines
“Why are we bringing it back?”
“Because there is sin in the world”
The above statements were recorded in an article By Paul Vitello for the New York Times. It was an article that described the Catholic Church’s decision to “re-open a door to absolution” - a door also known as indulgences. According to the article, which purported to give the Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject, even after sinners are absolved in confession and say the appropriate prayers for penance they still face punishment after death in purgatory before they can enter heaven. Enter indulgences. It seems that one can acquire an indulgence which reduces or erases that punishment instantly, as the article put it, “with no formal ceremony or sacrament.”
Now I have to admit the first time I read the article I was quite shocked that the Catholic Church would return to a practice that created so much trouble for it in the past. The idea of Indulgences and specifically its abuse led a man by the name of Martin Luther to nail his thesis to a door of a church and in effect nail down the all-important subject of grace that fueled the Reformation Movement which was to follow. Having said all that let me says this: Please do not get the wrong idea about this article. This article isn’t going to be all about “them guys.”
Let’s take a look at scripture.
The Hebrew writer, I believe, has a lot to say on the subject of meritorious religious practices. In chapter 10, the writer addresses the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice and compares that sacrifice to the inability of the Law to take care of the sin problem.
“For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near." (Hebrews 10:1, NASB95)
For the Jewish readership of this letter, finding salvation in Christ alone was indeed a major struggle, so they must see as the Hebrew writer begins, that Law was insufficient dealing with sin. Why? The Hebrew writer gives three reasons.
The spots keep coming back
Everyone who has tried to clean their carpets knows that if you have a really stubborn stain no amount of washing will do. You can wash it and it will look clean! But wait for the carpet to dry and all of a sudden the stain is back. Well, that why the Law was insufficient as well.
" For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?" (Hebrews 10:1-2, NASB95)
One could follow the law, one could offer sacrifice, but that stain would come back, sin would not go away. In fact, sin, like that pesky stain, was on our minds constantly, stained into our consciousness. “In those sacrifices,” the writer tells us “there is a reminder of sins year by year.” (Hebrews 10:3) Why rely on a Law that can not get rid of the stain of sin? Exactly!
Need a different cleansing agent!
"For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."
"Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, But a body You have prepared for Me; In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure. “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come (In the scroll of the book it is written of Me) To do Your will, O God.’ ” After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:5-10, NASB95)
The second reason the Law was insufficient has to do with purpose of the Law to begin with. The Law used the blood of bulls and goats to atone for sin. The Hebrew writer tells us God had something much greater in mind: Instead of sacrifice, obedience; instead of the blood of bulls and goats, the blood of Christ. In short, if the stain of sin is ever to be purged from our consciousness we must have a better cleansing agent. What can wash away my sins? NOTHING, but the blood of Jesus! The alternative (Law), trying the same thing and getting the same results expecting a different outcome, is foolishness. That’s the next point the Hebrew writer makes.
"Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them: After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws upon their heart, And on their mind I will write them,” He then says, “And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin." (Hebrews 10:11-18, NASB95)
“There’s just no comparison!”
When you stop to compare Christ and the Law, there really is only one logical choice. The Priest stands daily, offering sacrifices that the Hebrew writer says “can never take away sins.” Jesus, on the other hand, offered sacrifice for sins once, and has sat down at the right hand of God, waiting for consummation of the ages. He did it once and it worked marvelously! The Law offers sacrifice time and time again and just can’t get the stain out! Christ’s sacrifice perfected for “all time,” it dealt with the conscious by “writing on the heart” and dealt with sins “once and for all”. God “remembers sins no more”, there is “forgiveness of sins” therefore there is “no longer any offering for sin." That, if you recall, was the argument the Hebrew writer began with. Only Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient and the Law can’t get the stain out. “In those sacrifices, there is a reminder of sins year by year.” (Hebrews 10:3)
In the End…
So when it’s all said and done, the point is this: Christ is superior to the Law because in Christ sins are forgiven and the stain of sin is removed from our conscience. The Law just keeps getting the carpet wet and the stain of sin just keeps popping up! The reminder of sin over and over and over again is not the effect the blood of Jesus would have on the lives of Christians.
What can we learn from all of this?
Do we ever fail to trust in the blood of Jesus Christ? Have we ever been guilty of opening a “door of absolution?” Do we, after being absolved of our sins, ever try to make penance for sins of the past? Do we keep carrying around the stain of sin on our conscience? Is there a continual remembrance of sin in our lives?
Perhaps, but instead of a yearly reminder of sin we have a weekly one. Every week we come to church and praise Jesus for loving us, we pray through Jesus confidently expecting God to hear our prayers and then ultimately we take the time to remember Jesus’ sacrifice while gathered round the Lord’s table. Then it happens, at the moment designed to remind us of cleansing power of Jesus sacrifice. We bring it back. Why? “Because there is sin in the World.” We “examine ourselves” to see how good or bad we have been that week. Believe it or not, we inevitably find something. (Surprising, I know☺) Then, when we have our reminder of sins present, we remember the sacrifice of Jesus, and think, “Wow, did I blow it”, and maybe, just maybe, as we go through the act of communion, we somehow can be washed again and again. Has the act of communion, of remembering the Savior’s sacrifice, become a way to erase the punishment due my sin?
I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t seem to square with what the Hebrew writer says. The sacrifice of Christ “was once and for all” and superior to the Law because it eliminated the need to be reminded of sin over and over again. God cares about your conscience - He sent His Son to die to CLEANSE it. However, sometimes focusing on the sacrifice of Christ turns into a time of remembering sin. Instead of trusting Jesus to offer a sacrifice once, we need Him to be sacrificed again and again. “Sacrificed again and again” sounds familiar, doesn’t? It is how the Hebrew writer describes the insufficiency of the Law. You might also call it “a door of absolution.”