Notes on The Emotionally Healthy Church, by Peter Scazzero

Random notes.

In general, I see the need for this book. Too many "spiritual" people in "spiritual" profession or callings (pastors, bible study leaders, missionaries) have split off their emotions from real life and compartmentalized their spirituality from the rest of their being. This drives people to have unhealthy lifestyles, and put up with too much and have bad boundaries.

To the italicized sentence on p. 18: "Making incarnation the top priority in order to love others well is both the climax and point of the entire book.", I wrote this note in the margin: "There's more to Spiritual Life than Incarnation. What about Redemption?" And now I'm listening to Tim Keller about redemption (his church is called Redeemer). Yes, Incarnation is a miracle, a great miracle, and one that made the following possible. But Redemption is the big miracle. Where God turns sinners into saints.

on p. 19, line 4, I underlined "the two are inseparably linked", the "two" being emotional issues and spiritual problems (meaning I agree with this).

Same page, line 7, his commitment is to Scripture. Good. Line 10, he remains committed to Sabbath-keeping. Well, when's he gonna start wearing phylacteries and sacrificing goats?

P. 22: "Jesus does call us to die to ourselves. 'If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me' (Mark 8:34). The problem was that we had died to the wrong things. We mistakenly thought that dying to ourselves for the sake of the Gospel meant dying to self-care, to feelings of sadness, to anger, to grief, to doubt, to struggles, to our healthy dreams and desires, and to passions we had enjoyed before our marriage." So what does it mean do die to ourselves?

He says "As go the leaders." So true.

He mentions the movie, The Apostle. Loved it. Love Robert Duvall. Is Duvall a believer?

Beginning of Chapter 3, p. 49, line 3: "Contemporary discipleship models often lift up the spiritual over the physical, emotional, social, and intellectual components of who we are. Nowhere, however, does a good biblical theology allow such a division." Now wait just a second! What about these passages?
Mat 26:41
John 3:6-8
John 4:23-24
John 6:63
Rom. 2:29
Rom. 7:6
Rom. 8:1-9 (incl. v. 4)
Rom. 8:10-17
1 Cor 2:10-16
1 Cor 3:1-3
1 Cor 5:5
1 Cor 12:4-13
2 Cor 5:5-9
Gal 3:2-9
Gal 4:29
Gal 5:16-26
Gal 6:1
Eph 1:3
And then I got tired.

P. 51. I underlined the first paragraph in the section entitled "Plato in the Church". "Where did we get the idea that spiritual maturity can be achieved apart from an integration of the emotional aspects of who we are? Where did the subtle bias that places the spiritual over the physical, emotional, social, and intellectual components of who we are come from." These two sentences are artificially put together. They are not the same issue. Why is Peter throwing out the baby with the bathwater. He's bouncing between two extremes, answering one with another. He reacts to one extreme--the unhealthy splitting off of the emotional life from spirituality, and the ensuing disastrous fallout--with another extreme--the unhealthy non-subjugation of body and soul (which includes mind and emotions) to the spirit. You can put spirit over body and soul in a healthy way, without denying the body and soul. Sheesh!

P. 52: "The only problem is that we are more than spiritual beings." Agreed. Absolutely. Amen. However, acknowledgement of this vital truth is light years different from failing to put spirt over body/soul.

That glaring hole in Codex Vaticanus

So go here and tell me Mark 16:9-20 wasn't blotted out.
Dan Wallace says there's not enough room for it in the space, but I disagree. (Maybe he was referring to the space after Mark 16:8 in the Sinaiticus, I can't remember, but still there's quite a bit of space there.) He also says that the Western order has Mark last among the Gospels, which formed their own unit, so it's quite logical that the space would be there since you would start another unit on its own page. Then how do you explain Luke starting at the upper left? I think he's reaching.

Anyway, Burgon is kicking butt in my opinion, in his The Last 12 Verses of Mark.

Just got a kick out of the following marginal note, found, ironically, in the Vaticanus, at Heb. 1:3: ""Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!" Yeah, can't you keep from erasing 12 verses?

And I really love the duplicity of this image. Notice they didn't mention that the next column to the right was left completely blank, unlike any other column in the Vaticanus. Why did they show this image and not the above-mentioned one.

What fellowship has light with darkness?

Christian Churches Together is such a false fellowship.

And why is the superset of my church a part of this?

And this is the spin that Rome puts on things

Ever arrogant, stepping in and claiming the prize where others labored, Rome thinks it evangelized Germany. Here's her spin on "Saint" Boniface, from EWTN:
"Isolated missionary groups had penetrated central Germany in earlier times, but not until the eighth century was there a systematic effort to Christianize the vast pagan wilderness."

Let me translate that sentence: "The Culdees under the rule of Columbanus of Iona had systematically penetrated central Germany in earlier times and planted churches free of Rome's corrupting influence, but not until the eight century was there a systematic effort to Romanize the vast newly Christianized region."

I think I interpolated a little bit. Sorry. Those poor Culdees probably didn't have the proper Vulgate, either.

I think Jesus put it more succinctly: "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof." (Matt. 13:32) The tree in this parable is not a good thing. Birds are not good things. They steal the Word. Mustard seeds are supposed to grow into mustard plants, not trees.

Jesus also put it like this: "But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way." (Matt. 13:25). So whose fault is it? We must not sleep.

J. A. Wylie's History Of The Scottish Nation

I'm going to read this. Already read about the Culdees' work in France, noted in the previous post. Fascinating.

So Cahill's book should really be titled, "How the Scots Saved Civilization."

This is how you evangelize

The Scots (aka the Irish) did it right.

Man, Rome really sucks! She'll get hers soon.

An adjustment, perhaps

Just started to listen to Harold Chase of Minnesota Valley Baptist Church. He's making a good, but naturalistic, case for the Majority Text as opposed to the Textus Receptus, which is close. He cited 15-20 places where they differ, including the big one--1 John 5:7. Not even Burgon thinks 1 John 5:7 is genuine. I think he said it's not even in any of the versions (syriac, old latin, etc.), but that may have been another verse.

The same basic overarching philosophical considerations that make the TR position attractive also make the MT position attractive. As long as one gives due weight to the Versions and the early Church Teachers. But it seems the MT position avoids wild-eyed fundamentalism.

WWDJWBD?

I hit the jackpot in audio sermons.

Mark 16:9-20 are in Codices Alexandrinus and Washingtonensis

Codex Alexandrinus is a 5th century uncial manuscript, discovered in 1627, 16 years after the publication of the KJV. It contains Mark 16:9-20.

Codex Washingtonensis is a 4th/5th century uncial manuscript. It contains Mark 16:9-20.

So when people tell you that the oldest and best manuscripts (i.e., Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) don't contain Mark 16:9-20, they're overstating their case.

Plus, the Peshitta (Syriac) and other old translations (e.g., Coptic, Georgian, Old Latin) have it.

Spurgeon: "Our Protestantism must protest perpetually"

This is from The Spurgeon Archive:

Essence of lies, and quintessence of blasphemy, as the religion of Rome is, it nevertheless fascinates a certain order of Protestants, of whom we fear it may be truly said that "they have received a strong delusion to believe a lie, that they may be damned." Seeing that it is so, it becomes all who would preserve their fellow-immortals from destruction to be plain and earnest in their warnings. Not in a party-spirit, but for truth's sake, our Protestantism must protest perpetually. Dignitaries of the papal confederacy are just now very prominent in benevolent movements, and we may be sure that they have ends to serve other than those which strike the public eye. A priest lives only for his church; he may profess to have other objects, but this is a mere blind. Our ancient enemies have small belief in our common sense if they imagine that we shall ever be able to trust them, after having so often beheld the depths of Jesuitical cunning and duplicity. The sooner we let certain Archbishops and Cardinals know that we are aware of their designs, and will in nothing co-operate with them, the better for us and our country. Of course, we shall be howled at as bigots, but we can afford to smile at that cry, when it comes from the church which invented the Inquisition. "No peace with Rome" is the motto of reason as well as of religion.

Just How Influential are Wescott and Hort Today?

Dr. James White says the current critical text, Nestle-Aland 27th Edition/UBS 4th Edition, fixes many of the errors and excesses of Wescott & Hort's critical text. Doesn't D.A. Carson admit that the current critical text is based on W&H's critical text? Or was it Metzger speaking of a previous (but similar) text?

Scrivener's Attitude

From here:
Scrivener:

The Church of Christ ... has had her faults, many and grievous, but she never did nor shall fail in her duty as a faithful 'witness and keeper of Holy Writ.' 43

God's Providence has kept from harm the treasure of His written word, so far as is needful for the quiet assurance of His Church and people.44

This might be my attitude in the whole thing.

I Just Bought a King James Bible

The Defined King James Bible, to be precise.

Guess that makes me King James Only.

I'd rather be King James Only than Wescott & Hort Only.

Dr. Ian Paisley on the KJV

"What is the use of God verbally inspiring the Bible if He did not preserve it verbally for all generations?" So asks Dr. Ian Paisley.

Bart Ehrman asked the same question, I believe in Misquoting Jesus.

This is the question Dr. James White, Dr. Dan Wallace, (the late) Dr. Gene Scott, and all people who hold to verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture (as I do), must answer. "What we have is good enough," is what Dan Wallace said in his recent debate with Bart Ehrman. Is it?

Nestle-Aland 27th Edition Novum Testamentum Graece

So, what's a Roman Catholic Jesuit Cardinal (Martini) doing on the team of editors? Why should Protestants accept any translation based on this Greek Text? And most of the popular English versions are based on it or its predecessor.

Am I flirting with the Genetic Fallacy, or with Argumentum ad Hominem? I don't know, and I don't care. Why go to Egypt for help?

Here's the list of editors:
E. Nestle
B. Aland
K. Aland
J. Karavidopoulos
C. M. Martini: the "M." stands for Maria.

Textus Receptus, Ben Chayyim Masoretic, and King James Bible

If I end up holding to the idea that God perfectly preserved His Word in the Textus Receptus Greek and the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew and Aramaic texts, then the following observation is quite compelling:

People, even Fundamentalists, substitute God's "Word" for His Words, when they talk about the Scriptures, and their preservation for His Saints. By this they mean, not the exact words, but close enough: the thoughts, ideas, concepts, revelation, communication, message.

How do I know what His Word is if I don't know His exact words?

Emergent Church incoherence is the end result. "The Virgin Birth just has to be true, whether it happened or not."

Either that or Bart Ehrman. One of his major complaints, voiced in Misquoting Jesus, is this: What's the point of God plenarily inspiring Scripture--where every single word is exactly what God said, and nothing is left out--if it's no longer available to us? What kind of God would hide it from 2000 years of the Church, only to be made available by the heroic restoration efforts of 20th and 21st century ivory tower NT Textual Critics? (And even they have practically given up on finding the exact words.)

Dr. James White told a KJVO caller to the Bible Answer Man broadcast that he ought not to replace truth with certainty. Wow! From James White's own lips. Tony Jones couldn't have said it better. I actually resonate with this truth, as long as the certainty you're talking about is a kind of scientific Aristotelian Evidentialist certainty, and I think that's how James White meant it. I just find it interesting, since usually James White is all about the exact meaning of words and phrases in the Scriptures, in his debates with Catholics, Mormons, JW's, Muslims, etc.

But if you've settled in your mind that the TR and the Ben Chayyim are God's exact words, then you have a certain kind of certainty, based on faith that what God said is true. Sounds circular, but bear with me. There are many places in Scripture that people use to prove God promised He'd preserve His word, not just in a cave somewhere, but in a form available to his catholic Church. Psalm 12:6-7 and Matthew 5:18 come to mind. If you can show that these Scriptures speak of Preservation, in all textual variants including the corrupt ones, then you can logically conclude that, well, the one that has been most widely available must be the incorrupt one God promised to preserve.

The Authorized Version, or King James Bible, is the most printed book in history. The New Testament part of it is based on the Textus Receptus, which is based on the Majority Texts, i.e., the most abundantly copied species of all extant manuscript variants.

This is presuppositionalism. Waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, barks like a duck--must be a duck.

Now, do the variants matter, doctrinally? Dr. D.A. Waite, a TR/Ben Chayyim (and, derivatively, KJV) advocate, says there are about 350 variants that have doctrinal implications. I must check into these.

Roman Catholicism's Unholy Trinity

More and more as I listen to the local RCC radio station, I'm realizing that Roman Catholicism really has an unholy trinity, effectively speaking. Functionally, they have replaced The Real Holy Father with their counterfeit holy father they call The Pope. They have replaced Jesus the Son with a piece of bread. Actually over a trillion pieces of bread and counting. They have replaced the Holy Spirit with the so-called all-holy mother of god.

Actually, the correspondence isn't perfect. It isn't a perfect "one-to-one" and "onto" mapping, since Mary supposedly performs a lot of the things Jesus really does--like be our advocate and intercede for us. And their unholy father, in concert with the magisterium (and all the magisterial documents and Tradition thrown in), supposedly performs the function of interpreting the Scriptures for us, teaching us, and guiding us into all truth, which is actually the role the Scriptures give to the Holy Spirit. But they seem to form a group performing their own unholy perichoresis.

Actually I left one out--our other mother, the Church. But wait, I thought Mary was our mother. I'm confused. Catholics have two mommies? But maybe this concept could be folded into the pope.

Listen to Catholic Radio and tell me it's not so. All the time they spend on devotion to "our lady", on devotion to "the blessed sacrament", all the hoopla over "the holy father's" visit to Australia last month. I grew up Catholic, but it still blows my mind that they sit or kneel before a box and worship all those round wafers, thinking each one is Jesus. Unbelievable (and I mean that)!

N.T. Wright on Justfication

This is what he says (in The Shape of Justification): "By 'the gospel' Paul does not mean 'justification by faith' itself. He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message, to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord, is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith itself is a second-order doctrine: to believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Rom. 5.1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table-fellowship without distinction with all other believers (Gal. 2.11-21). But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith (this, I think, is what Newman thought Protestants believed), but by believing in Jesus." (emphasis his)

This is what Paul says (in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8): "1. Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2. and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. 3. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4. that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5. and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."

Wright calls Justification by Faith a "second-order doctrine." He must have missed the three little words Paul used in 1 Cor 15:3--"for our sins"--which Paul included under that which is "of first importance."

I don't think N.T. Wright handled God's word correctly here.

Bert Waggoner on Hope

Berten Wagonner, head of The Vineyard USA, said, "...What is our object of hope? The eschatological community." (In Building a Community of Hope in a Despairing World).

What does he mean by this? I'll read on, but my guard is up. Where is Scripture? Where is God? I smell the worship of the Church which you find rampant in the big ecclesiastical organizations.

He then says, "the ultimate goal of history in the eschatological future is the revealing of God’s eschatological community at the consummation of the age (Revelation 21)." But Ephesians 1 says, "9. He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10. with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth...". How about 1 Cor. 15:28: "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." Who is the primary object of our hope here?

Okay, later on he says, this: "The primary sign of the Kingdom, other than the coming of the Messiah, is the community of God." So at least he's putting Jesus in. But the message is a bit confused. Who gets the glory? In whom do we hope?

Preach the Word

I just added a Shared Item--part 4 of a series of articles by Sam Storms, entitled "Why We’re Not Emergent (by two guys who should be)". This part is about the Emergent disdain for preaching.

I'm liking this guy.

Libertarian Free Will

Was Frank Avenell right?
Was Joel Kleinbaum right?