My Recent Presentations on Martyrdom

I was recently asked to give a couple presentations to our high school youth ministry group.  The topic was martyrdom.

The first presentation focused on the early martyrs and how their deaths gives evidence for the truth of the faith - as well as explaining how it spread.  The second presentation focused on modern martyrs and how their example applies to the challenges we face today.

Presentation 1: Ancient Martyrs

Presentation 2: Modern Martyrs

What Did the Early Church Believe About Baptism?

One of my students was recently asked about the Catholic (and Orthodox and Lutheran) practice of baptizing infants.  She did a fine job answering the fella, but she missed one important step.  Before one begins talking about baptizing infants, you first have to be on the same page about the nature of baptism itself.

There are some Christians who practice what is called "believer's baptism".  This view proposes baptism as merely a public sign of one's conversion to Christ.  But of itself, baptism affects no change in the person, confers no graces, and does not change one's status before God.  It is just a sign.  And if one approaches baptism with that framework, it is impossible to understand why one would ever think to baptize an infant.  

So today I wanted to look at the data from Scripture regarding baptism, and then see how that was reflected in the writings of the early Church.

How is Baptism to be Performed?

Yesterday at the park I met a youth pastor for a local Christian Church.  I asked what their distinctive beliefs were, and he said they hold strongly to "baptism by full immersion."

Today I wanted to look at the practice of only baptizing by "full immersion."  The folks in his community (and other ones too) believe the only valid or proper baptisms are those which fully immerse the person in water. 

Are they correct?

A Hidden Reference to the Trinitarian Formula

I recently met a nice fella at the park who was from a Oneness Pentacostal congregation.  After some smalltalk he began telling me I had been baptized improperly.

I had been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - also known as the Trinitarian formula.  He insisted I needed to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ only.

Today I want to explore why he was saying this.  Then we will look at the witness of the Early Church on the matter, and finally look at a little-known piece of Scriptural evidence for the Trinitarian words of baptism.

My Recent "Intro to New Testament" Talk

I recently gave a speech about the New Testament at a local retreat for high schoolers.  In it, I discuss:

• The creation of the New Testament
• Tips for reading it.
• How to get help.
• A reading of John 9

Here are the slides: [LINK]

Enjoy!!

The Secret Truth About Easter!

A student recently asked me a question about Easter.  She had encountered a friend who said Easter was of pagan origins.  Most of it was drawn from this website.

The site presents a lot of … ummm … “facts”.  It says the word “Easter” comes from the Mesopotamian goddess "Ishtar".  And the Catholic Church – those dastardly fiends - tricked everyone into worshiping the ancient pagan fertility goddess by popularizing Easter.  Zounds!!

Well, much can be said about crank webpages with no footnotes or citations.  But a couple thoughts come to mind.

The Communion of Saints and the Tapestry of Christian Faith

Back in the 400’s there was a heresy known as Nestorianism.  It proposed that Jesus was not really God incarnate, but was rather a normal man whom God had kinda-sorta possessed.  The Council of Ephesus condemned this idea.  The people of Ephesus – who had always been offended by the heresy - held a torchlit parade to celebrate the council’s decision. 

This is sometimes held out as an example of the “Sensus Fidelium” – or the “Sense of the Faithful”.  It refers to a particular way in which the Holy Spirit guides the Church.  Namely, the people of God are drawn like homing pigeons to the true expression of the faith.  Christians will, in a way, sense the tapestry of the faith and know when something is out of place.

Today I want to point out something which I regard as an instance of Sensus Fidelium.  Namely, the intuitive, magnetic draw which Christians have to the Communion of Saints.  While this is often regarded as a peculiarly Catholic idea, I think it is actually the natural conclusion of Christian thought. 

If Catholics Are Not Christians...

A few years ago my mother got a piece of mail from Moody Radio.  It included a pamphlet with a Q&A for new Christian believers.  Among the questions was:

Can a person continue going to the Catholic Mass after becoming a Christian?

Their answer was... no. 

Mom showed me the pamphlet and asked what on earth they meant.  She had no idea there was a contingent of Christians - particularly in America - who did not regard Catholics among their Christian brethren.  For practicallity sake, let's call these folks CNCs (Catholics are Not Christians).

Today I want to address this phenomenon and present an argument to show its absurdity. 

Praying for the Dead?

A long while ago I was reading an article about the death of Harold Camping - the infamous predictor of the end times.  I left a comment on the article saying: "He was a strange and confused man, but we should pray that he finds rest with the Lord."

The reaction I got from the rest of the Christian audience was  .... unexpected.

Praying for the dead is a completely normal thing within Catholic circles, but is considered by many others to be bizarre and possibly heretical.  So what unfolded in that combox was a long, somewhat exasperating exchange in which I tried to explain the concept.

Why would one pray for the dead?

If Jesus Was a Myth...

CS Lewis famously asserted his "Trillemma" argument regarding the identity of Jesus of Nazareth.  It proposes that a man who claims to be God can be one of three things; God, a wicked liar, or a complete madman.  This is usually called the alliterative “Lord, Liar, Lunatic Trillemma”.

There is a fourth option which CS Lewis dismissed based on his knowledge of literature.  Namely, that New Testament is either partly or entirely mythological.  This option is often labeled, "Legend".  It proposes that the Apostles (or other early Christians) embellished Jesus' story with claims to divinity or completely fabricated the man wholesale.

A Tale of Early Canons

One of the topics which divide Catholics and non-Catholics is the canon of Scripture.  That is to say, which books belong in the table of contents of the Bible.  Catholics have a list which contains 73 books and non-Catholics typically have 66 books.  In this essay I will refer to these as the “Catholic Canon” and the “Protestant Canon”.

The primary difference is seven books which are found in the Old Testament.  Those are:  1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch.  Catholics refer these at the “Deuterocanon” and non-Catholics call these the “Apocrypha”.

We could look at the various arguments presented by the two sides for the inclusion or exclusion of those books, but today I wanted to ask a purely historical question:

If you were a Christian in the early church, what books would you regard as Scripture?

The answer is not as straightforward as you may imagine.  So what do the earliest witnesses say?

What Did the Early Church Believe Regarding the Holy Family?

Christmas time tends to get people focused on the Holy Family.  That is to say; Joseph, Mary, and Jesus.  The Nativity Narratives tell of their travails moving from Nazareth, to Bethlehem, to Egypt, and back.  But it doesn’t get too specific regarding what happened afterward.

One question that arises frequently today is whether Jesus had any biological brothers and sisters. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches famously say "no".  They hold that Mary remained a virgin throughout her whole life, rendering Jesus and only-child. 

Many arguments can be made regarding the clues left to us in the Bible.  But today I wanted to explore what the earliest Christians believed on the matter.  Did they believe Jesus had biological half-siblings, as is common today? 

So let’s dive in.

Jehovah’s Witnesses at the Door - Part II

Today we'll finish what we started yesterday with a couple of historical questions. [LINK]  

[*As a bonus, due to their shared belief in the Great Apostasy, these two arguments work with Mormons as well.]

How did the Early Christians Worship? - Part 2

In the previous note [LINK] I asked two questions:  When did the earliest Christians worship?  What did they do when they gathered together?

I started with some Biblical evidence, but conceded that my conclusions could simply be the result of bias on my part.  So today we’ll look at three written works from the early Church in an attempt to flesh out the picture…

How did the Early Christians Worship? - Part 1

Today I wanted to ask some questions about Christian worship:  How did the early Christians worship?  Specifically, on what day did they gather?  What did they do when they gathered?  Those are the questions I want to explore today.

Did the Early Church Have a Pope - Part IV - The Later Witnesses

In the previous note I began showing testimony to the role of the successors of Peter in early antiquity.  Today I wanted to conclude with a survey of some witnesses in later antiquity.

Let’s dive in.

Did the Early Church Have a Pope - Part III - The Early Witnesses

In the previous note I surveyed the statements of the early Popes themselves.  Those quotes seemed to express the idea that they were the successors of Peter and had a special ministry to care for the entire Church. 

But I closed with a question; was this ministry recognized by others? 

Did the Early Church Have a Pope - Part II - The Stewards

In the previous note I attempted to resolve the issue of intractable disagreement between bishops.  Drawing on evidence from the Bible, I proposed that the solution was a unique gift of authority and protection given to Peter.  This authority would be passed down to his successors – who resided in Rome - so that there can always be a person to speak with finality on an issue. 

But does early Christian history reflect what I have proposed? 

Today I wanted to begin looking at some testimonial evidence from history.  Specifically, what did the early bishops of Rome say about their own ministry?

Did the Early Church Have a Pope - Part I - The Keybearer

In my previous note series I tried to show how the early Christian church was structured.  It began with Jesus ordaining the Apostles to teach and govern the Church in His name.  These Apostles then passed their doctrine and authority on to successors, called the “bishops”.  And on it goes.

But if this is all there was, I would argue it would still be an incomplete system for delivering of Christian unity and truth. 

What happens when these bishops come to a protracted disagreement over something they all feel is important to the faith?  What happens when factions grow within that college of bishops?

In order to preserve unity AND truth, what is need is a final decision-maker who serves as a living standard-bearer. 

How Was The Early Church Structured? - Part II

Last time I began by asking two questions.
 
1) What means did Jesus establish for the conveyance of the Christian faith? 
2) How was the early Church organized and governed?

I started with some Biblical evidence, but conceded I could have been twisting things out of context.  So today we look at testimonies from the people who were there.