Entering the Holy of Holies

So I'm a bit of a Bible Geek... kind of. I know that there are plenty of people who know the Bible way more than me and I don't think that the kind of fact retention is actually spiritual but it's just the kind of guy I am. I mean I'm pretty close to the same way with Lord of the Rings but that doesn't mean that I actually like the book better than some thirteen year old kid who is reading it for the first time.

So I sometimes think about the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple of Solomon and just think it is cool. Cool, like a +5 Sword of Transformation cool. I think part of it started with Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (melting faces and what not) and as outrageous as the stuff in that movie depict what the Bible describes is so much more over the top if only because it is described in such a realist way. For example it is described how the High Priest (who is only allowed to enter once a year) has a rope tied to him so that if he is struck dead that the other priests can pull him out of the Holy of Holies without being struck down themselves. It is just cool in a very dorky D&D way.

When ever I read Old Testament stuff I always put myself in the shoes of the person messing up. I am almost always the masses of Israel falling into transgression that they should have known better, I am rarely the one bold Prophet who is willing to call people on it. So when I think about the Temple, and what it would have been like for the people of Israel I think it would have been terrifying... but still so captivating.

The Temple held the Ark of the Covenant which was a sign that God was with the people, inside of the Ark is a jar of mana (from when their ancestors wandered the wilderness), the staff of Aaron (the sign of the priesthood) and the freaking stones the ten commandments were broken on (Oh my freaking gosh!). To be an Israelite and know your history was to be terrified because your ancestors did not accept God's mana, they had rebelled against the priesthood and broke the commandments. To think about the Temple and the Holy of Holies and the Ark of the Covenant is to see the holiness of a real God and the real sinfulness inside of yourself. The only way I can imagine it could be stood was because once a year God allowed one person, the High Priest, to enter into the Holy of Holies and make a sacrifice of blood for all of the people.

In so many ways it sounds just like all of the same stuff that all of the people were doing religiously four thousand years ago, appease an angry god, blood of a goat, gold for the temple yada yada. But for me I am constantly putting myself in the story and so by the time there is a temple to worship at I have already heard God's promise of more children than the stars, I have seen how the Lord led that family into Egypt and I have seen how the Lord led that family out of Egpyt and in the wilderness and out of the wilderness into the Promised Land. I have seen all of it and the whole way through I have been messing up and every time the Israelites (I) have mess up in retrospect it seems so dumb.

"Why did they rebel against God? He just lead them out of Egypt!"
"Why did they rebel against God, again? They are just going to fall back into slavery!"

And so when I get to the time of Temple worship I can understand the fear of this layered temple where first anyone can come to pray, then the level only Jews can enter and then the level only Jewish men can enter and then the level only priests can enter and then the level only the High Priest, once a year, can enter, and I understand how much a person would want to enter the Holy of Holies but it would be so terrifying, so much bigger even than the High Priest. I can see both the fierceness and the beauty of the Lord God Almighty and feel both the aversion and attraction of even just the idea of holiness (to say nothing of the reality).

And then in my own life, every day I am a jumbled mess of sins and perversions and corruptions and hypocrisy. But I think about what it means to be a Christian and before bed I read a Psalm... except the Psalms are so often written from a righteous perspective that the only way I can believe them is if it were Jesus the one saying them. So I read the Psalm but am imagining what it would be like to be able to say the same. And then I often have the mental image of how the New Testament says that as a Christian I am the Temple and inside of me is the Holy of Holies with its gates and its layers which would prevent the least of sin to enter and the only way I can imagine it would be possible to enter is a blood sacrifice from the High Priest.

As a geek I know that the Indiana Jones response, close your eyes and hopefully God won't smite you, would be correct. But as a Christian I know that the sacrifice has been made and at any time I can enter the Holy of Holies and be in the presence of a God so holy I am tempted to capitalize even His adjectives.

It is like water for a thirsty soul and I just wish I could share it, that continues to be my wish.

Ten Commandments

I was looking up the Apostle's Creed for some reason or another and read how the early church, the majority of whom could not read, would learn their faith by reciting the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer and the Apostle's Creed.

I have been on a Ten Commandment's kick since then. I've been working on meditating their meaning on my life and seeking to live more by them... and yes Legalism Police I know I will not ever be made right with God by seeking to follow the Law. Still since I have been saved by my faith in Jesus Christ it makes sense that I would seek to obey Him.

Ten Commandments (summary)

1. You shall have no other gods besides the Lord.
2. You shall not make your own gods and serve or bow before them.
3. You shall not speak the Lord's name in vain.
4. You shall remember the sabbath and keep it holy.
5. You shall honor your parents (its for your own good).
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not steal.
8. you shall not lie.
9. You shall not commit adultery.
10. You shall not covet what other people have.

In case folks are interested, the Lord's Prayer:
"Our father, who is in heaven, holy be your name. Your kingdom come, Your will be done, in heaven as in earth. Give me my daily bread, forgive me my sins as I forgive others. Do not tempt me but save me from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom forever and ever. Amen."

The Apostle's Creed isn't from scripture and was only used in the western part of the Roman empire and so is not a part of the Eastern Orthodox. But they share the same faith in Jesus Christ as all other Christians and I cannot see any objections they would have (but what do I know!):

"THE APOSTLES’ CREED
I BELIEVE in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the
Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was
crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose
again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right
hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the
quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion
of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life
everlasting. Amen."

This was quoted directly from the Presbyterian "Book of Confession" I do not know if there is a less Elizabethian translation without sitteth's in them. In case anyone thinks that Eastern Orthodox would have issue with the "catholic church" remember that catholic means unified/universal. So I also believe in a catholic church because there is only one kind of Christian. Denomination is a fashion statement and does not make or necessarily exclude a person's relationship with Christ... and really I am not the guy who decides who is a Christian or not anyway.

Dan Savage, Rick Warren Debate

I wrote:
In your response to "Faithful Obama Girl" you refer to Rick Warren as a "gay-hatin', right-wing Christian bigot." I found this confusing. I can understand that he represents a political/social faction which has an agenda opposed to your own. I can also imagine that I can not even begin to imagine how any criticism of a gay lifestyle takes a sinister aura when it has a religious basis. However, is it accurate to describe Warren this way? Certainly, he does speak against the gay lifestyle, but would you say that anyone who does this is a hateful bigot? Is there a difference between the beliefs of Rick Warren and those of Fred Phelps?

I could understand if you described Warren (or myself) as a dangerously deluded Christian fanatic because you believe that our beliefs naturally lead towards the hateful bigotry of Phelps. I would disagree but differentiate between that description and the one you gave.

A Biblical Christian

Calvinism Continued

So I am currently at chapter 12 of "The Basic Ideas of Calvinism 6th ed." and find myself not just agreeing with Calvinism but enjoying their style. It is pretty rare for a text book to get points for style but all that really means is that sometimes the author will say things I have also said.

For example concerning the chapter "The Best Form of Government" that author says "The best guarantee of the workability of a government lies not in its form (monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy) but in the moral and spiritual fiber of its people. With good people almost any kind of government will work. With absolutely depraved people no type will work." I've long defended that view and enjoy hearing someone else say it.

As for the controversial beliefs of Calvinism I will comment. But in my own tip of the hat to Calvinist methods am not commenting on the truth of the doctrine but upon its Biblical-ness:

Foundational Principle: So the basis of Calvinism is declared to be the sovereignty of God. In the text all denominations are ascribed a basis that is more like a prejudice or special emphasis. For example Baptist might emphasis conversion, Pentecostals the Holy Spirit, Roman Catholics the unity/catholicity of the but Calvinist believe that the most important Christian principle is the truth that God is in complete absolute control of everything and that nothing is out of His control.

I can imagine the dangers of each of these position. The Baptist who says "Don't worry about me I accepted Christ years ago." The Pentecostal who feels the Holy Spirit wants them to have sex with their girlfriend. The Roman Catholic who obeys a Papal decree despite its obvious ungodliness. The Calvinist who refuses charity to the oppressed because it must be God's will. But like with form of government these denominations are great if they are practiced by faithful Christians and without value if they are populated with faithless hypocrites.

If I were to present what I believe is the foundational, most important first principle of the Bible it would not be the sovereignty of God, but the identity of God. Sovereignty is a part of the identity of God, so is salvation, Spirit and unity of believers but the foundation of God is "I AM." It is not God's sovereignty that is first but God Himself.

The Depraved Nature of Man

I am reading an introduction to the tenants of Calvinism.

I like the way the book approaches the issue. It is a text book that I found but starts by wanting to establish the fundamental principle of Calvinism. The idea of Pre-destination and the depraved nature of man are the most controversial Calvinist ideas but it makes sense that they are not the key, fundamental be-all end-all of any system of thought.

The author establishes that "the sovereignty of God" as the central theme of Calvinism in the same way that the catholicity of the church is the central theme of the Roman Catholic church or salvation through grace is central to Lutheranism. But that is not what I'm writing about.

What I disagree about is the statement "the Bible maintains that man is totally depraved." It is not that I am a huge defender of the mankind and am dead set against the idea that we are depraved... it is that through my reading of the Bible I could not say that it says that man is "totally depraved."

Perhaps the statement is poorly made by Calvinist or maybe it means something other than the common use of the word. The common use of the word, in my best understanding, is that to be "totally depraved" is to be completely without any boundaries or conscience at all, to be a maniac and fully without any virtue at all, worthy of nothing except destruction.

Where Calvinism and I agree is that the Bible presents a picture in which each man is on a path that either leads to perfection with God, through Jesus Christ or else is on a path that leads to total depravity. Everyone is sort of good and sort of bad but if extended towards eternity we are progressing/digressing towards one state of the other. If that is what Calvinism states then we agree... but they state it poorly... they state it incorrectly.

But if my understanding of what it means to be "totally depraved" is correct then the Bible does not present or teach that people are currently depraved. It also does not present or teach that only Christians or Jews are the only kind of people who have virtue. For example Jesus makes a point about some virtue that his contemporaries posessed and he said "Even pagans do this." This would suggest that not all pagans are eating their children.

How I would state the issue in a way I believe best describes what the Bible says over all is that without divine intervention all men are on a path that will lead to complete depravity and that our best efforts are insufficient to solve this. If I interpret the Calvinist tenant that way I have yet to encounter any problem with their theology (so far... I'm like on chapter 2)