Josh Benner

Category: Faith

  • Catholic priest uses wrong word for 26 years. Baptisms invalidated

    Catholic priest uses wrong word for 26 years. Baptisms invalidated

    A Catholic priest in Arizona used the wrong word when performing baptisms for over a quarter of a century. Now his diocese is saying that the baptisms are invalid. 

    The issue is that the priest, the Revered Andres Arango was saying “we baptize you” when he was supposed to say “I baptize you.” The Catholic teaching is strict to their exact wording and because he say “we” instead of “I,” they are viewing these baptisms are invalid. 

    Baptism is a subject where there is a vast array of beliefs across Christendom. There are opinions on what baptism accomplishes, when a person can be baptized, who can do the baptizing, how a person is baptized, what is said when a person is baptized, the necessity of baptism. And then there are procedural questions. Are they sprinkled or dunked? If they’re dunked is it once, or is it three times (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)?  And there are many other questions. 

    Because baptism is such an important part of the Christian faith, there have been many views over the centuries. 

    For the record, my view is that baptism is an outward action that is a public display of an inward faith. True baptism is done by the Holy Spirit for a person who is regenerated. That is the actual cleansing of the human soul, and this cleansing is symbolized with water through baptism. And so in my view, I don’t take the rigidity that Catholics have on baptism where it can be nullified by a person unwittingly saying one wrong word. It’s based in places such as Ezekiel 36 and John 3. 

    Why does one little word matter so much? 

    On the website for his local diocese, they say: 
    “It is not the community that baptizes a person and incorporates them into the Church of Christ; rather, it is Christ, and Christ alone, who presides at all sacraments; therefore, it is Christ who baptizes. The Baptismal Formula (the words used in the Rite) has always been guarded for this reason: so it is clear that we receive our baptism through Jesus and not the community.”

    I find that argument interesting (I also find it to be a bad argument, but still interesting). I find it interesting that you can’t say “we” because it’s not the church who is doing the baptizing but that you must say “I” because it is Christ who baptizes…

    But in practice, it is the priest who’s doing the baptizing. And I find it interesting that if the priest says “I,” that it’s tantamount to Jesus himself saying “I.” 

    So the baptism is contingent upon the grace of Christ and (in the Catholic view) a human priest serving as a mediator. Yet, if the priest says the wrong word, then the grace of Christ can’t be conferred to the person who has made a good faith attempt to be baptized? So Jesus is gracious, but the priest can make a mistake where the sacramental benefit of baptism is withheld? Sincere question. Doesn’t that imply that the priest is more powerful than Jesus? (I’m sure no Catholic would agree with that statement). 

    This certainly goes to part of the heart of the disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. Scripture and tradition. The Catholic Church gives essentially equal weight to tradition as scripture. And so their tradition and teaching is a certain wording. And even though that wording is found nowhere in the Bible, they view their interpretation as being absolutely binding. 

    There is also the issue of human priest as mediators. The role of a priest is that they serve as a mediator between man and God. Jesus is the great high priest who mediates between us and God (Hebrews 4:14-16). This is why most Protestants don’t believe in a priestly office today. Because we don’t have fallible priests who can say the wrong thing and mess us up with God. We believe in a great high priest who is perfect, Christ the Lord. 

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please share and subscribe.

  • The scriptures point to Jesus. Studying John 1:45

    The scriptures point to Jesus. Studying John 1:45

    I’m doing a study in John 1. In John 1:35-51, we see a series of affirmations about Jesus made by his first disciples. So far, we’ve looked at Jesus as the Lamb of God and Jesus as the Christ. In this post, I’ll look at Jesus as the one to whom the scriptures point. 

    Jesus is the one to whom the scriptures point 

    45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

    -John 1:45

    We don’t know why Philip sensed this in Jesus. Just like we really don’t know why Andrew thought Jesus was the messiah. 

    But that’s really not what matters to the story. 

    What matters for us is what is being affirmed about Jesus. 

    Where Philip talks of Jesus as being the one about whom Moses wrote in the Law and the prophets, that’s referring to the scriptures of our Old Testament. 

    Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament. Everything Jesus does or says in his ministry has resonance in the Old Testament. He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies. He fulfilled the Law. He fulfills the promises of God. 

    All throughout the Bible, God is working his plan and his will. None of it is random or by chance. 

    The Old Testament is not just a bunch of stories or myths. It’s the real story of God’s work in his people which culminates in Jesus fulfilling the Old Testament to bring redemption to the world. 

    In John 5, Jesus is talking to a group of the religious leaders and they miss Jesus for who he is. John 5:36-38 says:

    the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, 38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent.

    The scripture points to Jesus and Jesus’ life and ministry point back to the scriptures which he came to fulfill. This is something else which matters about these affirmations which are being made about Jesus. 

    Lots of people throughout history have claimed to be significant religious figures. Some have even claimed to be divine. 

    It’s true today and it was true in Jesus’ day. What ultimately validates Jesus is not what John the Baptist said, or what Andrew said, or what Philip said. What matters is what Jesus did. 

    Fulfilling prophecies and displaying his divinity and glory. His life matters because he points us to life. His death matters because in that all who believe in him are dead to sin. And his resurrection matters because that is the only hope for eternal life. 

    Jesus literally died and rose so that all who believe in him when they die, can literally have eternal life with Jesus. 

    Everything in the Bible is about Jesus and points to Jesus. 

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please subscribe and share.

  • NYT suggests evangelicalism needs to be more liberal to save itself

    NYT suggests evangelicalism needs to be more liberal to save itself

    David Brooks had a piece in the New York Times under the headline: “The Dissenters Trying to Save Evangelicalism From Itself.”

    Brooks talks of the divide within evangelicalism. Early in the article, Brooks suggests: “There have been three big issues that have profoundly divided them: the white evangelical embrace of Donald Trump, sex abuse scandals in evangelical churches and parachurch organizations, and attitudes about race relations, especially after the killing of George Floyd.”

    I’ve read this same basic piece several times in the last couple years in trying to diagnose the problems with evangelicalism in America. 

    Brooks interviews a familiar cast of characters. Russell Moore and Beth Moore (no relation to each other) who were recently popular figures in evangelical circles but have become critics of the movement. He interviews Kristin Kobes Du Mez, the author of “Jesus and John Wayne,” which is a one-sided rant against evangelicalism which only looks at the bad and overlooks any redeeming qualities in the movement. He mentions Tim Dalrymple, the president of Christianity Today who said Trump should have been removed from office.

    There’s a lot fo discourse on the problems of evangelicalism but I feel like I never see similar critiques of liberal and progressive Christianity. These articles get preoccupied with evangelical support of Trump, and that always gets framed as if it’s some obvious scourge on the gospel. 

    My question is: what in the world is so good about liberalism? What are they doing right now to benefit our country? These articles want to criticize churches for being too conservative. As if there are not thousands of churches in America that are liberal, that support values that are not Biblical values such as the LGBT movement and abortion. Liberal churches who undermine the Bible. Those churches get a pass. 

    It’s the churches who support Trump and who are not woke social justice warriors who are the problem. Basically the problem with evangelicals is that they’re not liberals. And if they embrace liberal ideologies, then they’ll be doing the Lord’s work.

    Conservative evangelicalism is an easy target because our culture institutions are increasingly liberal. The mainstream media, Hollywood, big business, big tech, pro sports, the federal government, higher education, public education, healthcare, and on and on. It’s ok to be liberal. It’s not ok to be conservative. 

    And the focus needs to be that evangelicals don’t have a big enough tent. Brooks has the audacity to frame it as if evangelicals are not welcoming enough to other points of view. Is a conservative welcome in a progressive church? Is a belief in traditional marriage, traditional gender roles, the inherency of the Bible welcome in a progressive church? 

    There are problems with evangelicalism. There are far too many powerful people in influential ministries who are corrupt and who have no accountability. That’s an issue. Brooks mentions the scandal involving Ravi Zacharias and a scandal involving Willow Creek Church. I’ve written about both. They were terrible. I’ve written about Jerry Falwell, Jr, and James MacDonald, and the Southern Baptist Convention sexual assualt scandal.

    I think too many evangelical churches have done a poor job about teaching the Bible and focus on easy to listen to messages and appealing to cultural trends and having watered down youth ministries that are not teaching kids the Bible. Again, there are problems in evangelicalism.

    There are churches and pastors who might call themselves “evangelical” with whom I would greatly disagree. But evangelicalism is a broad movement. I think we should call out people when they’re in the wrong. But I don’t think that American evangelicalism has the inherent problems that progressivism poses to the church. Progressive churches fall right in line with that ideology. I see that as the bigger threat on our culture and on the gospel.

    Thanks for reading. If you liked this post, please share and subscribe.

  • We have found the Christ. Studying John 1:41-45

    We have found the Christ. Studying John 1:41-45

    1. Jesus is the Christ 

    I’m doing a study in John 1. In John 1:35-51, we see a series of affirmations about Jesus made by his first disciples.

    In this section, Andrew has been pointed to Jesus by John the Baptist and has spent time with Jesus and he tells his brother “we have found the Christ” (John 1:41). 

    The words Messiah and Christ mean the same thing. Messiah is Hebrew, Christ comes from Greek but they both mean anointed. This anointing referred to Old Testament offices such as the king, the high priest, and some of the prophets. They were anointed with oil at the beginning of their ministries.  And the promised one who God would send was also said to be anointed, and so Andrew goes to his brother and says that they have found the anointed one. 

    That’s not saying that Andrew knew everything that the ministry of Jesus would entail or that he yet understood the sacrificial death which Jesus would die. He just sensed a special anointing in Jesus. 

    Kings, the high priests, and prophets. People did not understand in the first century that Jesus would come and fulfill all three of those offices. But through his ministry, that’s what we see. 

    Jesus is a king

    Jesus is the king in the line of David.

    The kingdom of God that Jesus ushers in is a theme in the gospels.

    In the Gospel of Luke, when the angel appears to Mary and tells her that she is going to give birth to Jesus, the angel talks of Jesus in Luke 1:33 and says: he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.

    Revelation 21:15 speaks of Jesus and says: 

    The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.

    A king is one who rules, and Jesus is the king of kings who rules and reigns with eternal sovereignty. 

    Jesus is a priest

    Jesus is also the high priest. The priest in the Old Testament was the mediator between God and man who offered sacrifices. Jesus is the ultimate and great high priest. He is the one who is worthy to bring us to God and who is able to offer the true sacrifice. Himself. 

    Jesus is a prophet

    And Jesus is a prophet. A prophet is one who speaks the Word of God, one who foretells the future, and one who speaks with authority. Jesus does all three of those things in his ministry. 

    He speaks with authority. His ministry shows that he has authority over nature and over life and death. 

    There’s a passage in Deuteronomy 18 which foretells of the greater prophet.

    Deuteronomy 18:15: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— 

    Jesus fulfills that text and he comes in fulfillment of all three of those offices. 

    One thing that’s important to understand about these anonited offices in the Old Testament is that hey were fulfilled in separate people. 

    The king was not a priest or a prophet. The priest was not a king or prophet. The prophet was not a king or a priest. The first king of Israel, a man named Saul, did irreversible damage to his reign by trying to take on a priestly function. 

    But all three of these offices converge on Jesus. 

    The anointed one, the messiah, the Christ. 

    Jesus meets Peter. Verse 42. He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter). 

    Another disciple. The words “cephas” and “Peter” both mean rock. This is a foretelling of the leadership that Peter will have. Right from the outset of of his ministry, Jesus is stating this of Peter, although there’s no further elaboration here. 

    John 1:43 says: The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 

    That’s the only person in this passage to whom Jesus says “follow me.” We also find out that Philip is from the same town as Andrew and Peter. Just as Andrew was quick to tell Peter about Jesus, Philip will tell someone else about Jesus. 

    Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John 1:45).

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please share and subscribe. 

  • Come and you will see. Studying John 1:39-42

    Come and you will see. Studying John 1:39-42

    In John 1:37, Jesus is early in his ministry and two men (who would become two of his disciples) are following him. Jesus asks “What are you seeking?” (John 1:38).

    Considering who’s asking the question (Jesus), that’s a pretty important question that we must all ask ourselves. What are we seeking? What are we looking to Jesus for? What do we do make of Jesus?

    But the two men instead answer his question with a question. 

    And they said to him, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), where are you staying?” (John 1:39). 

    They don’t answer the question. 

    As they try to follow Jesus, perhaps it’s too difficult to spell out exactly what they’re seeking but they ask where he’s staying in the hopes of being with him and being able to talk to him and be in his presence. 

    He said to them, “Come and you will see” (John 1:39). 

    The response that Jesus gives is so much more than pointing out his lodgings. He’s answering the question the two men didn’t know how to ask. And in being his disciples, and following Jesus, they would have the answer to what they were seeking in the coming years,.  

    Jesus invites them in. He invites them into a relationship. He invites everyone into a relationship, into knowing him. 

    In the immediate context of John 1, Jesus does invite them to stay with him. 

    So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour (John 1:39). 

    So they go and spend time with Jesus. The text says that they stayed with him that day for it was about the tenth hour. That’s not saying it was 10 o’clock. In this ancient reckoning of time, it was actually around 4pm. In our timeline, that also brings day 3 to a close. 

    They stay with Jesus. It’s the ancient world. They don’t have cars or lights. They spend the night wherever Jesus is staying. 

    John 1:40 says: 

    One of the two who heard John speak and followed Jesus was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.

    We’re given a name of one of these men who follows Jesus. It’s interesting the author only gives us one of their names. We don’t know for sure the identity of the second of the two men. It is a commonly held belief that the other man is none other than the Apostle John who is the author of this gospel. He never mentions his name in the book. 

    But we’re given the name Andrew and we’re told he’s Simon Peter’s brother. 

    Simon Peter, best known as Peter, would become one of the best known of the disciples, a leader within this group, a part of Jesus’ inner circle. And so Andrew is actually identified by his relationship to Peter. They’re brothers. Even though Peter has yet to be mentioned in this gospel, the Apostle John assumed that his audience would be familiar with Peter. 
    Verse 41 we see that Andrew actually evangelizes his brother and tells him about Jesus: He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ).