Christ - Angels

By Robert Jeffress 2023

Christ - Angels

     The writer of Hebrews began his book with a detailed argument about how Jesus is superior to every element of Judaism, starting with angels. He offered four compelling reasons:

1.     Christ has a superior name. No angel is ever called the unique, begotten Son of God.
2.     Christ is a superior object of worship. When Jesus came to earth, He didn’t worship the angels; the angels worshiped Him.
3.     Christ rules over a superior kingdom. Hebrews 1:7 says angels are subjects in Christ’s kingdom, servants doing His will.
4.     Christ will enjoy a superior victory. Hebrews 1:13 asks, “But to which of the angels has He [God] ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet?’”

     Jesus Christ is superior to the angels in every way. One day Jesus will rule over the heavens, the earth, and hell. No angel can ever say that.

     Angels were created with a will. They have the ability to choose a course of action and follow it. Isaiah 14 describes the most consequential course of action any angel ever chose when Lucifer, God’s chief angel — who sinned and then became known as Satan — said, “I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God” (v. 13). Five times he said, “I will.” Satan made a choice and suffered the consequences for it. Revelation 12:9 indicates that a group of angels chose to follow Satan in his rebellion, and they were cast down to the earth and under it. Their decision was irrevocable. No fallen angel (or demon) will ever be redeemed as a holy angel, and never again will an angel fall and become a demon.

     Angels were created as spirit beings, according to Hebrews 1:14. And while angels don’t possess bodies, they do share some human limitations, especially when it comes to time and space. Daniel 9:21–23 speaks of angels flitting about from one place to another. Daniel 10:10–14 speaks of an angel who was delayed because of another spirit. So angels can’t be more than one place at a time.

     Angels were created to inhabit certain realms. Some are in heaven with God. Some are given special assignments over nations. For example, Michael is called the archangel, or special protector, of Israel (Dan. 12:1). Perhaps other angels are assigned to other countries to fulfill God’s purpose within those borders.

     Although angels are mostly invisible, at times they take on human form. Hebrews 13:2 says, “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.” Abraham and Sarah learned that lesson the awkward way when they entertained people they later found out were actual angels in disguise (Gen. 18:1–15).

     Sometimes the appearance of angels can be downright frightening. Think about the Roman soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus when the angel rolled the stone away. They were frozen in panic (Matt. 28:4). Or think about Gabriel’s appearances to Mary, Elizabeth, and the shepherds. In each case, the angel’s first words were, “Fear not.”

Angels Minister to Believers

     The writer of Hebrews gave us an ideal starting point in understanding the role of angels: “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?” (1:14). We can think of angels as God’s AAA service: always available to assist, on call day and night to render service to Christians who are in need. The Bible identifies four areas of service that angels provide for believers.

     First, God uses angels to sustain and encourage us. Angels can provide for our physical needs, especially in times of stress. We see an example of this in Jesus’s life. After forty days of fasting and testing in the wilderness, Jesus was in a vulnerable condition. Matthew 4:11 says, “Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.” We shouldn’t be surprised that angels do the same for us as well.

     Second, angels reveal God’s will to us. An angel revealed to Joseph that he was to take Mary as his wife (1:20–21). And an angel revealed to Philip a person who needed his help (Acts 8:26). A word of caution: any message we receive from an angel must align with God’s Word. In 2 Corinthians 11:14, Paul warned that Satan can appear as an angel of light. Any angelic message that contradicts the Word of God comes from the devil.

     Third, angels protect us from physical and spiritual harm. As startling as it may seem, one of Satan’s chief strategies is to cause your premature death. If you’re not yet a Christian, he would love to kill you before you have an opportunity to trust in Christ. If you are a Christian, especially if you have an effective witness for God, he would love to kill you and extinguish that witness. Passages such as Psalm 91:11–12 suggest that angels keep him from doing it.

Do Christians Have Guardian Angels?

     There is no passage in Scripture that explicitly states that every person has his or her own guardian angel. There are, however, a few passages, such as Psalm 91:11–12, Matthew 18:10, and Acts 12:13–15, that seem to support the idea of guardian angels.

     However, as John Calvin pointed out in addressing this question, if there are legions of angels perpetually looking after our safety and well-being, it doesn’t really matter whether there’s one specific angel assigned to every person, does it?1

     Even more amazing than the physical protection is the spiritual protection angels give us. Ephesians 6:12 says there is a spiritual war going on that we can’t see, but we can feel it. The oppression, depression, and temptations we experience don’t come out of nowhere: they’re part of the demonic world that touches our lives. Daniel 10 offers a glimpse of that world. Daniel was feeling oppressed and discouraged, so he prayed to God. But for three weeks, no answer came. An angel finally appeared to Daniel and explained that he would have come sooner but was delayed by a demonic spirit. There is an unseen but very real battle going on in the other world that affects us in this world.

     Finally, God uses angels to minister to us in death. Revelation 14:13 says, “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord.” For Christians, death is a blessed experience because we don’t have to face it alone. God sends His angels to usher our spirit into His presence. Look at the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16.

     According to verse 22, when Lazarus died, he “was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom.” Angels will do the same for us as well. We will not face death alone.

Angels Fill Crucial Roles in God’s Plan

     The work of angels is not confined to believers alone. The Bible reveals at least three ways in which angels intervene in the lives of unbelievers. First, they serve as ministers of God’s goodness. There was no sign that Hagar, the handmaid who gave birth to Ishmael, Abraham’s first son, was a believer. Yet when Hagar and her unborn son were abandoned in the wilderness, an angel appeared to her and assured her that God would care for them both (Gen. 16:7–12).

     Second, angels serve as ministers of judgment against unbelievers. Angels unleashed ten plagues on Egypt (Ps. 78:49). They slaughtered 185,000 Assyrian soldiers (2 Kings 19:35). And they struck down Herod and allowed his body to be devoured by worms (Acts 12:23). There’s no reason to believe this morbid work of angels ended when the Scripture narrative did. The obituaries of unbelievers today list any number of causes of death: heart attack, cancer, car accident, and so forth. But sometimes — not always — the cause is an angel serving as a minister of judgment.

     Third, angels will serve as ministers of eternal death. According to Matthew 13:49–50, when unbelievers will be thrown into the lake of fire after God’s final judgment, angels will do the throwing. The last thing unbelievers will see before being cast into hell will be the face of an angel.

The Bad—Satan and the Demons

     In many respects, the transition from talking about angels to talking about demons isn’t much of a leap. Demons are angels. They’re just fallen ones. So if our angelic allies are formidable — and they are — then by definition, so are our demonic enemies.

     As is the case with all warfare, the key to defeating demons is intelligence. The more we know about our enemies’ battle strategies, the better prepared we can be to defend ourselves. But three difficult truths complicate our planning: demons defy our expectations, attempt to lead believers astray, and attempt to harm believers. So we need to understand the influence demons can have over us.

     For a more detailed study on spiritual warfare, Satan, and demons, see my book The Divine Defense: Six Simple Strategies for Winning Your Greatest Battles (Colorado Springs: Waterbrook, 2006).

Demons Defy Our Expectations

     Contrary to popular Hollywood lore, demons generally don’t project themselves as monstrous, fire-spewing dragon-snakes. Or as horned mini devils, for that matter. In fact, demons probably would prefer that we not notice them at all. Stealth makes their work easier. The key to their battle plan is subtlety.

     Have you ever felt an inexplicable weight of oppression you just can’t shake? Have you ever been in an argument that turned hostile for no apparent reason? Have you ever had a productive day suddenly derailed by a debilitating anxiety attack or faced a temptation that seemed custom-designed to entrap you? If you answered yes to any of these questions, then you’ve likely experienced demonic work in your life — just perhaps not in the way you expected.

Setting the Stage: The First Millennium

By R.C. Sproul 8/1/2010

     Volumes have been written giving detailed analyses of the extraordinary things that occurred in the first thousand years of church history, events that influenced everything that came after them. In this brief overview, I’m going to look at five dimensions of activity that had monumental impact for the future history of Christianity.

     The first such matter was the rise of the so-called “mono-episcopacy.” By the end of the first century, it was seen that the bishop of Rome had grown exceedingly more influential than other bishops of that period. Within the next century or so, the authority and power of the bishop of Rome was consolidated for all future history of the Roman Catholic Church. The singular authority that became located in the bishop of Rome gave the church a unifying base. The influence of the pope in the first thousand years of the church is almost impossible to measure.

     In that light, we see the second major impact come to the fore — the innovations brought to Christianity by perhaps the most important pope of the first millennium: Gregory the Great. In his activities he consolidated the power vested in the sacraments of the church and spawned the vast sacerdotal system (priests through ordination receiving the ability to act as mediators of God’s grace to man through the sacraments) with which all future Catholicism would be associated.

     A third element that had great influence on the future of Christianity was the rise of the monastic movement. Beginning with the extreme asceticism of people such as Anthony of the Desert (ca. 251–356), this radical brand of self-denial became institutionalized with the rise of various monastic orders, most of which exist to this day. These orders include the Benedictines, the Augustinians, the Franciscans, and others that date back several centuries.

     Perhaps most important in the first thousand years were the ecumenical councils. Of the several ecumenical councils, clearly the two most important were those that were convened in the fourth and in the fifth centuries. The fourth century saw the convening of the Council of Nicaea and the production of the historic Nicene Creed. Here the church gave its definition of the deity of Christ over against the heretic Arius, who argued that though Jesus was the first creature created by God and in that sense the firstborn of God, He nevertheless remained a creature and so was not to be worshiped as the second person of the Trinity.

     The tension that was provoked by the Arian controversy and the years of deliberation and discussion that ensued finally culminated in the Council of Nicaea in 325. In that council the full deity of Christ was affirmed, and Christ, the divine Logos, the second person of the Trinity, was declared to be co-essential and co-eternal with the Father. This formula gave the church a way to distinguish among the persons of the Godhead, while at the same time attributing a singular divine essence to the three. The antitrinitarian Christology of Arius saw the beginning of its defeat with this ecumenical council.

     The fifth century saw the convening of perhaps the most important christological council in all of church history at Chalcedon in 451. Here orthodox Christianity had to fight a battle on two fronts. On the one hand was the opposition to the orthodox view of the nature of Christ in His incarnation by Eutyches. Eutyches was a monophysite — he declared that Jesus had only one nature. This nature was called a single “theanthropic nature,” meaning a divinely human nature or a humanly divine nature. This position, saying that Christ had one nature (Greek: monophysis), obscured both the real deity and the real humanity that were united in the incarnation of Christ.

     On the other side of the debate, the Nestorians argued that if Jesus had two natures, He had to have had two persons as well, so they separated the two natures of Christ into two persons. Over against both heresies, Chalcedon gave its famous formula by which it declared that Christ is truly God and truly man, with the natures perfectly united in such a way that they are not confused — the natures are without mixture, confusion, division, or separation; each nature retains its own attributes. This was a watershed council because it set the boundaries or parameters of christological speculation. The two natures were not to be merged or confused; the human nature, for example, would not be absorbed or swallowed up in the divine nature and vice versa. At the same time, the two natures were not to be separated so as to lose their unity in the one person.

     Throughout history since Chalcedon, the church in virtually every generation has had to face the tendencies of either confusing the two natures or dividing or separating the two natures. Orthodoxy in the fifth century declared that the natures must be distinguished yet never separated. They must be distinguished and never be co-mingled.

     The other noteworthy event of the first millennium was the extraordinary impact of Augustine of Hippo, perhaps the greatest theologian of that millennium. Augustine was called to defend the church against the heresies of the Donatists in their disputes about baptism and, more importantly, against the heretical views of Pelagius, who denied original sin, arguing that even apart from grace the descendents of Adam could achieve lives of perfection. Augustine’s theology of salvation shaped the future history of Christianity, particularly as it helped quicken Luther and Calvin for the Protestant Reformation. At the same time, Augustine’s view of the church solidified the power of the monoepiscopacy and the Roman magisterium for all future generations.

     These five aspects of the first millennium are only illustrative of a vast number of things that in the providence of God developed over this period of time. Sadly, at the end of this millennium, the church was already groping in the darkness and biblical soteriology had declined to such a degree that the gospel was rapidly becoming obscured, even becoming almost totally eclipsed until it was recovered in the sixteenth century Reformation.

Click here to go to source

Robert Charles Sproul, 2/13/1939 – 12/14/2017 was an American theologian, author, and ordained pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America. Dr. R.C. Sproul was founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries, an international Christian education and discipleship organization located near Orlando, Fla. He was also copastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., chancellor of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine. Dr. Sproul has contributed dozens of articles to national evangelical publications, has spoken at conferences, churches, and schools around the world, and has written more than one hundred books. He also served as general editor of the Reformation Study Bible.

To Be Deep in History

By Keith Mathison 9/1/2010

     The nineteenth century witnessed the conversions of two prominent Anglican clergymen to Roman Catholicism. Both men would ultimately become cardinals in the Roman Church, and both men would profoundly influence Roman Catholic theology. The first was John Henry Newman (1801–1890). The second was Henry Edward Manning (1808–1892). Newman is probably most well known for his involvement in the high church Oxford Movement and for his An Essay On Development Of Christian Doctrine (Notre Dame Series in the Great Books, No 4) (1845). Manning is best known for his advocacy of social justice and for his strong support of the doctrine of papal infallibility following his conversion to Rome. He played a key role in the First Vatican Council (1869–1870).

     What I find most interesting about these two men is their approach to history and what it tells us about the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Newman famously said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” He believed that if one compared the teaching and practice of both Protestantism and Rome to the teaching and practice of the early church, one would be forced to conclude that Rome was the true heir of the early church. Of course, he had to posit a rather complex theory of doctrinal development in order to make such an idea plausible to himself and others not already inclined to agree. But be that as it may, Newman believed that the study of history supported the claims of Rome.

     Cardinal Manning, on the other hand, claimed that for a Roman Catholic, “the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy” and that “the only divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour” (The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost). In other words, to examine church history in order to find support for the claims of Rome is to demonstrate a lack of faith in the Church of Rome. It is to place human reason over and above faith. If you want to know what the early church taught, all you have to do is look at what the Roman Catholic Church teaches today.

     The Roman Catholic theologian Walter Burghardt expresses the same view in connection with the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, which was defined as dogma in 1950:

     “A valid argument for a dogmatic tradition, for the Church’s teaching in the past can be constructed from her teaching in the present. And that is actually the approach theology took to the definability of the assumption before 1st November 1950. It began with a fact: the current consensus, in the Church teaching and in the Church taught, that the Corporeal Assumption was revealed by God. If that is true, if that is the teaching of the magisterium of the moment, if that is the Church’s tradition, then it was always part and parcel of the Church’s teaching, part and parcel of tradition.”

     Manning and Burghardt are simply being consistent with belief in the infallibility of Rome and of the pope. If the church is infallible, appeals to history, tradition, and Scripture are superfluous. What the church teaches now must be what the church has always taught, regardless of what the actual evidence from Scripture and/or tradition might say.

     Rome truly has no other choice if she wishes to maintain her current beliefs and practices. If she were to appeal to something like the Vincentian Canon (namely, that the true faith, the true interpretation of Scripture, is that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all), the pope would have to give up all claims to supremacy over the entire church, and the bulk of Roman peculiarities and practice would have to be jettisoned.

     Cardinal Newman recognized the obvious difference between the current Roman Church and the early church. He was too deep in history not to see it. He had to develop his famous idea of doctrinal development to explain it. He argued that all the later Roman doctrines and practices were “hidden” in the church from the beginning. They were made explicit over time under the guidance of the Spirit. But the problem that many Roman Catholics fail to see is that there is a difference between development and contradiction. It is one thing to use different language to teach something the church has always taught (e.g., the “Trinity”). It is another thing altogether to begin teaching something that the church always denied (e.g., papal supremacy or infallibility). Those doctrines in particular were built on multitudes of forgeries.

     Cardinal Manning solved the problem by treating any appeal to history as treason. He called for blind faith in the papacy and magisterium. Such might have been possible had the fruits of the papacy over 1,500 years not consistently been the precise opposite of the fruit of the Spirit (Matt. 7:16).

     Cardinal Newman said that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. The truth is that to be deep in real history, as opposed to Rome’s whitewashed, revisionist, and often forged history, is to cease to be a Roman Catholic.

Click here to go to source

Per Amazon, Keith A. Mathison (MA, Reformed Theological Seminary; PhD, Whitefield Theological Seminary) is dean of the Ligonier Academy of Biblical and Theological Studies and an associate editor of Tabletalk magazine at Ligonier Ministries. He is editor of When Shall These Things Be: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism and associate editor of The Reformation Study Bible. He lives in Lake Mary, Florida, with his wife and children.

• 1     Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope
• 2     The Shape of Sola Scriptura
• 3     Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper
• 4     From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology
• 5     Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?
• 6     A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture
• 7     Not a Chance: God, Science, and the Revolt against Reason
• 8     When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism

Across the Great Divide

By Rod Mays 9/1/2010

     I started working with younger men and women (campus ministry) when I was turning fifty. A decade later, I see how this work has transformed my perspective on the church and ministry. I’ve seen the importance of knowing one’s demographic and understanding more about how the individual relates to the whole in today’s cultural environment. I’ve gained a good deal of insight into gender issues and learned a ton about multigenerational interaction. I think I can accurately state that at one time or another, every one of us has been frustrated with the generation just older or younger than ourselves. “Turn up your Beltones!” the younger generation yells. The older generation shouts, “Take those plugs out of your ears!” The solution to the communication gap would be easy if it were as simple as providing hearing aids or eliminating iPods.

     Scripture speaks to multigenerational issues. In 1 Timothy 4–5, Paul gives cautions about how the generations are to treat each another. Youth should not be despised, if the younger believer sets a good example in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity. Older men are not to be rebuked by younger men, but encouraged as one would a father. All generations in the church are to be focused on the same goal — to see people changed by the gospel. Yet there are different styles of relating in the body. Many older believers tend to “keep their distance” and order the struggling among us to “just stop it.” A younger generation will often be more relational, saying, “Let me walk through this with you.” The church can breed alienation by its resistance to engage across generational lines, which can enrage all its members.

     We all know our own generation best. Are we willing to admit our flaws? Do we really trust across generational lines? The church needs the rising generation to assume the responsibilities of a generation of incumbents whose leadership younger men and women have doubted and even ridiculed. Older men and women feel marginalized and defensive toward the attitude of entitlement younger leaders have exhibited. The older generation has been critical of both the methodology and melody of the emerging generations. The fathers and older brothers have often been unwilling to recognize that younger preachers and teachers have, indeed, embraced a fixed theology passed down from generation to generation. Perhaps the younger demographic has embraced the “doctrines of our holy religion” in a kinder, gentler, more “relevant” way. Good biblical mentoring has not been widely practiced by my generation. When it has occurred, there has been a tendency for it to be more theoretical in nature, and it has sometimes developed into a rigid method for passing on traditionalism rather than an encouraging relationship inviting serious theological reflection. When the older generations talk theology, they use the ancient buzzwords and inside, exclusive language. The younger generations fear the theological terms will be a turnoff, because they have felt shut out and rejected by many who use them. Younger men and women want to put their fingerprints on the church but can be resistant to understanding the value of historical, traditional, and biblical structures. Older men and women have struggled with how to “tell the next generation the great things that God has done.”

     A younger generation does not need to be disillusioned by what it perceives as the harsh, angry self-righteousness of older Calvinists. All generations need to learn how to use the awesome biblical language of sovereignty, predestination, and election, and younger generations need to be comfortable using those great words to artfully wield Reformed theology, understanding that the language represents timeless, redemptive truth. There is much to be admired in older and younger generations. There is also enough sin to be shared across generational lines. All generations tend to speak loudly where Scripture is silent and go silent where Scripture is loud. Though it may sound like too much of a generalization, it seems that older generations need to rediscover grace while younger generations need to rediscover holiness.

     As older and younger begin to talk, they may be surprised to discover there really was no gap, only the perception of one. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “Listening can be a greater service than speaking. Many people are looking for an ear that will listen. They do not find it among Christians because these Christians are talking where they should be listening. But he, who can no longer listen to his brother, will soon be no longer listening to God, either; he will be doing nothing but prattle in the presence of God, too. This is the beginning of the death of the spiritual life and in the end there is nothing left but spiritual chatter and clerical condescension arrayed in pious words.”  Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1954) Paperback

     What an older generation has taken for granted in its theology and commitment to a system of propositions, a younger generation needs to see embodied confessionally, ecclesiastically, and incarnationally.

Click here to go to source

Jerusalem and Athens

By R.C. Sproul Jr. 9/1/2010

     What hath Jerusalem to do with Athens? Much in every way. On the negative side, we would do well to remember that the citizens of God’s city, like those in the city of man, are still sinners. Though we are indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit, though we have been given hearts of flesh, we remain sinners on this side of the veil, not unlike those around us. Thus Jesus, in His Sermon on the Mount, enjoins us not to do that which still comes all too naturally to us, to fret and worry about our food or our clothing. Such things, He tells us, the heathen worry about.

     On a more positive note, Jerusalem and Athens have this in common: they are ruled by the same Man. That is, Jesus is Lord of both. There is no city over which Jesus does not reign. He is Lord over all of creation. We must be zealous to make this affirmation with boldness. We must, however, do so with care.

     That Jesus is Lord of Athens does not mean that all is well with Athens. We cannot safely assume the city to be safe because our Lord rules over it. Instead, remembering the antithesis, the biblical truth that the seed of the woman and the seed of the Serpent will war against one another until the kingdom comes in its fullness, the reign of Jesus over Athens means Athens is in trouble. The city belongs to Jesus, and yet it rebels against Him. His lordship is less an imprimatur over the city and more a Sword of Damocles, a constant threat of judgment.

     There is a third thing these cities have in common. Not only does Jesus rule both, not only are both cities populated by sinners, but both are populated by those who bear God’s image. Though the seed of the Serpent is at war with God and His people, they still bear His imprint. We see this theme repeated several times in the Bible. God calls His children to exercise dominion over the creation. The wicked line of Cain is not lazy with respect to exercising dominion. Bearing God’s image, it goes to work, turns mud into bricks, and builds a tower to make a name for itself. That this line does not labor for God’s glory but its own is a sign of sin. That it builds at all is a sign of God’s image. The same is true with respect to worship. In Romans 1, Paul belabors both that all men everywhere worship and that outside of Gods’ active grace in our lives, we all worship creatures rather than the Creator. Because we are God’s image bearers, we worship. Because we are in rebellion, we worship falsely.

     This ought to inform our understanding of how these two cities relate. We do not send out envoys of peace against the enemies of God, beating our swords into plowshares. Neither, however, do we allow our sense of antithesis to cloud our common humanity, or better still, our common bearing of God’s image. Thus, we do not determine that piety demands that we who worship the risen Lord ought to walk on our hands, because the children of darkness walk on their feet. We do not assume that the right thing is for Christians to hate their children because unbelievers love their children. Instead, we thank the Lord of all for all that we still have in common. Instead, we encourage all that is good, true, and beautiful in Athens, knowing that, in the end, it all must belong to the Lord.

     The Athenian Plato was not, contra those who would forget the antithesis, a sadly uninformed but brilliant man whose well intentioned philosophical meanderings can be richly gleaned for wisdom. He was instead, as we all were prior to the work of the Spirit of God in us, an enemy of God. His philosophical thoughts had as their end goal the denying of God. Plato was, with respect to wisdom, deaf, dumb and blind. He could not, according to the Scripture, even see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). There is wisdom, however, in that nugget that suggests “even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.” Plato did not tell us anything we did not already know when he first suggested that the three high virtues are goodness, truth, and beauty. He did, however, speak well, truthfully, and beautifully in so saying. Plato, in drawing our attention to goodness, truth, and beauty, made manifest the image of God in his own life, and in turn taught us how to better recognize that image in others. When unbelieving firefighters act heroically — when they exhibit the good — we have no reason for shame. When unbelieving scientists speak truthfully, we have no reason for shame. When unbelieving musicians create moments of beauty, we have no reason for shame. For these things neither belong in the end to Jerusalem nor to Athens. Instead, they belong to the One who is Lord of both.

     Plato recognized the goodness, truth, and beauty of goodness, truth, and beauty. Jesus is goodness, truth and beauty, and every other perfection infinitely. If we would pursue goodness, truth, and beauty, we must pursue Him. We must seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto us.

Click here to go to source

Is Heaven an Immaterial Realm?

By Bill Pratt 12/30/15

     Not the eternal Heaven (New Earth) that all believers will occupy when they are resurrected. The eternal Heaven (New Earth) will be a physical world with material objects, not some ghostly place where we float on spiritual “clouds.” Randy Alcorn sets us straight about the eternal Heaven in his book called ISBN-13: 978-0842379427. Alcorn laments:

     Many books on Heaven say nothing about the New Earth. Sometimes a few paragraphs, vaguely worded, are tacked on at the end. Other books address the New Earth but undercut its true nature: “Is this new earth like our present earth? Probably not.” But if it isn’t, why does God call it a New Earth? One author says, “The eternal phase of Heaven will be so unlike what we are familiar with that our present language can’t even describe it.” Certainly our present language can’t fully describe it, but it does in fact describe it (e.g., Revelation 21– 22).

     Does anybody want to live forever in a disembodied state? I don’t. Does anybody want to live forever on this sin-filled mess we call planet earth? I don’t. So what is it we crave? What do we desire?

     We are homesick for Eden. We’re nostalgic for what is implanted in our hearts. It’s built into us, perhaps even at a genetic level. We long for what the first man and woman once enjoyed— a perfect and beautiful Earth with free and untainted relationships with God, each other, animals, and our environment. Every attempt at human progress has been an attempt to overcome what was lost in the Fall.

     Alcorn continues:

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 78

8 and that they should not be like their fathers,
a stubborn and rebellious generation,
a generation whose heart was not steadfast,
whose spirit was not faithful to God.

9 The Ephraimites, armed with the bow,
turned back on the day of battle.
10 They did not keep God’s covenant,
but refused to walk according to his law.
11 They forgot his works
and the wonders that he had shown them.
12 In the sight of their fathers he performed wonders
in the land of Egypt, in the fields of Zoan.
13 He divided the sea and let them pass through it,
and made the waters stand like a heap.
14 In the daytime he led them with a cloud,
and all the night with a fiery light.
15 He split rocks in the wilderness
and gave them drink abundantly as from the deep.
16 He made streams come out of the rock
and caused waters to flow down like rivers.

By John Walvoord

Judah’s Kings Warned

     Jeremiah 21:1–7. After Jeremiah complained that the Lord was allowing him to be rejected ( 20:7–18 ), Jeremiah received an invitation from King Zedekiah to ask the Lord about Nebuchadnezzar and his attack (vv.  1–2 ). Jeremiah replied, however, that Jerusalem would be conquered (vv.  3–4 ), that God was against them (v.  5 ), and that both man and animals will die “of a terrible plague” (v.  6 ). Zedekiah himself and his officials as well as the people of the city would be handed over to Nebuchadnezzar, who would put many of them to the sword and not show pity or compassion (v.  7 ). This was fulfilled in the Babylonian captivity ( 2 Chron. 36:15–21 ).

Jerusalem to Be Destroyed

     Jeremiah 21:8–14. Jeremiah delivered God’s message that those who stayed in the city would “die by the sword, famine or plague” (v.  9 ). By contrast, “whoever goes out and surrenders to the Babylonians who are besieging you will live; he will escape with his life” (v.  9 ). The city of Jerusalem itself would be destroyed by fire (v.  10 ). The destruction of Jerusalem was again prophesied, and those who think they will have refuge there will be punished because of their evil deeds (vv.  11–14 ). This was fulfilled in the Babylonian captivity ( 2 Chron. 36:15–21 ).

Judah’s Kings to Be Destroyed

     Jeremiah 22:1–30. Jeremiah was instructed to go to the palace of the king and urge the officials to rule righteously (vv.  2–3 ). Jeremiah promised that if they obeyed the Lord, they would continue to reign on the throne of David (v.  4 ). If they did not obey, the palace would be ruined (v.  5 ).

     Jeremiah described the destruction of the temple in graphic terms (vv.  6–7 ). He prophesied that people from other nations would ask why Jerusalem was destroyed, and the answer would be that they had forsaken God’s covenant (vv.  8–9 ). Jeremiah declared that they should not weep for the dead but rather weep for the fact that they were exiled and no longer would come back to their native land (v.  10 ). What was true of many of the captives was especially true of Shallum, son of Josiah, who succeeded his father, who was king of Judah. Shallum is another name for Jehoahaz, who was carried off captive.

     Jeremiah described the judgment of God on those who built a palace and would not pay the workmen (vv.  13–14 ). Jeremiah pointed out that the king’s father did better than he in defending the poor. God charged Shallum with being dishonest and shedding innocent blood (v.  17 ). Just as Shallum (Jehoahaz) forsook the example of his father Josiah and as a result was carried off captive to Egypt, so Jehoiakim, another son of Josiah who succeeded him, acted corruptly in trying to build a big palace at the expense of the laborers (vv.  13–14 ). Jeremiah records the judgment of God on him: “They will not mourn for him: ‘Alas, my brother! Alas, my sister!’ They will not mourn for him: ‘Alas, my master! Alas, his splendor!’ He will have the burial of a donkey — dragged away and thrown outside the gates of Jerusalem” (vv.  18–19 ). The judgment of God would not only fall on Jehoiakim but on his people (vv.  20–23 ).

     God also pronounced judgment on Jehoiachin (also known as Coniah and as Jekoniah). The prophecy that he would be handed over to Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and die in a strange country (vv.  25–27 ) was fulfilled (cf.  Jer. 24:1; 29:2 ). He would be considered childless, and his children would not sit on the throne (vv.  29–30 ).

     The question was raised why Jehoiachin was thus cast out of the land. God declared, “Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah” (v.  30 ). Actually, Jehoiachin had many children (cf.  1 Chron. 3:17–18 ), but none would sit permanently on the throne of David. His son Zerubbabel ( 1 Chron. 3:17–19; Matt. 1:12 ) became a governor of Judah but not king. Zedekiah, another son of Josiah, sat on the throne for a period after Jehoiachin because he was not a son of Jehoiachin. The Scriptures that state that none of his offspring would reign were fulfilled. Because of Zedekiah’s rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar, he ultimately saw his two sons killed and then was blinded and carried off to Babylon ( Jer. 52:9–11 ).

     The accuracy of these prophecies may be noted by comparison to the genealogies of Christ in  Matthew 1 and  Luke 3. The line of Joseph came through Jehoiachin, called Jekoniah in  Matthew 1:12 (cf.  1 Chron. 3:17 ). If Joseph had been the actual father of Christ, the lineage would have been disqualified because of the prophecy that none of Jehoiachin’s heirs would sit on the throne. Instead,  Luke’s genealogy presents the physical line of Christ through Mary and did not come under the curse of Jehoiachin (cf.  Matt. 1:2–17; Luke 3:24–38 ). These prophecies are fulfilled in history and prophecy.

Judgment on Israel’s Shepherds

     Jeremiah 23:1–4. God pronounced judgment on the shepherds, the spiritual leaders of Israel, because they had led His people astray and had scattered the flock (vv.  1–2 ). God announced, however, that He would “gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and bring them back to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and increase in number” (v.  3 ). God declared that then He would have shepherds to care for them who would properly tend the sheep (v.  4 ). These prophecies are related to the second coming of Christ and speak of the millennial situation.

The Promise of a Righteous King

     Jeremiah 23:5–8. In this passage God reveals His long-range program to restore Israel and declares that He will restore the Davidic monarchy (v.  5 ). Christ’s coming as the King of Israel is clearly predicted (vv.  5–6 ). God promised that in that day both Judah (the two tribes) and Israel (the ten tribes) “will live in safety” (v.  6 ). The reference to Christ was made evident by the fact that He was called “the LORD Our Righteousness” (v.  6 ). No such event has been fulfilled in history, and it must be related, like many other passages, to the second coming of Christ.

The Coming Regathering of Israel

     As this prophecy would be fulfilled, God predicted, “‘So then, the days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when people will no longer say, “As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt,” but they will say, “As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the descendants of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all countries where he had banished them.” Then they will live in their own land’” (vv.  7–8 ).

     In keeping with many other prophecies, God predicted the restoration and regathering of Israel from all over the world to her ancient land, a movement that began in the twentieth century but will be fulfilled completely following the second coming of Christ. Though Israel was restored to her land after the years of captivity in Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, and though a portion has returned to the land in the twentieth century, this prophecy has not yet been fulfilled and is subject to future fulfillment in connection with the second advent. This important passage is a clear support for the premillennial interpretation of prophecy.

Judgment on the Lying Prophets

     Jeremiah 23:9–40. Having declared the sure prophecy of the restoration of Israel, God, who does not lie, continued His judgment on the lying prophets. The wickedness of those in the land was revealed by the fact that “the land is full of adulterers” (v.  10 ); “‘both prophet and priest are godless; even in my temple I find their wickedness’ declares the LORD” (v.  11 ). The description of their wickedness, their worship of Baal, their adultery, and their lies that made Israel like Sodom and made Jerusalem like Gomorrah is detailed (vv.  12–14 ). God predicted their judgment would lead to their drinking poisoned water (v.  15 ). Their prophecies gave “false hopes” (v.  16 ). The coming judgment was pictured like a storm about to break on them (v.  19 ). God’s anger will continue until His judgment is complete (vv.  20–24 ). He continued to denounce the dreams from which they prophesied falsely (vv.  25–32 ). They were false prophets speaking false oracles (vv.  33–37 ). Instead of fulfilling their promises, God would bring on them everlasting disgrace (vv.  39–40 ). These prophecies were fulfilled in the Babylonian captivity ( 2 Chron. 36:11–15 ).

The Two Baskets of Figs

     Jeremiah 24:1–10. God showed Jeremiah two baskets of fruit, one very good and the other very bad (vv.  1–2 ). These were used as illustrations. The good figs represented those carried off into exile to Babylon. God promised to watch over them, protect them, and eventually bring them back to their land (vv.  5–7 ).

     By contrast, the bad figs represented those left in the land with Zedekiah as their king. Whether they remained in the land or went to Egypt, God promised to destroy them (vv.  8–10 ). This was fulfilled in history.

Seventy Years of Captivity

     Jeremiah 25:1–14. Jeremiah reminded them that they had turned away from the prophets, and even though God promised that He would bless them if they turned from their evil ways (v.  5 ), He declared that they had not listened to Him (v.  7 ). Because they had not listened to God, Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, would completely destroy them, and the songs of joy and gladness would no longer be heard (vv.  9–10 ). The result would be that the whole country would become waste, and they would serve the king of Babylon for seventy years (v.  11 ).

     This prophecy of seventy years of captivity is very important prophetically because it gives the chronology of the captivity. Sixty-seven years later Daniel would read this portion of Jeremiah and would be led to pray for the return of the people to Israel ( Dan. 9 ). It is illuminating that Daniel took the prophecy to mean literal years and the promise of the return to the land as a literal promise.

     God promised that after the seventy years He would judge Babylon and “make it desolate forever” ( Jer. 25:12 ).  This prophecy has never been fulfilled. When the Medes and the Persians took over Babylon, they did not destroy the city. As a matter of fact, Babylon continued for hundreds of years, even after Christ, and gradually became the desolate place it is today. Some scholars believe Babylon will be rebuilt in the last days and destroyed summarily by Jesus Christ at His second coming, as may be indicated in  Revelation 18 and other Scriptures. Some rebuilding of Babylon is already in progress to make it a tourist attraction. Though God used the Babylonians to discipline the people of Israel, in due time He will judge the Babylonians for their wickedness and enslave them as they enslaved Israel ( Jer. 25:13–14 ). 

          __________________________________________________________________

Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain Times

The Continual Burnt Offering (Luke 10:33-34)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

July 22

Isaiah 53:3  He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

In lovingkindness Jesus came,
My soul in mercy to reclaim.
And from the depths of sin and shame
In grace He lifted me.

He called me long before I heard,
Before my sinful heart was stirred,
But when I took Him at His word,
Forgiven, He lifted me.
—Charlotte Homer

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     16. And (to despatch these beasts in their own arena) if any sacrament is sought here, would it not have been much more plausible to maintain that the absolution of the priest is a sacrament, than penitence either external or internal? For it might obviously have been said that it is a ceremony to confirm our faith in the forgiveness of sins, and that it has the promise of the keys, as they describe them: "Whatsoever ye shall bind or loose on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven." But some one will object that to most of those who are absolved by priests nothing of the kind is given by the absolution, whereas, according to their dogma, the sacraments of the new dispensation ought to effect what they figure. This is ridiculous. As in the eucharist, they make out a twofold eating--a sacramental, which is common to the good and bad alike, and a spiritual, which is proper only to the good; why should they not also pretend that absolution is given in two ways? And yet I have never been able to understand what they meant by their dogma. How much it is at variance with the truth of God, we showed when we formally discussed that subject. Here I only wish to show that no scruple should prevent them from giving the name of a sacrament to the absolution of the priest. For they might have answered by the mouth of Augustine, [670] that there is a sanctification without a visible sacrament, and a visible sacrament without internal sanctification. Again, that in the elect alone sacraments effect what they figure. Again, that some put on Christ so far as the receiving of the sacrament, and others so far as sanctification; that the former is done equally by the good and the bad, the latter by the good only. Surely they were more deluded than children, and blind in the full light of the sun when they toiled with so much difficulty, and perceived not a matter so plain and obvious to every man.

17. Lest they become elated, however, whatever be the part in which they place the sacrament, I deny that it can justly be regarded as a sacrament; first, because there exists not to this effect any special promise of God, which is the only ground of a sacrament; [671] and, secondly, because whatever ceremony is here used is a mere invention of man; whereas, as has already been shown, the ceremonies of sacraments can only be appointed by God. Their fiction of the sacrament of penance, therefore, was falsehood and imposture. This fictitious sacrament they adorned with the befitting eulogium, that it was the second plank in the case of shipwreck, because if any one had, by sin, injured the garment of innocence received in baptism, he might repair it by penitence. [672] This was a saying of Jerome. Let it be whose it may, as it is plainly impious, it cannot be excused if understood in this sense; as if baptism were effaced by sin, and were not rather to be recalled to the mind of the sinner whenever he thinks of the forgiveness of sins, that he may thereby recollect himself, regain courage, and be confirmed in the belief that he shall obtain the forgiveness of sins which was promised him in baptism. What Jerome said harshly and improperly--viz. that baptism, which is fallen from by those who deserve to be excommunicated from the Church, is repaired by penitence, these worthy expositors wrest to their own impiety. You will speak most correctly, therefore, if you call baptism the sacrament of penitence, seeing it is given to those who aim at repentance to confirm their faith and seal their confidence. But lest you should think this our invention, it appears, that besides being conformable to the words of Scripture, it was generally regarded in the early Church as an indubitable axiom. For in the short Treatise on Faith addressed to Peter, and bearing the name of Augustine, it is called, The sacrament of faith and repentance. But why have recourse to doubtful writings, as if anything can be required more distinct than the statement of the Evangelist, that John preached "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins"? (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3).

OF EXTREME UNCTION, SO CALLED.

18. The third fictitious sacrament is Extreme Unction, which is performed only by a priest, and, as they express it, in extremis, with oil consecrated by the bishop, and with this form of words, "By this holy unction, and his most tender mercy, may God forgive you whatever sin you have committed, by the eye, the ear, the smell, the touch, the taste" (see Calv. Epist. de Fugiend. Illicit. Sac.). They pretend that there are two virtues in it--the forgiveness of sins, and relief of bodily disease, if so expedient; if not expedient, the salvation of the soul. For they say, that the institution was set down by James, whose words are, "Is any sick among you? let him send for the elders of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him" (James 5:14). The same account is here to be given of this unction as we lately gave of the laying on of hands; in other words, it is mere hypocritical stage-play, by which, without reason or result, they would resemble the apostles. Mark relates that the apostles, on their first mission, agreeably to the command which they had received of the Lord, raised the dead, cast out devils, cleansed lepers, healed the sick, and, in healing, used oil. He says, they "anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them" (Mark 6:13). To this James referred when he ordered the presbyters of the Church to be called to anoint the sick. That no deeper mystery lay under this ceremony will easily be perceived by those who consider how great liberty both our Lord and his apostles used in those external things. [673] Our Lord, when about to give sight to the blind man, spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle; some he cured by a touch, others by a word. In like manner the apostles cured some diseases by word only, others by touch, others by anointing. But it is probable that neither this anointing nor any of the other things were used at random. I admit this; not, however, that they were instruments of the cure, but only symbols to remind the ignorant whence this great virtue proceeded, and prevent them from ascribing the praise to the apostles. To designate the Holy Spirit and his gifts by oil is trite and common (Ps. 45:8). But the gift of hearing disappeared with the other miraculous powers which the Lord was pleased to give for a time, that it might render the new preaching of the gospel for ever wonderful. Therefore, even were we to grant that anointing was a sacrament of those powers which were then administered by the hands of the apostles, it pertains not to us, to whom no such powers have been committed.

19. And what better reason have they for making a sacrament of this unction, than of any of the other symbols which are mentioned in Scripture? Why do they not dedicate some pool of Siloam, into which, at certain seasons the sick may plunge themselves? That, they say, were done in vain. Certainly not more in vain than unction. Why do they not lay themselves on the dead, seeing that Paul, in raising up the dead youth, lay upon him? Why is not clay made of dust and spittle a sacrament? The other cases were special, but this is commanded by James. In other words, James spake agreeably to the time when the Church still enjoyed this blessing from God. They affirm, indeed, that there is still the same virtue in their unction, but we experience differently. Let no man now wonder that they have with so much confidence deluded souls which they knew to be stupid and blind, because deprived of the word of God, that is, of his light and life, seeing they blush not to attempt to deceive the bodily perceptions of those who are alive, and have all their senses about them. They make themselves ridiculous, therefore, by pretending that they are endued with the gift of healing. The Lord, doubtless, is present with his people in all ages, and cures their sicknesses as often as there is need, not less than formerly; and yet he does not exert those manifest powers, nor dispense miracles by the hands of apostles, because that gift was temporary, and owing, in some measure, to the ingratitude of men, immediately ceased.

20. Wherefore, as the apostles, not without cause, openly declared, by the symbol of oil, that the gift of healing committed to them was not their own, but the power of the Holy Spirit; so, on the other hand, these men insult the Holy Spirit by making his power consist in a filthy oil of no efficacy. It is just as if one were to say that all oil is the power of the Holy Spirit, because it is called by that name in Scripture, and that every dove is the Holy Spirit, because he appeared in that form. Let them see to this: it is sufficient for us that we perceive, with absolute certainty, that their unction is no sacrament, as it is neither a ceremony appointed by God, nor has any promise. For when we require, in a sacrament, these two things, that it be a ceremony appointed by God, and have a promise from God, we at the same time demand that that ceremony be delivered to us, and that that promise have reference to us. [674] No man contends that circumcision is now a sacrament of the Christian Church, although it was both an ordinance of God, and had his promise annexed to it, because it was neither commanded to us, nor was the promise annexed to it given us on the same condition. The promise of which they vaunt so much in unction, as we have clearly demonstrated, and they themselves show by experience, has not been given to us. The ceremony behoved to be used only by those who had been endued with the gift of healing, not by those murderers, who do more by slaying and butchering than by curing.

21. Even were it granted that this precept of unction, which has nothing to do with the present age, were perfectly adapted to it, they will not even thus have advanced much in support of their unction, with which they have hitherto besmeared us. James would have all the sick to be anointed: these men besmear, with their oil, not the sick, but half-dead carcasses, when life is quivering on the lips, or, as they say, in extremis. If they have a present cure in their sacrament, with which they can either alleviate the bitterness of disease, or at least give some solace to the soul, they are cruel in never curing in time. James would have the sick man to be anointed by the elders of the Church. They admit no anointer but a priestling. When they interpret the elders of James to be priests, and allege that the plural number is used for honour, the thing is absurd; as if the Church had at that time abounded with swarms of priests, so that they could set out in long procession, bearing a dish of sacred oil. James, in ordering simply that the sick be anointed, seems to me to mean no other anointing than that of common oil, nor is any other mentioned in the narrative of Mark. These men deign not to use any oil but that which has been consecrated by a bishop, that is warmed with much breath, charmed by much muttering, and saluted nine times on bended knee, Thrice Hail, holy oil! thrice Hail, holy chrism! thrice Hail, holy balsam! From whom did they derive these exorcisms? James says, that when the sick man shall have been anointed with oil, and prayer shall have been made over him, if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him--viz. that his guilt being forgiven, he shall obtain a mitigation of the punishment, not meaning that sins are effaced by oil, but that the prayers by which believers commended their afflicted brother to God would not be in vain. These men are impiously false in saying that sins are forgiven by their sacred, that is, abominable unction. See how little they gain, even when they are allowed to abuse the passage of James as they list. And to save us the trouble of a laborious proof, their own annals relieve us from all difficulty; for they relate that Pope Innocent, who presided over the church of Rome in the age of Augustine, ordained, that not elders only, but all Christians, should use oil in anointing, in their own necessity, or in that of their friends. [675] Our authority for this is Sigebert, in his Chronicles.

OF ECCLESIASTICAL ORDERS.

22. The fourth place in their catalogue is held by the sacrament of Orders, one so prolific, as to beget of itself seven lesser sacraments. It is very ridiculous that, after affirming that there are seven sacraments, when they begin to count, they make out thirteen. It cannot be alleged that they are one sacrament, because they all tend to one priesthood, and are a kind of steps to the same thing. For while it is certain that the ceremonies in each are different, and they themselves say that the graces are different, no man can doubt that if their dogmas are admitted, they ought to be called seven sacraments. And why debate it as a doubtful matter, when they themselves plainly and distinctly declare that they are seven? First, then, we shall glance at them in passing, and show to how many absurdities they introduce us when they would recommend their orders to us as sacraments; and, secondly, we shall see whether the ceremony which churches use in ordaining ministers ought at all to be called a sacrament. They make seven ecclesiastical orders, or degrees, which they distinguish by the title of a sacrament. These are Doorkeepers, Readers, Exorcists, Acolytes, Subdeacons, Deacons, and Priests. And they say that they are seven, because of the seven kinds of graces of the Holy Spirit with which those who are promoted to them ought to be endued. This grace is increased and more liberally accumulated on promotion. The mere number has been consecrated by a perversion of Scripture, because they think they read in Isaiah that there are seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, whereas truly not more than six are mentioned by Isaiah, who, however, meant not to include all in that passage. For, in other passages are mentioned the spirit of life, of sanctification, of the adoption of sons, as well as there, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord. [676] Although others who are more acute make not seven orders, but nine, in imitation, as they say, of the Church triumphant. But among these, also, there is a contest; because some insist that the clerical tonsure is the first order of all, and the episcopate the last; while others, excluding the tonsure, class the office of archbishop among the orders. Isiodorus distinguishes differently, for he makes Psalmists and Readers different. [677] To the former, he gives the charge of chanting; to the latter, that of reading the Scriptures for the instruction of the common people. And this distinction is observed by the canons. In this great variety, what would they have us to follow or to avoid? Shall we say that there are seven orders? So the master of the school teaches, but the most illuminated doctors determine otherwise. On the other hand, they are at variance among themselves. Besides, the most sacred canons call us in a different direction. Such, indeed, is the concord of men when they discuss divine things apart from the word of God.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion