THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TRUTH

[A.K.A. Nate's Theology in a Nutshell]

A Sermon For Year A, Fifth Easter
Copyright © 2008 Nathan L. Bostian
Based on John 14.1-14

ONE PERENNIAL QUESTION, TWO TROUBLING ANSWERS: Some sermons challenge the heart to feel something new, whether new compassion for people, or new passion for God. Other sermons challenge the imagination to see ourselves and our Reality in a new way. Still other sermons challenge our will to act, to stand boldly for Christ, or to reach out to those in need.

But this sermon is here to challenge your mind, your way of thinking, your understanding of the Reality we live in.

And the mental challenge is the question that Jesus ANSWERS in this passage. Yet, this question isn't ASKED for another four chapters, by a very practical Roman governor named Pilate.

PRACTICING CHRIST WITH THE EARLY CHURCH

A Sermon For Year A, Third Easter
Copyright © 2008 Nathan L. Bostian
Based on Acts 2:14a,36-47; John 21:1-14

MY FAVORITE RANDOM FACTOID: Tonight we heard in the Gospel one of my favorite random factoids in Scripture.

Did you catch it?

Nope. It wasn't the fact that St. Peter liked fishing naked. I mean, that is an INCREDIBLY interesting factoid. And the next time you get into a conversation with a Roman Catholic friend about the origin of the Church, I think you should mention that the first Pope liked casting his nets in the buff.

But it isn't my favorite factoid.

A Proposal for a Chalcedonian view of the Eucharist

This last week I have been blessed with a wonderful debate about the Eucharist which included two generous Catholics and another brother from the Church of Christ.

In it, we tried to hash out in detail (often nitpicky and scholastic detail) what exactly is going on the Eucharist. Everyone confused each other (and probably ourselves too). And I am not entirely sure that we fully heard or understood each other. But, we were generous and kind, which is a lot better than most blog debates.

In the debate, we bumped up against the genius and the limits of Thomas Aquinas several times. We also talked at length about what types of errors must be avoided in understanding the Eucharist.

I would like to put forward a proposal about understanding both the Eucharist itself, and the understanding St. Thomas' role in helping us understand the Eucharist:

THE ULTIMATE PRACTICAL JOKE

A Sermon For Year A, Easter-2
Copyright © 2008 Nathan L. Bostian
Based on John 20:19-31; Acts 2:22-32; 1 Peter 1:3-9

What is the best practical joke you ever played on someone? What is the best practical joke that someone ever been played on you?

1. PRACTICAL JOKES: I have to admit that I have been both the instigator, and the receiver, of a great many practical jokes.

There, of course, have been the gross jokes: Vaseline on doorknobs... Saran wrap over the hole in the toilet...

The football team decorating the car of one of our teammates with dirty athletic supporters. That was pretty smelly...

Then there was the time we were all driving in my buddy's jeep. All of the sudden I yell "Toilet in the lawn! Toilet in the lawn!"

You see, someone had been redecorating their bathroom, and had thrown their toilet out to be picked up by the trashmen. So, we picked it up instead. And we put it on the front steps of a friend's house... Then he put it at someone else's house... Then they drove it somewhere else... And so on...

A CHRIST FOR EVERY TASTE?

A Sermon For Year A, Easter Sunday
Copyright © 2008 Nathan L. Bostian

Based on Acts 5:25-32; 10:34-43; Luke 24:13-35

1. A CHRIST FOR EVERY TASTE: One of the interesting things about being on my side of the Easter phenomenon is looking at how other churches and ministries do Easter, and comparing and contrasting it with what we do.

As I was driving around this week, I noticed at almost every major intersection in my town, clusters of plastic signs by the side of the road offering every conceivable type of Easter worship experience.

Restoring or Distorting Christianity?

[The following is a letter written to some hokey heretics who run a website called http://restoringchristianity.com. Their ideas stem from a familiar hyper-protestant assumption that they are "restoring" the "true Church" after it has been corrupted for 19 centuries. This, of course, assumes that God allowed His Church to be lost for nearly 2000 years without doing anything until he raised up this new group to restore everything! Anyway, the three keys to the website are:

1. They claim there is no Trinity, Jesus is not God, and the only God is the Father. But, if you wonder why Trinitarianism makes sense (and they don't!), and why Jesus is God, read CS Lewis "Mere Christianity", Peter Kreeft's "Handbook of Christian Apologetics", Thomas Oden's "Systematic Theology", Athanasius' "On the Incarnation", and Augustine's "De Trinitatae".

2. They claim that salvation is conditional, and we must be baptized into Christ to be saved. But, of course, one may ask: How would baptism save us if Christ is not divine, since we are being included in Him? It would seem that only God could save us and bring us to God, and if Christ is not God, he is a created being like us who needs to be saved just as we do.3. They claim that their anti-Trinitarianism is a new idea, and unknown for most of Church History. This is utterly bogus too. Read on to find out more!

So, I wrote this letter to mock their assumptions, in a tone which makes it sound like I approve of them. Everything here is tongue-in-cheek. But note, I never actually use words of approval. I wonder if they will catch on…]

THE REALITY YOU CAN BET YOUR LIFE ON

THE REALITY YOU CAN BET YOUR LIFE ON
A Sermon for Year C, Easter 2
By Nathan L. Bostian

Have you ever been lied to? I mean, right to your face lied to? How did you know they were lying?

My wife, Kim, has a child in class who consistently forgets homework, forgets to get report cards signed, forgets to come to school, and forgets to treat other people like human beings. And she always has an excuse. Well, my uncle died… And when Kim finds out there was no funeral, it is Kim who somehow misunderstood her.

What she meant to say was that her grandmother has DIE-abetes and had to go into the hospital… And when Kim finds out that's not true, then it is the student's sister who went to court. That's why she didn't get it done. She piles up lie upon lie upon lie, until she is so deep she can't get out. Then she cries and cries. Its never her fault. You've met folks like that… Maybe you've been someone like that.

So, how do you tell someone is lying to you? Other than gut feeling, I think we depend on three major things to tell us if someone is lying: First, does their explanation fit the facts? Is their excuse the most probable, reasonable explanation of what you see?

WILL THE DEAD RISE UP AND PRAISE YOU?

WILL THE DEAD RISE UP AND PRAISE YOU?
A Sermon based on Psalm 88
By Nathan L. Bostian

This is the week after Easter. The week after the event that changed history forever: When a dead and discredited Messiah defeated death itself and declared the dominion of a Love that cannot die! Jesus has triumphed over the grave! Let the whole Earth rejoice! The old has passed away, behold all things are new! Halleluiah!

Except… of course… for those who DON'T see all things new… Because, let's be honest, Christ's victory over the grave doesn't seem like such a victory for everyone. In fact, even if someone believes in the historical reality of Christ's bodily resurrection (like I do), the event itself raises legitimate, heart-breaking, questions for two types of people:

First, there are those who are still living with the reality that reality inside their soul has not changed. Jesus is risen, but they are still dead inside. If the resurrection is such a victory, how come they are not feeling the love?

Mere Mary: A Mary that Protestants and Catholics can celebrate together.

Last night I was blessed to watch the movie "The Nativity". I was not blessed because it was an accurate portrayal of what Scripture tells us about Mary and the Incarnation. It wasn't. Don't get me wrong. The costuming and setting were good attempts to capture the first century Judean ethos, and all of Jesus' family looked "Jew-ish". I mean, thank God they did not look like they came from the Charlton Heston school of Biblical impersonation. But the timing on the arrival of the Magi was all screwed up, the Bible says nothing about how many magi there were, and the portrayal of the Star of Bethlehem was a bit cheesy. And, to top it off, the birth scene looked a bit like a Hallmark card from the 1950's (but at least the actors looked Jew-ish!).

A REALIST View of Salvation

A REALIST View of Salvation

For the past 400 years, the debate in Protestant Soteriology (the study of salvation) has focused almost entirely on two alternatives: Calvinism and Arminianism. The outline of this debate has been centered around the five cardinal points of Calvinist Soteriology summed up in the acronym T.U.L.I.P. The debate has been basically an affirmation of the five points of the TULIP on one side, and a denial of these points on the other. For at least 400 years (or more, since essentially the same debate was going on in the Catholic Church long before the Reformation) no new information has been added, nor have any radically new perspectives been looked at (with the possible exception of Karl Barth). The debate has mainly centered around one side twisting the other side's "proof texts" to fit their own agendas. The basics of this debate are summed up below:

A Letter to some "Biblical Unitarians"

Sent to the fine folks at: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/ and http://www.truthortradition.com/

Aha! Some post-modern day Arians! You are aware that your position has been rendered non-credible officially since the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and again at Constantinople in 381 AD (even though the church and empire was overwhelmingly Arian, I mean... "Christian Unitarian"... during the intervening 50 years)? You simply must read not only your Bible again (in original languages, please), but also your church fathers: Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, etc. They are all far more scriptural (not to mention artful) than anything found on your website. Or you can simply read any one of several hundred catholic, reformation, or modern systematic theologians. They all present an infinitely more coherent interpretation of Scripture than your private interpretations.

But, if you persist in being Unitarian, may I suggest the following: