How Did Christ Die?
Tradition & Scripture

I walked into work this morning and was immediately presented with the question: "was Jesus crucified on a stake (a vertical post) or a cross (t-shape)?"
My co-workers and I were baffled.
Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Jesus died on a torture stake, and that the cross is a pagan symbol that was adopted later.
Ecclesiastical Tradition holds (through paintings, songs, etc.) that it was a t-shaped cross. However, it was not extremely rare for Romans to crucify on a stake.
We were stumped.
Thankfully, the Scriptures are not without an answer.
Three proofs at a minimum are supplied in Scripture:
First, if Jesus were crucified on a stake or post, His hands would be placed above His head and nailed with one nail (like His feet). However, the Bible indicates that Jesus had nails (plural) in His hands. Nails require that Jesus was crucified on a cross, not a stake:

"The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." [Plural nails requires a cross, not a stake!]

Second, the Bible also indicates that the Romans placed a sign over Jesus' head, again indicating that He died on a cross and not a stake:

And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Matthew 27:37) [If on a stake, the sign would have been over His hands, not His head!]

Lastly, As John MacArthur points out:

"...look at an original Greek text. Say, of Colossians 2:14, 2:11-14. See what the word says there: 2:10 and following, and see if you see the word cross, see what the original Greek text says. And, I think you’ll see that it’s the word “cross”.

Many, however argue MacAruthur's point, claiming that the Greek word staurovß does not designate a t-shaped cross, but only a pointed stake.
However, all commentators of note are agreed that a t-shaped cross is here intended, including John Gill, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, etc.

This position is especially true of the Early Church Fathers, who all held (universally) that either a t or an x shape was intended, although a good number seem to favour the x-shape.

Ultimate question: does any of this really matter?

Sure. All things pertaining to the Scriptures are important...but I think the real truth that matters is this one:

"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace..."

Councils
"Gone like wind in the Meadows"
J.R.R. Tolkien gave us the Ents: deliberate-acting, cautious-thinking wise Tree-Shepherds who command our respect.
The Ents, in turn, give us the Entmoot: an assembly of Ents (often the wise and older ones) who convene to discuss matters of import. By the end of the Third Age, however these meetings had become rare.
What is significant about an Entmoot?
Two things:
Firstly, because Entmoots correspond to our world's Councils. Many long years ago, Christendom was full of Councils, some of the more notable being the Council of Carthage, the Nicene Council, and so forth. These Councils and creeds were important; not because they superceded Scripture, but because they clarified the Orthodox position in light of Scripture. Had the Nicene Council been heeded in modern times, the Jehovah's Witnesses could not have gained the foothold they now claim. Entmoots were called to resolve issues that dealt (primarily, but sometimes indirectly) with the Ents and their trees. Treebeard told Merry & Pippin that the Ents rarely concerned themselves with the World, unless it pertained to Ents.
Secondly, the importance of Entmoots is that we are able to directly link the decline of that which is sacred, to the decline of the Entmoot.
For instance, the Entmoot held while Merry & Pippin were with Treebeard, lasted for three days. This was short compared to earlier Entmoots, but - as I point out - times were changing.
Merry and Pippin could hear the voices of the Ents rising and falling as they debated. Then suddenly, on the afternoon of March 2, there was silence followed by a great shout. The Ents had decided to go to war against Saruman. They marched out of Derndingle, singing as they went, and headed south to Isengard.
They were resolute. When they decided upon a thing, they acted upon it. Men were not that way...impulsive and head-strong, they were often foolish and corrupt. When the Age of Men was on the rise, the Age of Councils (Entmoots) and all things sacred was passing. The Age of Magic, Age of the Elves, Age of the Ancients, was dying.
We would do well to take heed. When Christendom closes their ears to the Councils of our Fathers, the decline of all things holy is sure to find us racing into battle with no wise deliberation.
Where, O Where, Treebeard, have the Councils gone? Why does the Age of Men find us with such unconcern for Scripture? If we truly care for It, let us affirm it with our lives, our words...our Councils.
King Theoden mourned when he asked:
"Where is the Horse and the Rider?
Where is the Horn that was blowing?
They have passed like Rain on the Mountains,
Like Wind in the Meadows.
The Days have gone down in the West,
Behind the Hills,
Into Shadow.
How did it come to this?"

The Promise Of Autumn
The Hope Of Tomorrow

II Peter reads,
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

The Psalmist said, "Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day."

I find an inexorable law of the human race (I might well say depraved man), which is that wherever there is depravity, Righteousness is desired.
Now, I do not mean desired in the sense that man is seeking after God. I do not pretend that there is any good in man which would cause him to draw near His Creator. It is only the mercy of God that regenerates the soul.
However; it is true that man is always seeking.
He is always longing for something he does not have, and the thing he is longing for is always exactly what he wants until the moment he gets it. (Google keywords: Sehnsucht Lewis)
But I have found - after many long Autumns of being lost - the secret to this longing, and not having...the secret to Autumn.

Autumn is in itself a sort of Sehnsucht. It embodies that blustery sort of desire which is not perfectly fulfilled (Autumn is a transition), but is not something to be trivialised. We might be tempted to think of Autumn as only a transition, but it does not end there. Autumn is also a destination. It is a longing, but that in itself is a longing for a longing.
It's like longing for Autumn during Spring, or Summer. Even when Autumn comes, you may still find yourself longing.

This is Christianity...mere Christianity, at any rate.
We can try looking to pantheism or occultism for the answers, but we will still be longing for something else.
But what if we were to long for the longing itself? What if that intangible Autumn were to turn out to be - not Autumn - but the desire for Autumn:
That desire that rises from your heart to your throat in the frosty pre-dawn of Summer's last morning, when you stand on the edge of the Worlde and look out at the flat expanse before you, half-revealed in the pale moonlight...

What if we were created with the desire to desire? What if all our longings and wantings were there because He put them there? Not so that we might fulfill them here on earth, but so that we might realise we were not ultimately created for this life...
Just as fish do not yearn the dry land, because they were not created for it...
Lewis remarks: "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."

A Journey In Grace
How His Eye Infused That Ray...

I don't usually write personal articles, i.e., ones that deal with my life...my experiences, but we'll make an exception.

I am the child of a Minister.
Reformed...Orthodox...Protestant.
You might imagine that I understood the Doctrines of Grace before I knew my multiplication tables...not so.

How exactly does one know the moment of one's conversion?
I remember understanding as a child...or at least, knowing that Christ's death was real, and that it was the payment for my sin...But it was until some time later that I realised what that truly meant; the ultimate effect of that transaction. I still am not able to pinpoint the "moment" of my conversion, however...
Several years ago, my Family had just been exposed to Reformed Theology; we still had not seen its beauty, not yet tasted the succulent nectar in the centre of the Tulip...(pardon my obvious comparison)
I remember reading Richard P. Belcher, A Journey In Grace, & when I got to the part about John Newton's Amazing Grace, I sat upright and sort-of looked at it twice.
I had never before viewed the words like I did then...I once was lost, but now am found.
In a way (don't go legal on me), it was like a second conversion. A reformation, if you will. I knew the doctrine of Efficacious Grace, but I finally realised the doctrine of Grace as we know it in the Reformed sense.
As I read the words, I knew nothing of hyper, really nothing of Calvin, nothing of supralapsarianism...
I knew nothing, save Christ. This is the ideal which the Reformation embodied...
Solus Christos.

Prayer For The Month
Adapted from Richard Baxter's Puritan Non-Conformist liturgy of 1660:

Eternal, Almighty, and most gracious God: heaven is your throne, and earth is your footstool; holy and reverend is your name; you are praised by the angels of heaven, and in the gathering of your church on earth. Despite our unworthiness, you have invited us through our Mediator, Jesus Christ, to present ourselves and our prayers to you. Receive us graciously. Help us by your Spirit. Let us stand in awe of you. Put your law into our hearts, and write it on our minds. Let your word come to us in power, and help us receive it in love, with attentive, reverent, and teachable minds. Through your word, allow us to taste the flavor of eternal life. Make us fervent in prayer and joyful in praise. Help us serve you this day without distraction, that we may find that a day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere, and that it is good for us to come near to God; through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Amen.

Regulative: To worship Him, or self
The Puritan Dilemma

Here is an excerpt from "The Regulative Principle of Reformed Worship in the Puritan Writers and Its Application to the Element of Sung Praise in Worship."
(The less cumbrous title is "The Puritan Principle of Worship.")

“The Puritan principle of Worship was no invention of the Puritans. On the contrary, it is the principle regulative of Worship formulated by Calvin and adopted by all the Reformed Churches, as will appear from a consideration of passages in the writings of Reformed writers and the Reformed creeds. The reformed view of the principle regulative of the external worship of God stands out by way of contrast with the Lutheran view. Lutherans have held that what is not forbidden in the Word of God may be allowed in the Worship of God. Ceremonies in worship are thus regarded as to a large extent indifferent (Adiaphora), i.e. things neither commanded nor forbidden in the Scriptures..."

Calvin refined the regulative principle with a clarity he alone posessed, and applied it with great consistency to the Reformation in Geneva. It is implicit in his celebrated definition of pure and undefiled religion as "confidence in God coupled with serious fear - fear which both includes in it willing reverence, and brings along with it such legitimate worship as is prescribed by the law." (Inst, 1,11,3. Beveridge Trans.).

In his 1559 Latin edition, the text reads "et secum trahit legitimum cultum qualis in Lege praescribitur." (Still very clear on the legitimacy or gravity of the situation, as well as that which is already dictated.)

The French text of 1560, "et tire avec soy un service tel qu'il appartient, et tel que Dieu mesmes i'ordonne en sa Loy." (This text accentuates the Divine origin of acceptable worship.)

Calvin argued that the Regulative principle dispelled all superstion: "In this way, the vain pretext which many employ to clothe their superstition is overthrown. They deem it enough that they have some kind of zeal for religion, how preposterous soever it may be not observing that true religion must be conformable to the will of God as its unerring standard; that he can never deny himself, and is no specter or phantom, to be metamorphosed at each individual's caprice. It is easy to see how superstition, with its false glosses, mocks God, while it tries to please him. Usually fastening merely on things on which he has declared he sets no value, it either contemptuously overlooks or even undisguisedty rejects, the things which he expressly enjoins, or in which we are assured he takes pleasure. Those, therefore, who set up a fictitious worship, merely worship and adore their own delirious fancies; indeed, they would never dare so to trifle with God, had they not previously fashioned him after their own childish conceits...It remains therefore to conclude with Lactantius (Instil. Div. lib. 1,2,6) 'No religion is genuine that is not in accordance with truth.'"(I,IV,3).

How prescient is this thought which Calvin supplies us with: If we desire to hold to our own traditions because we are superstitious, following the Regulative principle is not to our liking.

However, if we follow this principle, namely, doing that in worship which is explicitly commanded; we have no room for our own heresies and inventions, but must give way to His commands.

How venerable are all thoughts gleaned from the Word, and from the mind of God.

Ignorance of the Law: no excuse?

Reformed Protestants hold to the line of thought which says that men will die condemned if God does not regenerate their heart through the Holy Spirit. This means, even if they die on some backwater island with no knowledge of Salvation or the Scriptures, they are still condemned.

Armenien brethren would argue (not all, of course - let's be fair) that if they had never heard the gospel, they would be spared, else; how could they be held accountable for something they were never privy to?

Sound intelligent? It does to the Catholics.

The 1538 Questions and Answers on Catholicism And Protestantism [St. Paul: Radio Replies Press] claims to be “Invaluable for the uninformed Catholic - the educated and uneducated lapsed Catholic and prospective Convert.” Lets take a look at question #536.

536. Do you maintain that one is obliged to join your infallible, one, holy, catholic, apostolic, indefectible Church, if he wishes to be saved?

If a man realizes that the Catholic Church is the true Church, he must join it if he wishes to save his soul. That is the normal law. But if he does not realize this obligation, is true to his conscience, even though it be erroneous, and dies repenting of any violations of his conscience, he will get to Heaven. In such a case, it would not have been his fault that he was a non-Catholic and God makes every allowance for good faith.

Elsewhere Rumble and Carty point out, “…[R]emember the conditions of salvation for a Protestant. If he has never suspected his obligation to join the Catholic Church, it is possible for him to be saved. But it is necessary to become a Catholic or be lost if one has the claims of the Catholic Church sufficiently put before him.”

Now Carty and Rumble are saying that if one has been presented with the “claims of the Catholic Church” and rejects them, one may be lost. Rumble and Carty want one to look at the evidence for Roman Catholicism and then make a decision on whether or not to believe it. If one rejects it, one is probably doomed to hell.

So my question is this: If the Catholic church wants more souls in Heaven, wouldn't it just be better to never mention the Catholic church at all? This way, no one would know, & they'd never have the option of declining membership; thus saving their souls.
See...& you thought we should be telling people.