One thing that is continually being made clear is how often people will take a brief excerpt of scripture, interpret it, and base their theological understanding on their interpretation of that brief excerpt.
Will some people ever recognise that scripture is not a collection of isolated sound-bites of truth that can be applied according to whim?
Will they ever recognise that we need all of scripture and we need to look at the overall picture instead of trying to know God through isolated verses?
Yes, this is another rant about context.
Blindness to context is one of the major factors contributing to false doctrine and false teaching in the church today.
Showing posts with label Misuse of Scripture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Misuse of Scripture. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Refined not Redefined
Two of the proof texts favoured by the promoters of replacement theology are:
And
But to use those texts as support for their theology, the replacement promoters need to totally ignore the clear context of their proof texts.
Regarding Romans 2:28.
Go back several verses and you will read in verse 17:
It is specifically addressed to Jews who were trusting in their blood heritage and their relationship to the law. Paul was saying their heritage was not enough. It was not addressing gentiles and saying they have been made Jews through "circumcision of the heart". It was addressing Jews, saying that MORE than heredity and law observance were needed to be part of God’s people. An inward change worked by the Spirit is necessary.
Regarding Romans 9.
When Paul writes “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” He is referring to a faithful remnant of the descendants of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.
The statement is excluding SOME of those descended from Israel - it is NOT a statement intended to include others who are not descended from Israel.
It is not a statement that redefines what Israel means. It is a statement that refines what Israel means.
It does not shift the identity of Israel from one group to another - it narrows down the identity of Israel from a wider inclusive ethnic group to a smaller specific section of that wider group.
It pinpoints the faithful remnant AMONG the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is not transferring attention outside of those descendants.
It's like saying that not all born into a Christian family are Christian - only those who have their own faith in Jesus.
Rom 2: 28-29 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit
And
Rom 9: 6-8 For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.
But to use those texts as support for their theology, the replacement promoters need to totally ignore the clear context of their proof texts.
Regarding Romans 2:28.
Go back several verses and you will read in verse 17:
“ Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God…”
It is specifically addressed to Jews who were trusting in their blood heritage and their relationship to the law. Paul was saying their heritage was not enough. It was not addressing gentiles and saying they have been made Jews through "circumcision of the heart". It was addressing Jews, saying that MORE than heredity and law observance were needed to be part of God’s people. An inward change worked by the Spirit is necessary.
Regarding Romans 9.
When Paul writes “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” He is referring to a faithful remnant of the descendants of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.
The statement is excluding SOME of those descended from Israel - it is NOT a statement intended to include others who are not descended from Israel.
It is not a statement that redefines what Israel means. It is a statement that refines what Israel means.
It does not shift the identity of Israel from one group to another - it narrows down the identity of Israel from a wider inclusive ethnic group to a smaller specific section of that wider group.
It pinpoints the faithful remnant AMONG the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is not transferring attention outside of those descendants.
It's like saying that not all born into a Christian family are Christian - only those who have their own faith in Jesus.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Not Another Rant About Context???
Here I am AGAIN repeating what I have said before – but the problem will not go away.
The most frustrating Christian practices I continually see is the use of bible quotes out of context to support a favoured doctrine. Most times this is done the context CLEARLY gives no validity for using the quote in that particular way.
We’ve all done it.
And we are all prone to doing it – often with memory verses that come to mind when we want to support what we are saying.
Maybe its time for honest, for integrity. At least it is if we genuinely want to know and promote the truth.
Before applying a “text” for a chosen purpose make sure that it is REALLY supporting the point without the need to stretch or force meaning into the “text” that was never intended.
_____________
illustration credit "Open Bible by Petr Kratochvil
The most frustrating Christian practices I continually see is the use of bible quotes out of context to support a favoured doctrine. Most times this is done the context CLEARLY gives no validity for using the quote in that particular way.We’ve all done it.
And we are all prone to doing it – often with memory verses that come to mind when we want to support what we are saying.
Maybe its time for honest, for integrity. At least it is if we genuinely want to know and promote the truth.
Before applying a “text” for a chosen purpose make sure that it is REALLY supporting the point without the need to stretch or force meaning into the “text” that was never intended.
_____________
illustration credit "Open Bible by Petr Kratochvil
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!!!
The importance of scriptural context can’t be stressed enough. So often we jump to conclusions and make interpretations of a particular verse without taking into account what the surrounding context is saying. This can lead us to a totally different understanding to the one intended by the writer.
Today I came across a very clear example of this in the comments section of another blog.
The writer was trying to prove that baptism was only a symbolic act and he quoted 1 Peter 3:21 “this water symbolises baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.”
“Woa!” the writer says – “Peter emphasises the symbolic nature of water baptism…”.
Woa! I say – what about context? What is being presented as the symbol? Is it baptism or is it something else?
Let’s look at the context – let’s look at the preceding verse.
20…God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolises baptism that now saves you also…
Here we can see a totally different meaning to the one the comment writer proposed. It is not the waters of baptism that are being presented as the symbol; it is the water of the flood that is being presented as symbolising the waters of baptism.
A TOTALLY different meaning arises out of a CONTEXTUAL reading of the text.
I have seen this happening over and over again.
I have found myself doing the same thing, but now I have learned to be cautious whenever a verse comes to mind.
I stop and check it again.
Are my thoughts consistent with the overall context?
Don’t be lazy about it.
Don’t take the risk of deceiving yourself and others.
Today I came across a very clear example of this in the comments section of another blog.
The writer was trying to prove that baptism was only a symbolic act and he quoted 1 Peter 3:21 “this water symbolises baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.”
“Woa!” the writer says – “Peter emphasises the symbolic nature of water baptism…”.
Woa! I say – what about context? What is being presented as the symbol? Is it baptism or is it something else?
Let’s look at the context – let’s look at the preceding verse.
20…God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolises baptism that now saves you also…
Here we can see a totally different meaning to the one the comment writer proposed. It is not the waters of baptism that are being presented as the symbol; it is the water of the flood that is being presented as symbolising the waters of baptism.
A TOTALLY different meaning arises out of a CONTEXTUAL reading of the text.
I have seen this happening over and over again.
I have found myself doing the same thing, but now I have learned to be cautious whenever a verse comes to mind.
I stop and check it again.
Are my thoughts consistent with the overall context?
Don’t be lazy about it.
Don’t take the risk of deceiving yourself and others.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Scripture Diminished and Downplayed: a continuing concern
Are there false doctrines and deceivers around today?
Of course there are – but how are they recognised and how do we avoid becoming victim to them?
Our foundational defence is scripture, the word of God. One of the first warning signs given that everything is NOT ok, is often the way scripture is treated. Downplay the scriptures, or pick and choose which bits are really inspired, and we open the gate wide for everyone to determine what is right in their own eyes.
We open the gate wide to every deceiving spirit to come (claiming to be the Holy Spirit), whispering all manner of false revelation into our ears.
Unfortunately the denigration of scripture has become common practice among some professing Christians, and open forums and blogs tend to give them a platform to promote their ideas. Usually they dress their message in very spiritual sounding terms in which the Holy Spirit is presented as superseding His inspired word, making scripture almost unnecessary. Why do we need scripture when we have God Himself inside?
Others will make the claim that JESUS is the Living word of God and we should relate to Him and not words on a page (which by implication or even direct statement are dismissed as NOT being the word of God).
The questioning of the nature of scripture is not uncommon. This is especially true of those who have had their faith shaken at some stage, with the realisation that most things they were taught and took for granted were wrong. If everything else was wrong – what about our understanding of what scripture is? Is it really “the word of God”? Was it really inspired by the Holy Spirit? Weren’t the writers fallible men who could make mistakes?
I’ve seen all of these questions, and in the past I asked some of them myself.
But it is ironic that those who try to question the authority of scripture often do so by referring to PARTS of scripture to defend their viewpoint.
A popular quote used for this purpose is:
John 5:39-40
“You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”
These verses are not diminishing the importance of scripture; they specifically state that the scriptures testify about Jesus! He was NOT criticising the Pharisees for studying the scriptures, He was criticising them for not seeing what was THERE in the scriptures. Like in so many cases today the actual content of scripture was replaced by other things – like tradition and theology.
So often we are too keen to read our doctrines INTO scripture that we blind ourselves to what scripture is actually saying. This practice seems to be ingrained into us, by example, through a lot of preaching within the church. A preacher will base a sermon on a “text”, he will then make several points based around his application of that “text” – and will usually throw in a sampling of other “texts” from around the bible to add extra support for his points.
Most listeners will take it all in without a second thought, with no questions about what has been said. Others will be a little more diligent and will note down the references and check them later for themselves, but in doing so will fail to check the context to see whether the “texts” were being applied correctly. The common attitude is to do nothing more than check whether the references are in scripture or not.
In effect we are not learning what scripture is REALLY saying, we learn what the preacher is telling us that it says. We are also adopting a wrong understanding of how scripture should be handled.
Scripture is NOT a collection of disconnected texts to apply according to personal preference. Scripture is a collection of books that must be addressed according to context to see what those books are saying. No prophecy of scripture is open to private interpretation.
We should be determining what the Spirit was and is saying through the words He inspired men to write?
At one time Jesus said: "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.”
And that truth remains – people fall into error because they do not know the scriptures.
So often there has been an obsession with “the power of God” at the expense of the Scriptures, and people run here and there whenever rumours of displays of power are heard. If scripture had been given the same importance as “the power” those people may have become more familiar with what Jesus said:
“…if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time.
"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.”
Heeding those warnings about the coming end-times should make everyone wary of running here and there in response to reports of “the anointed one” (the Christ) being in a particular place performing great signs and miracles.
But how can those warnings be heeded if the importance and authority of scripture is ignored or dismissed
------
Blessed are those who do not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers,
but who delight in the law of the LORD and meditate on his law* day and night.
They are like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither— whatever they do prospers.
(Psalm 1)
Of course there are – but how are they recognised and how do we avoid becoming victim to them?
Our foundational defence is scripture, the word of God. One of the first warning signs given that everything is NOT ok, is often the way scripture is treated. Downplay the scriptures, or pick and choose which bits are really inspired, and we open the gate wide for everyone to determine what is right in their own eyes.
We open the gate wide to every deceiving spirit to come (claiming to be the Holy Spirit), whispering all manner of false revelation into our ears.
Unfortunately the denigration of scripture has become common practice among some professing Christians, and open forums and blogs tend to give them a platform to promote their ideas. Usually they dress their message in very spiritual sounding terms in which the Holy Spirit is presented as superseding His inspired word, making scripture almost unnecessary. Why do we need scripture when we have God Himself inside?
Others will make the claim that JESUS is the Living word of God and we should relate to Him and not words on a page (which by implication or even direct statement are dismissed as NOT being the word of God).
The questioning of the nature of scripture is not uncommon. This is especially true of those who have had their faith shaken at some stage, with the realisation that most things they were taught and took for granted were wrong. If everything else was wrong – what about our understanding of what scripture is? Is it really “the word of God”? Was it really inspired by the Holy Spirit? Weren’t the writers fallible men who could make mistakes?
I’ve seen all of these questions, and in the past I asked some of them myself.
But it is ironic that those who try to question the authority of scripture often do so by referring to PARTS of scripture to defend their viewpoint.
A popular quote used for this purpose is:
John 5:39-40
“You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”
These verses are not diminishing the importance of scripture; they specifically state that the scriptures testify about Jesus! He was NOT criticising the Pharisees for studying the scriptures, He was criticising them for not seeing what was THERE in the scriptures. Like in so many cases today the actual content of scripture was replaced by other things – like tradition and theology.
So often we are too keen to read our doctrines INTO scripture that we blind ourselves to what scripture is actually saying. This practice seems to be ingrained into us, by example, through a lot of preaching within the church. A preacher will base a sermon on a “text”, he will then make several points based around his application of that “text” – and will usually throw in a sampling of other “texts” from around the bible to add extra support for his points.
Most listeners will take it all in without a second thought, with no questions about what has been said. Others will be a little more diligent and will note down the references and check them later for themselves, but in doing so will fail to check the context to see whether the “texts” were being applied correctly. The common attitude is to do nothing more than check whether the references are in scripture or not.
In effect we are not learning what scripture is REALLY saying, we learn what the preacher is telling us that it says. We are also adopting a wrong understanding of how scripture should be handled.
Scripture is NOT a collection of disconnected texts to apply according to personal preference. Scripture is a collection of books that must be addressed according to context to see what those books are saying. No prophecy of scripture is open to private interpretation.
We should be determining what the Spirit was and is saying through the words He inspired men to write?
At one time Jesus said: "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.”
And that truth remains – people fall into error because they do not know the scriptures.
So often there has been an obsession with “the power of God” at the expense of the Scriptures, and people run here and there whenever rumours of displays of power are heard. If scripture had been given the same importance as “the power” those people may have become more familiar with what Jesus said:
“…if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time.
"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.”
Heeding those warnings about the coming end-times should make everyone wary of running here and there in response to reports of “the anointed one” (the Christ) being in a particular place performing great signs and miracles.
But how can those warnings be heeded if the importance and authority of scripture is ignored or dismissed
------
Blessed are those who do not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers,
but who delight in the law of the LORD and meditate on his law* day and night.
They are like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither— whatever they do prospers.
(Psalm 1)
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Christians Don't Lie! (part 2)
During my study of “strange phenomena” I continually saw how people maintained belief in some of these things no matter how flimsy the evidence was.Clearly the desire to believe could overcome almost any obstacle – even confessions of hoaxing were dismissed. Objective truth really didn’t matter. Reality was what someone wanted to believe.
This experience made me increasingly aware of how Christians can also fall into the same trap and their faith becomes more subjective, based on experience and desire instead of on a solid and sure foundation. Even when the reality created out of experience and desire contradicts the claimed foundation of their professed faith, experience and desire are given priority. Excuses are made by applying select portions of scripture in a way that is clearly not appropriate to their context. Verses are used in isolation to mean what is most useful to the one quoting them.
One area that I see regularly stretching the truth is teaching on the last days. A key warning sign regarding this teaching is when the bible has little part to play in the teaching. Yes a verse or two may be quoted – but usually the quotes are taken out of context to support a point already made by the preacher, rather than starting with scripture to see what IT could mean as a stand alone revelation. If it were possible to consider the quote WITHOUT the expectation already created by the speaker we would probably never come to the conclusion he has led us to draw.
So many of the preachers on this topic start with a current political situation and then support it with a few bible verses. Recently I heard a talk about Europe that promotes popular conclusions about the European community being set up as a revived Roman Empire from which antichrist will arise.It was very interesting and very convincing.
The speaker mentioned one of the symbols of this revived Empire – the image of a woman riding a beast, an image straight from the book of Revelation.Unfortunately, being an audio source I wasn’t able to see the visual evidence that the speaker was presenting to his audience and I had to check it later through an internet search.
The results of that search are part for the reason for writing this article.
I found plenty of examples of this “woman riding the beast” and yes, on seeing this evidence the speaker’s claims are quite convincing…UNTIL we turn to scripture itself. Scripture DOES describe a woman riding a beast – but do the European images match the scriptural description?The European images refer to Europa riding a bull (an image from Greek mythology), a common enough animal with one head and two horns. The beast being ridden in Revelation has SEVEN heads and TEN horns. Surely this is quite a significant difference.
This particular speaker is not the only one to link the Europa image to the Revelation reference. In my search for photos I found that some of them were provided by sites devoted to “end time prophecy”. While Europe does make use of an image of a woman riding a beast, linking this with the description in Revelation is a clear case of misusing scripture. I would even go as far as saying it is an ABUSE of scripture.
A few years ago I bought a DVD from a visiting speaker at a local church. The DVD was about “The End Times”, and I was interested to see what the speaker had to say on the topic. I shouldn’t have been surprised to find that there was little (actually I don’t recall ANYTHING) that addressed scripture. The speaker concentrated on some allegations he had read about Mikhail Gorbachev that supposedly had something to do with end time’s prophecy.And I can’t claim innocence in this matter. In the late 1980s, exposure of the “New Age Movement” was becoming popular with many Christian communicators. Several books were released and I collected a few recordings of preachers speaking on the dangers of the New Age. I became extremely interested and when I had the opportunity to preach at my local church, I made this the subject of my sermon. It made a fascinating study and the congregation were very interested in what I had to say – but in reality, what relevance did it all have? At the most it gave a highly speculative view of the end times that had a very tenuous connection to what is revealed in bible prophecy. Even saying there was a tenuous connection is being far too complimentary – in reality there was NO real connection at all between scripture and the content of my talk. The same can be said of the majority of popular “End Time” teaching that I’ve come across.
There is a very well known quote attributed to Benjamin D’Israeli and popularised by Mark Twain:
“There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics”
I would add another that Christians should be wary of: “Speculation” dressed up as Biblical truth.
Christians Don't Lie! (part 1)
Many years ago I met a former school friend in the street. He had strong socialist leanings and admired the Cuban leader Fidel Castro Being a Christian I brought up the issue of the Communist persecution of believers. My friend expressed doubt about the truth of persecution and I responded by asking why the Christians experiencing persecution under Communist regimes should lie. They were Christians and lying was contrary to their faith.Now in THAT case I have no doubt at all that my reference to Christians telling the truth was valid. Christians were (and ARE) being persecuted under various political and religious based regimes. However, I later learned that not all “Christian” claims are trustworthy and the truth is not guaranteed from all sources professing to be Christian.
In my younger years I was extremely naïve, perhaps even gullible. I gave people the benefit of the doubt and trusted that the majority of people (especially Christians) were basically truthful. I easily believed what I was being told.
When I read or heard of fantastic experiences I didn’t doubt that the stories were true.
From early childhood I had a fascination with UFOs and read as much as I could find on the subject – but NEVER did I think that any of the stories may have been made up. This attitude remained with me after becoming a Christian – and if possible I had more reason to trust what I was told by other Christians. The truth was important to Christians, lying was strictly forbidden so why would any Christian disobey God by lying?
Even today I probably don’t realise how vulnerable this outlook made me. Whenever I read or heard Christian testimony I believed it without question. Why would a Christian lie?
In the church I attended I heard about a congregation member rising a foot off the floor during worship. I heard about angelic singing in a friend’s home. I heard the story of a group of ministers saved from a certain head-on collision when their car was instantly transported past the on-coming vehicle.
Why shouldn’t I have believed these stories – they were told by people I knew, about people I knew, and those people were Christians and Christians don’t lie.
There were also books giving amazing testimonies of God’s miraculous intervention in the lives of Christians. There were books of people literally set free from Satan’s power – being turned from practising witchcraft to having faith in Jesus, books that showed the reality of “both sides” of supernatural reality.
And I believed it all.
Why would Christians lie?
I’m not sure now when the cracks started to form; when I started to see that Christians are not always as truthful as they should be, and not everyone who professes to be a Christian is a genuine follower of Jesus.
I have written elsewhere about my “crisis of faith” that started in the late 1980s and lasted around 15 years. Maybe it was during this time that my eyes were opened. I had maintained my interest in UFOs and other strange phenomena and read widely on these subjects, and for the first time I started to come across some sceptical voices from those who had an interest in these subjects but also questioned the validity of many of the claims being made.
In my reading I was particularly interested in stories that had a “Christian” element and through this I became aware of investigation into stories I’d lapped up years before. Mike Warnke was a Christian with amazing testimonies. He was an excellent communicator using humour to reach people with the gospel. He did this through personal accounts of his involvement with the occult (published in his book “The Satan Seller”) and also through experiences in the Vietnam war.His experiences in the occult did a lot to convince me of the reality of the powers of darkness. Some of his experiences could have been from a horror novel – but they were true. He was a Christian and Christians don’t lie.
BUT - I started to read claims that he HAD lied, that his stories were all false. And these claims were not from some antichristian group, they were being made by a Christian magazine. Now I had a dilemma. Who should I believe? Two separate Christian sources were contradicting each other over an issue of truth. They couldn’t BOTH be telling the truth – but surely Christians don’t lie.
I use that case as merely one example. Since then I’ve had reason to doubt many claims made by Christians and I have come to see that “Christians” are not always the most trustworthy sources of information. The situation is made worse by the same kind of gullibility that I displayed and people pass these stories on to others without giving due consideration for their reliability. We’ve all heard of urban myths – those stories with no basis in fact that become “true” through constant retelling. I’m sure that a lot of favourite Christian stories are the same.
How many have heard of the prayer meeting where armed soldiers barge in threatening to kill all Christians. And when the fearful have departed the soldiers put down their guns and ask to hear the gospel from those who REALLY put their trust in God. Is that story really true? Maybe – but it would be more credible if various facts (location and identity of the soldiers) remained consistent.
---
Re. Allegations against Mike Warnke.
http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/warnke_index.htm
http://www.mikewarnke.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=60
Go to link re. "tribunal hearing"
Monday, May 10, 2010
Romans 9 - 11
Friday, May 07, 2010
Sin, Judgement and National Idolatry
Today, on another blog I came across an article with the title “Why do So Many Bad Things Keep Happening to the U.S?” Comments on the blog then go into the reasons why this is the case – mostly suggesting it is due to America’s disobedience to God.
I wasn’t sure of how to respond to the question in a polite way. Is the writer ignorant of the rest of the world? When did a single “bad thing” in America result in the loss of tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousand of lives as has often happened elsewhere?
Compared with many areas of the world America has barely suffered in any way. Nothing worse is happening in America than anywhere else.if anything America is getting off lightly compared to most of the world.
One of the common mistakes made when people raise issues like this it that they confuse America with Israel and apply what God said to Israel to the USA. America is not God’s chosen nation and the blessings/cursings applicable to Israel were NOT directed towards America.To see God’s word to America, or any other nation, we need search the scriptures for God’s word to the nations.
When scripture mentions “the nations” then America is included as ONE of those nations.
If people are concerned about America’s sinfulness before God, I suggest that one of the worst sins of the American people is NATIONAL IDOLATRY.
I wasn’t sure of how to respond to the question in a polite way. Is the writer ignorant of the rest of the world? When did a single “bad thing” in America result in the loss of tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousand of lives as has often happened elsewhere?
Compared with many areas of the world America has barely suffered in any way. Nothing worse is happening in America than anywhere else.if anything America is getting off lightly compared to most of the world.
One of the common mistakes made when people raise issues like this it that they confuse America with Israel and apply what God said to Israel to the USA. America is not God’s chosen nation and the blessings/cursings applicable to Israel were NOT directed towards America.To see God’s word to America, or any other nation, we need search the scriptures for God’s word to the nations.
When scripture mentions “the nations” then America is included as ONE of those nations.
If people are concerned about America’s sinfulness before God, I suggest that one of the worst sins of the American people is NATIONAL IDOLATRY.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Through His Word by His Spirit (100th post!)
This is officially the 100th post to this blog since I created it in August 2005. In the years since the first entry I’ve gone through a lot of changes and have learned a lot. I have shared that journey in the previous 99 contributions.
If there is an overall lesson I have learned it relates to the extent that understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ has been affected by tradition and by the application of men’s wisdom. And if there is one thing I have great difficulty understanding, it is the inability of so many to accept clear and simple revelation given through scripture.
Many have scoffed and accused me of arrogance, and of thinking I know it all when I have questioned their views. But I’m merely expressing the desire that people would treat the written account of scripture with the same respect that they would (hopefully) treat any other writing and assume it is saying what its clearest and simplest meaning seems to be saying. Don’t go looking for complex meanings until the obvious meaning has been applied.
The approach some people take with scripture often leaves me shaking my head in disbelief. The way they force their doctrine INTO their interpretation of scripture is farcical and it would be easy to laugh if the consequences weren’t so serious. For example, recently I read someone claiming that Romans 11:20-21 (“Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either”) could not be suggesting that believers could possibly lose their salvation because believers can’t lose their salvation. This was a clear case of doctrine coming first and scripture being interpreted according to that doctrine instead of vice versa.
I have also heard well know minister preaching on John 15 using a similar approach. Here Jesus was telling His disciples that He is the vine and they need to remain in the vine (Him) in order to bear fruit. The preacher’s view was that believers ARE in the vine and can do nothing BUT remain in the vine and bear fruit. This man, in attempting to protect his views on Christian security effectively contradicted and undermined the serious point of Jesus’ admonition to His disciples.
Elsewhere on this blog I have addressed other ways in which scripture has been selectively applied so that its application ignores its clearly intended meaning. Ezekiel 36 is a classic case where its relevance to the future of Israel is totally ignored and only a verse or two are taken and applied to the church, as if the church has inherited all of the promises specifically made to Israel (note the PROMISES are adopted, but there’s less eagerness to inherit the curses that come with the package).
In the case of Ezekiel 36 the explicit references to the land and returning to the land of their forefathers makes it totally clear that it is the people of Israel who are being spoken of; that it is the people of Israel who will one day be brought back to the Lord and become the people they were called to be.
But a lot of this is merely recapping what I’ve written in more depth in recent blog entries.
This blog has not only recorded a personal journey it has also been an active part of that journey, helping me along the way, giving me a place to give clarity to some ideas and also providing a means of having those ideas challenged. It has been a journey that has helped me to observe and it has also made me open to be observed. Like any imperfect man I get carried away at times and don’t always respond to others as graciously as I should and I thank Jesus, my God, my Lord and my saviour for His forgiveness, patience and love. I am also grateful for His gift of the Holy Spirit, who teaches and empowers me to move onwards in my new life in Christ.
This blog has covered a period during which some of my basic understanding of the Christian faith has been shaken and tested. So much of what I once took for granted was shown to be built on a false foundation: on the foundation of man’s teachings instead of the revelation given by God through His word and by His Spirit. I thank the Lord for the rebuilding He has been doing in my life over recent years.
I could write a list of the many false doctrines that I have come across during most of the last decade, but I don’t think that is necessary because most of them have received some mention in earlier blog entries. Many of those doctrines seem to have little in common with each other. The extreme charismania demonstrated in the so-called “Toronto Blessing” and the starchy traditionalism of many followers of “Reformed” theology seem to be polar opposites. While the external manifestations of these vastly different traditions are totally at odds – the root cause that led to them is identical: the exaltation of man’s teaching and theology at the expense of the truth revealed through scripture, by the Holy Spirit.
But of course, adherents of both sides will protest loudly and present their favoured proof texts to show how their beliefs are “scriptural” – but it is clear when other parts of scripture are not so favourable that those other parts are either ignored or “interpreted” in a way that the contradiction is negated.
Any belief that needs to take such a creative, integrity-free approach to biblical “interpretation” is definitely on very shaky ground.
May we all be honest and humble enough to evaluate ourselves and our doctrines according to the light God has given in His word by His Spirit.
If there is an overall lesson I have learned it relates to the extent that understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ has been affected by tradition and by the application of men’s wisdom. And if there is one thing I have great difficulty understanding, it is the inability of so many to accept clear and simple revelation given through scripture.
Many have scoffed and accused me of arrogance, and of thinking I know it all when I have questioned their views. But I’m merely expressing the desire that people would treat the written account of scripture with the same respect that they would (hopefully) treat any other writing and assume it is saying what its clearest and simplest meaning seems to be saying. Don’t go looking for complex meanings until the obvious meaning has been applied.
The approach some people take with scripture often leaves me shaking my head in disbelief. The way they force their doctrine INTO their interpretation of scripture is farcical and it would be easy to laugh if the consequences weren’t so serious. For example, recently I read someone claiming that Romans 11:20-21 (“Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either”) could not be suggesting that believers could possibly lose their salvation because believers can’t lose their salvation. This was a clear case of doctrine coming first and scripture being interpreted according to that doctrine instead of vice versa.
I have also heard well know minister preaching on John 15 using a similar approach. Here Jesus was telling His disciples that He is the vine and they need to remain in the vine (Him) in order to bear fruit. The preacher’s view was that believers ARE in the vine and can do nothing BUT remain in the vine and bear fruit. This man, in attempting to protect his views on Christian security effectively contradicted and undermined the serious point of Jesus’ admonition to His disciples.
Elsewhere on this blog I have addressed other ways in which scripture has been selectively applied so that its application ignores its clearly intended meaning. Ezekiel 36 is a classic case where its relevance to the future of Israel is totally ignored and only a verse or two are taken and applied to the church, as if the church has inherited all of the promises specifically made to Israel (note the PROMISES are adopted, but there’s less eagerness to inherit the curses that come with the package).
In the case of Ezekiel 36 the explicit references to the land and returning to the land of their forefathers makes it totally clear that it is the people of Israel who are being spoken of; that it is the people of Israel who will one day be brought back to the Lord and become the people they were called to be.
But a lot of this is merely recapping what I’ve written in more depth in recent blog entries.
This blog has not only recorded a personal journey it has also been an active part of that journey, helping me along the way, giving me a place to give clarity to some ideas and also providing a means of having those ideas challenged. It has been a journey that has helped me to observe and it has also made me open to be observed. Like any imperfect man I get carried away at times and don’t always respond to others as graciously as I should and I thank Jesus, my God, my Lord and my saviour for His forgiveness, patience and love. I am also grateful for His gift of the Holy Spirit, who teaches and empowers me to move onwards in my new life in Christ.
This blog has covered a period during which some of my basic understanding of the Christian faith has been shaken and tested. So much of what I once took for granted was shown to be built on a false foundation: on the foundation of man’s teachings instead of the revelation given by God through His word and by His Spirit. I thank the Lord for the rebuilding He has been doing in my life over recent years.
I could write a list of the many false doctrines that I have come across during most of the last decade, but I don’t think that is necessary because most of them have received some mention in earlier blog entries. Many of those doctrines seem to have little in common with each other. The extreme charismania demonstrated in the so-called “Toronto Blessing” and the starchy traditionalism of many followers of “Reformed” theology seem to be polar opposites. While the external manifestations of these vastly different traditions are totally at odds – the root cause that led to them is identical: the exaltation of man’s teaching and theology at the expense of the truth revealed through scripture, by the Holy Spirit.
But of course, adherents of both sides will protest loudly and present their favoured proof texts to show how their beliefs are “scriptural” – but it is clear when other parts of scripture are not so favourable that those other parts are either ignored or “interpreted” in a way that the contradiction is negated.
Any belief that needs to take such a creative, integrity-free approach to biblical “interpretation” is definitely on very shaky ground.
May we all be honest and humble enough to evaluate ourselves and our doctrines according to the light God has given in His word by His Spirit.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Solution to ALL Doctrinal Error: last post for 2009
I will be away from my computer until after the New Year holiday, so for my last post of 2009 I will provide the solution to all doctrinal error.
1) Stick with what scripture says.
2) Do not add to (or take away from) what scripture says.
3) Admit personal ignorance or lack of understanding where applicable.
4) Do not try to cover up ignorance or lack of understanding by parroting a pre-digested theological viewpoint.
5) Do not adopt or promote man's words and teachings as if they were equal to scripture in authority.
6) Do not under any circumstances put your trust in an isolated, out of context proof-text.
And finally and most importantly, not ignoring any of the above…
7) Seek and ask for the Holy Spirit’s revelation.
[I first wrote these points to specifically address the matter of “election” but recognised that a wider application is also appropriate.]
1) Stick with what scripture says.
2) Do not add to (or take away from) what scripture says.
3) Admit personal ignorance or lack of understanding where applicable.
4) Do not try to cover up ignorance or lack of understanding by parroting a pre-digested theological viewpoint.
5) Do not adopt or promote man's words and teachings as if they were equal to scripture in authority.
6) Do not under any circumstances put your trust in an isolated, out of context proof-text.
And finally and most importantly, not ignoring any of the above…
7) Seek and ask for the Holy Spirit’s revelation.
[I first wrote these points to specifically address the matter of “election” but recognised that a wider application is also appropriate.]
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Frustration and Cranial Bruising
I have been very discouraged in recent months, after seeing scripture so often being twisted and distorted to support beliefs that are clearly contrary to God’s revelation. Seeing this happening on every side makes me wonder why I should consider myself to be right and so many others wrong.
I do NOT consider myself immune to error – especially knowing that I’ve been VERY wrong in the past. The main difference now is that I’m learning to recognise the clarity and simplicity of scripture when it is taken in context. Those people who have concerned me have ALL taken parts of scripture and used them in ways that don’t fit clear context. An obvious example relates to Ezekiel 36 (see previous post) which has come up recently on different and unrelated blogs. In all cases the majority of Ezekiel’s prophecy is ignored and attention is given to two or three verses at the most – because to consider the WHOLE text as written would require an overhaul of attitudes to Israel.
I have also seen the same proof texting going on regarding other theologies. Most theological understanding seems to depend on chosen portions of scripture at the expense of others (i.e. those parts of scripture that cast questions upon a favoured doctrine are ignored or creatively re-interpreted).
There seems to be very few people who genuinely recognise the importance of scriptural context. It is far easier, more convenient, and less challenging to rely on pre-digested theology that requires little more than knowledge of a handful of proof texts.
How can anyone claim to have a desire for truth when they go to such lengths to ignore what scripture is plainly saying? How can they ignore so much as they look for verses here and there to support what they want to believe?
Not only is there a manipulation of scripture, there is the blatant misrepresentation of the beliefs of others. When justification of their own beliefs starts to get difficult, they distort the beliefs of others and then refute the distortion they have created.
The meaning of the term “banging one’s head against a wall” is totally clear when trying to discuss an issue with people who are so blinded by their own theological conditioning that they refuse to consider what others are actually saying – but instead project their own presuppositions into what has been said.
For example, in a discussion here, addressing Israel and replacement theology there is a refusal to recognise that NO ONE has been saying that Israel can be saved apart from the New Covenant. What HAS been said is that Israel WILL ONE DAY be saved by entering into the New Covenant. It is not a matter of present day reality, but a matter of prophetic certainty.
Returning to the earlier question of why I can consider myself to be right and so many others wrong…
It’s because I have come across enough people from diverse backgrounds who have NOT bowed their knee to theological systems that resort to distorting scripture to maintain a semblance of credibility. These people respect God’s revelation more than man’s theology and have been willing to change their direction, sometimes at great sacrifice, when their beliefs and practices have been exposed as false by the light of God’s word. These people encourage and challenge me. None would claim to have reached perfect understanding – but at least they are following the right path and are open to the Spirit’s direction if ever they start to deviate from that path.
I do NOT consider myself immune to error – especially knowing that I’ve been VERY wrong in the past. The main difference now is that I’m learning to recognise the clarity and simplicity of scripture when it is taken in context. Those people who have concerned me have ALL taken parts of scripture and used them in ways that don’t fit clear context. An obvious example relates to Ezekiel 36 (see previous post) which has come up recently on different and unrelated blogs. In all cases the majority of Ezekiel’s prophecy is ignored and attention is given to two or three verses at the most – because to consider the WHOLE text as written would require an overhaul of attitudes to Israel.
I have also seen the same proof texting going on regarding other theologies. Most theological understanding seems to depend on chosen portions of scripture at the expense of others (i.e. those parts of scripture that cast questions upon a favoured doctrine are ignored or creatively re-interpreted).
There seems to be very few people who genuinely recognise the importance of scriptural context. It is far easier, more convenient, and less challenging to rely on pre-digested theology that requires little more than knowledge of a handful of proof texts.
How can anyone claim to have a desire for truth when they go to such lengths to ignore what scripture is plainly saying? How can they ignore so much as they look for verses here and there to support what they want to believe?
Not only is there a manipulation of scripture, there is the blatant misrepresentation of the beliefs of others. When justification of their own beliefs starts to get difficult, they distort the beliefs of others and then refute the distortion they have created.
The meaning of the term “banging one’s head against a wall” is totally clear when trying to discuss an issue with people who are so blinded by their own theological conditioning that they refuse to consider what others are actually saying – but instead project their own presuppositions into what has been said.
For example, in a discussion here, addressing Israel and replacement theology there is a refusal to recognise that NO ONE has been saying that Israel can be saved apart from the New Covenant. What HAS been said is that Israel WILL ONE DAY be saved by entering into the New Covenant. It is not a matter of present day reality, but a matter of prophetic certainty.
Returning to the earlier question of why I can consider myself to be right and so many others wrong…
It’s because I have come across enough people from diverse backgrounds who have NOT bowed their knee to theological systems that resort to distorting scripture to maintain a semblance of credibility. These people respect God’s revelation more than man’s theology and have been willing to change their direction, sometimes at great sacrifice, when their beliefs and practices have been exposed as false by the light of God’s word. These people encourage and challenge me. None would claim to have reached perfect understanding – but at least they are following the right path and are open to the Spirit’s direction if ever they start to deviate from that path.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Ezekiel 36: Context or Creative Theology
I believe that Scripture should be understood according to its simplest and most straight forward meaning unless the context determines that the meaning is not literal. Who am I to determine which parts of scripture don’t really mean what they seem to be clearly saying?
We cannot legitimately take a couple of verses out of their intended context and apply them in whatever way WE see fit. Unfortunately it has become a common practice to support a favoured theology by applying PARTS of scripture to an argument while ignoring the intended context of those parts of scripture.
I have recently seen a case of this in action where two verses of Ezekiel 36 were used to support a particular view of “regeneration”. However, those verses were part of a prophecy directed specifically at the people of Israel. The argument being made ignored that and concentrated on the chosen verses, projecting into them an argument about the nature and timing of “regeneration”.
That case showed that the same out of context portion of scripture can be used to support totally opposite beliefs - depending on what a person wants it to say, and depending on which surrounding parts of scripture are omitted
Such a misuse of scripture – using it to promote predetermined ends – will NEVER lead to knowledge of the truth. It will merely keep us entrenched in our chosen theology, blind to the revelation that God has given to His children.
In the Ezekiel 36 example, the proof-texting practice was defended with the assertion that New Testament writers also approached Old Testament writings in this way. Apart from the fact that WE are not among the writers of the NT scriptures and do not share their revelatory authority; what happens when two different theological viewpoints are using the same set of verses to support their opposite conclusions? Who determines which viewpoint (if any) is correct? Both use the same approach to biblical understanding but their conclusions differ according to which PARTS of the scripture are referenced
It is CONTEXT that determines the correct viewpoint.
Ezekiel 36 is NOT a general discourse on how and when regeneration occurs – it is a prophecy about Israel’s restoration as a physical nation (when they do not deserve it) and their ultimate restoration to fellowship with the God of Israel (AFTER they have been restored to the land, AFTER they have been taken from the nations, AFTER they have been gathered from all the countries).
All of this is NOT for Israel’s benefit but to show the holiness of God’s great name.
“Then the nations around you that remain will know that I the LORD have rebuilt what was destroyed and have replanted what was desolate. I the LORD have spoken and I WILL do it.”
That rebuilding and replanting that will be recognised by the surrounding nations has not yet taken place. Will the Lord do it as He said? Or do we “spiritualise” those promises and make them mean what WE want them to mean?
Proof texting is the lifeblood of human theology. Consider scripture according to its intended context and theology will be less prone to error.
Read and consider the WHOLE of the prophecy given in Ezekiel 36 – not just the verse or two that can be manipulated to suit a theological argument.
----------------
The example I refer to above can be found here:
ezekiel-36:26-27-regeneration-
We cannot legitimately take a couple of verses out of their intended context and apply them in whatever way WE see fit. Unfortunately it has become a common practice to support a favoured theology by applying PARTS of scripture to an argument while ignoring the intended context of those parts of scripture.
I have recently seen a case of this in action where two verses of Ezekiel 36 were used to support a particular view of “regeneration”. However, those verses were part of a prophecy directed specifically at the people of Israel. The argument being made ignored that and concentrated on the chosen verses, projecting into them an argument about the nature and timing of “regeneration”.
That case showed that the same out of context portion of scripture can be used to support totally opposite beliefs - depending on what a person wants it to say, and depending on which surrounding parts of scripture are omitted
Such a misuse of scripture – using it to promote predetermined ends – will NEVER lead to knowledge of the truth. It will merely keep us entrenched in our chosen theology, blind to the revelation that God has given to His children.
In the Ezekiel 36 example, the proof-texting practice was defended with the assertion that New Testament writers also approached Old Testament writings in this way. Apart from the fact that WE are not among the writers of the NT scriptures and do not share their revelatory authority; what happens when two different theological viewpoints are using the same set of verses to support their opposite conclusions? Who determines which viewpoint (if any) is correct? Both use the same approach to biblical understanding but their conclusions differ according to which PARTS of the scripture are referenced
It is CONTEXT that determines the correct viewpoint.
Ezekiel 36 is NOT a general discourse on how and when regeneration occurs – it is a prophecy about Israel’s restoration as a physical nation (when they do not deserve it) and their ultimate restoration to fellowship with the God of Israel (AFTER they have been restored to the land, AFTER they have been taken from the nations, AFTER they have been gathered from all the countries).
All of this is NOT for Israel’s benefit but to show the holiness of God’s great name.
“Then the nations around you that remain will know that I the LORD have rebuilt what was destroyed and have replanted what was desolate. I the LORD have spoken and I WILL do it.”
That rebuilding and replanting that will be recognised by the surrounding nations has not yet taken place. Will the Lord do it as He said? Or do we “spiritualise” those promises and make them mean what WE want them to mean?
Proof texting is the lifeblood of human theology. Consider scripture according to its intended context and theology will be less prone to error.
Read and consider the WHOLE of the prophecy given in Ezekiel 36 – not just the verse or two that can be manipulated to suit a theological argument.
----------------
The example I refer to above can be found here:
ezekiel-36:26-27-regeneration-
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Word of "Faith"
I’ve made no secret about my one time involvement with Word of Faith (WOF) teaching. It’s a confession that one visitor to this blog has tried to use against me. On more than one occasion (here and elsewhere) he has tried to use it to discredit who I am and what I now believe.
Accompanying that attempt has been an assumption about the extent of my involvement and the effect it continues to have on my life. From the tone and the content of insinuations made I can see he assumes my attraction to WOF was inspired by greed.
While my involvement with WOF has never been hidden, I don’t recall writing about my reasons for getting involved with that teaching. I now want to address those reasons.
For several years I had been involved with a Pentecostal denomination that continually presented a Christian reality that I was not experiencing. No matter how often they insisted that healing and miracles were valid today – they were demonstrating nothing of that professed reality. There was a huge gap between professed belief and actual experience. It was a gap that didn’t seem to exist in scripture. What was the problem?
My introduction to WOF came at a midweek home fellowship meeting. Members of the group had been listening to tapes from one of Kenneth Copeland’s conferences and they were sharing some of the things that had excited them. I offered significant resistance to the things they were saying but eventually their enthusiasm got through to me.
Was I won over by the promise of a prosperous life? Or was it the claim that Christians could and should live in total health?
It was neither. The thing that broke down the wall of my resistance was a realisation of what faith meant. At that stage I didn’t know about the WOF teachings of faith being a force that anyone could utilise. I knew nothing about the emphasis on positive confession (confess and possess or the less reverent blab it and grab it). All I knew was that I gained an understanding of faith for the first time. It became much more than an “airy-fairy” mystical word that seemed to have no practical use.
At best my previous understanding of faith involved a lot of uncertainty and had more in common with “wishing” than with a firm trust in my redeemer.
For the first time faith became something more certain and firm, something concrete.
Having faith in God meant to trust Him no matter what.
It meant taking Him at His word and having confidence in what He had said. Primarily, in practical terms, that meant accepting His word as being the truth even when our circumstances or experience offered contradictory evidence. If God had promised something in scripture, and if all conditions of that promise were met, then we should have the total confidence of receiving what was promised, because God is not a liar.
The biblical faith I discovered was not a vague uncertain trust in God. It involved an absolute confidence in Him and His character. His word became the standard by which God and His purposes could be known. Through scripture His desires and plans for mankind were revealed. By knowing His will and in particular through knowing what He had provided for His children, we could have the foundation upon which our faith could firmly stand.
That is the area of WOF that attracted me. It was not the promise of health and wealth – it was the promise of living as a genuinely effective Christian witness, actually LIVING and demonstrating the Christian life described in the New Testament instead of tolerating the hypocrisy of professing one thing and living another. It gave a tangible reality to faith and it was no longer merely a theological concept.
THAT is what drew me to WOF. Its teachers were the first to give me a real understanding of what faith is and at the time they were the only ones who seemed to be teaching that truth.
However, their message came with a lot of excess baggage that was not so helpful. While their doctrines were always (supposedly) based on ‘the word” – like all false doctrines they were based on PARTS of the word. I became very adept at quoting scripture to promote the teaching I was receiving. But my quotes were learned mainly via Copeland recordings and not through turning to scripture for myself. I was therefore never aware of the correct context of those quotes. I was only familiar with the interpretations placed upon those verses by the Copelands and associated ministries.
While the understanding of faith that I’d initially gained was still valuable (that is trusting God’s word to be the truth): all validity was dependant on it REALLY being GOD’S word and not a false assumption that I mistook for God’s word. Believing in an assumption or a wrong interpretation of scripture is NOT an expression of faith in God. That is where my departure from WOF began. There were too many inconsistencies between what I was being taught and what I was reading in scripture for myself. Too much of scripture was being ignored or misapplied.
At first I pushed aside my concerns. After all no one is perfect and I couldn’t expect the teachers to get everything right – and they were the ones who had given me an insight into the nature of faith when my church and its leaders seemed to be as much in the dark as I had been.
Instead of being attracted to WOF by their teaching on prosperity, it was the increasing emphasis on earthly wealth that gave me most cause for concern. While I was struggling financially I could see these men and women living highly extravagant lifestyles, financed by the donations they solicited. It seemed that the way for me to get out of financial difficulties was by sending them money (?) – and their lifestyles showed how it all worked (and could allegedly work for me) with God clearly blessing them and their ministry with wealth. None of this (their extravagance) seemed compatible with anything that Jesus said about wealth. Those parts of scripture were among those conveniently ignored.
A major area of their teaching on faith that I could not reconcile with anything in scripture was the idea that faith is a force that works when it principles are put into practice. Even unbelievers were tapping into this force of faith and were reaping its benefits without realising what they were doing. This teaching made faith into something impersonal with a power of its own. It was not a matter of having faith in someone (God), it was important to have faith in your faith. This is where “positive confession” came into play. Continued positive confession was the means of reinforcing and expressing faith to obtain a desired outcome. Negative confession was equally effective, but the outcome was nothing to be desired.
I was never comfortable with this aspect of WOF teaching and when I read “The Seduction of Christianity’ by Hunt and McMahon the reason for my discomfort was made clear. The authors showed there was a relationship between these beliefs and practices with occultism and eastern mysticism. It was around that time that I broke away from WOF teaching.
WOF teaching is riddled with false doctrine and false practices (and I think that has increased in the 20+ years since I abandoned it). But like the majority of heresies there is enough truth to disguise the lies. In the case of WOF I gained a much stronger understanding of what faith is (and is not). Faith revolves around relationship; knowing God, His ways and His desires well enough to trust Him totally. Faith requires an understanding of His will and is focused on His will. It is not focused on our desire or our assumptions and it definitely is not a “force” to be operated.
Looking back now I can say that my understanding of faith began with my involvement with WOF teachers – but it developed and matured DESPITE their teaching and not because of it.
Accompanying that attempt has been an assumption about the extent of my involvement and the effect it continues to have on my life. From the tone and the content of insinuations made I can see he assumes my attraction to WOF was inspired by greed.
While my involvement with WOF has never been hidden, I don’t recall writing about my reasons for getting involved with that teaching. I now want to address those reasons.
For several years I had been involved with a Pentecostal denomination that continually presented a Christian reality that I was not experiencing. No matter how often they insisted that healing and miracles were valid today – they were demonstrating nothing of that professed reality. There was a huge gap between professed belief and actual experience. It was a gap that didn’t seem to exist in scripture. What was the problem?
My introduction to WOF came at a midweek home fellowship meeting. Members of the group had been listening to tapes from one of Kenneth Copeland’s conferences and they were sharing some of the things that had excited them. I offered significant resistance to the things they were saying but eventually their enthusiasm got through to me.Was I won over by the promise of a prosperous life? Or was it the claim that Christians could and should live in total health?
It was neither. The thing that broke down the wall of my resistance was a realisation of what faith meant. At that stage I didn’t know about the WOF teachings of faith being a force that anyone could utilise. I knew nothing about the emphasis on positive confession (confess and possess or the less reverent blab it and grab it). All I knew was that I gained an understanding of faith for the first time. It became much more than an “airy-fairy” mystical word that seemed to have no practical use.
At best my previous understanding of faith involved a lot of uncertainty and had more in common with “wishing” than with a firm trust in my redeemer.
For the first time faith became something more certain and firm, something concrete.
Having faith in God meant to trust Him no matter what.
It meant taking Him at His word and having confidence in what He had said. Primarily, in practical terms, that meant accepting His word as being the truth even when our circumstances or experience offered contradictory evidence. If God had promised something in scripture, and if all conditions of that promise were met, then we should have the total confidence of receiving what was promised, because God is not a liar.
The biblical faith I discovered was not a vague uncertain trust in God. It involved an absolute confidence in Him and His character. His word became the standard by which God and His purposes could be known. Through scripture His desires and plans for mankind were revealed. By knowing His will and in particular through knowing what He had provided for His children, we could have the foundation upon which our faith could firmly stand.
That is the area of WOF that attracted me. It was not the promise of health and wealth – it was the promise of living as a genuinely effective Christian witness, actually LIVING and demonstrating the Christian life described in the New Testament instead of tolerating the hypocrisy of professing one thing and living another. It gave a tangible reality to faith and it was no longer merely a theological concept.
THAT is what drew me to WOF. Its teachers were the first to give me a real understanding of what faith is and at the time they were the only ones who seemed to be teaching that truth.
However, their message came with a lot of excess baggage that was not so helpful. While their doctrines were always (supposedly) based on ‘the word” – like all false doctrines they were based on PARTS of the word. I became very adept at quoting scripture to promote the teaching I was receiving. But my quotes were learned mainly via Copeland recordings and not through turning to scripture for myself. I was therefore never aware of the correct context of those quotes. I was only familiar with the interpretations placed upon those verses by the Copelands and associated ministries.
While the understanding of faith that I’d initially gained was still valuable (that is trusting God’s word to be the truth): all validity was dependant on it REALLY being GOD’S word and not a false assumption that I mistook for God’s word. Believing in an assumption or a wrong interpretation of scripture is NOT an expression of faith in God. That is where my departure from WOF began. There were too many inconsistencies between what I was being taught and what I was reading in scripture for myself. Too much of scripture was being ignored or misapplied.
At first I pushed aside my concerns. After all no one is perfect and I couldn’t expect the teachers to get everything right – and they were the ones who had given me an insight into the nature of faith when my church and its leaders seemed to be as much in the dark as I had been.
Instead of being attracted to WOF by their teaching on prosperity, it was the increasing emphasis on earthly wealth that gave me most cause for concern. While I was struggling financially I could see these men and women living highly extravagant lifestyles, financed by the donations they solicited. It seemed that the way for me to get out of financial difficulties was by sending them money (?) – and their lifestyles showed how it all worked (and could allegedly work for me) with God clearly blessing them and their ministry with wealth. None of this (their extravagance) seemed compatible with anything that Jesus said about wealth. Those parts of scripture were among those conveniently ignored.
A major area of their teaching on faith that I could not reconcile with anything in scripture was the idea that faith is a force that works when it principles are put into practice. Even unbelievers were tapping into this force of faith and were reaping its benefits without realising what they were doing. This teaching made faith into something impersonal with a power of its own. It was not a matter of having faith in someone (God), it was important to have faith in your faith. This is where “positive confession” came into play. Continued positive confession was the means of reinforcing and expressing faith to obtain a desired outcome. Negative confession was equally effective, but the outcome was nothing to be desired.
I was never comfortable with this aspect of WOF teaching and when I read “The Seduction of Christianity’ by Hunt and McMahon the reason for my discomfort was made clear. The authors showed there was a relationship between these beliefs and practices with occultism and eastern mysticism. It was around that time that I broke away from WOF teaching.
WOF teaching is riddled with false doctrine and false practices (and I think that has increased in the 20+ years since I abandoned it). But like the majority of heresies there is enough truth to disguise the lies. In the case of WOF I gained a much stronger understanding of what faith is (and is not). Faith revolves around relationship; knowing God, His ways and His desires well enough to trust Him totally. Faith requires an understanding of His will and is focused on His will. It is not focused on our desire or our assumptions and it definitely is not a “force” to be operated.
Looking back now I can say that my understanding of faith began with my involvement with WOF teachers – but it developed and matured DESPITE their teaching and not because of it.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
GOD IN THE HANDS OF ANGRY CALVINISTS by William Watson Birch
The article linked below would be worthwhile just for the title alone. But don’t stop there, read the whole lot!
GOD IN HANDS OF ANGRY CALVINISTS
This part at the beginning immediately stood out:
“According to John Piper, typically, certain types of people are prone to accepting Calvinism. "What types of people are these?" you ask. These, according to Piper, are the intellectual types…”
After reading some of the Calvinist arguments I’ve seen lately, that statement does not surprise me. The arguments have paid little regard for scripture but have been centred on “reasoning” the “truth”. For example, if God really wanted all to be saved, then all WOULD be saved. All are not saved, therefore the atonement is limited. This application of reason results in an outcome that is totally contrary to clear scriptural statements.
I have also found that the Calvinist obsession with election and predestination is based on particular interpretations being projected into various texts. However a clear leap in logic needs to be taken when references to predestination and election are assumed to be referring to “unconditionally elected for salvation”.
That leap of logic is not warranted, and in reality it leads to an entirely false conclusion that contradicts many CLEAR and CATEGORICAL scriptural statements.
(See 1 Corinthians 1: 17-29 regarding man’s wisdom and intellect.)
GOD IN HANDS OF ANGRY CALVINISTS
This part at the beginning immediately stood out:
“According to John Piper, typically, certain types of people are prone to accepting Calvinism. "What types of people are these?" you ask. These, according to Piper, are the intellectual types…”
After reading some of the Calvinist arguments I’ve seen lately, that statement does not surprise me. The arguments have paid little regard for scripture but have been centred on “reasoning” the “truth”. For example, if God really wanted all to be saved, then all WOULD be saved. All are not saved, therefore the atonement is limited. This application of reason results in an outcome that is totally contrary to clear scriptural statements.
I have also found that the Calvinist obsession with election and predestination is based on particular interpretations being projected into various texts. However a clear leap in logic needs to be taken when references to predestination and election are assumed to be referring to “unconditionally elected for salvation”.
That leap of logic is not warranted, and in reality it leads to an entirely false conclusion that contradicts many CLEAR and CATEGORICAL scriptural statements.
(See 1 Corinthians 1: 17-29 regarding man’s wisdom and intellect.)
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
GOD'S REVELATION: in case someone missed it previously.
God has given us a revelation of Himself throughout the WHOLE of scripture. It is a revelation given NOT in the form of a systematic theology, but through life situations and through examples of personal interaction between God and mankind.
Any interpretation of parts of scripture that contradict the revelation of God given throughout the whole of scripture is a wrong interpretation. False interpretations are guaranteed when we start with individual texts. When we take those false interpretations and project them onto the rest of scripture we can not fail to produce a false view of God and His purposes.
That is the inevitable result of the traditions and theologies of man: teachings that focus on texts rather than on God’s character. It is far easier to intellectually debate the meanings of individual verses of scripture than it is to receive and share the revelation God has given of Himself.
The first we can pick up from books and teachers. The latter comes through relationship with God through His Son, by His Spirit aided by the scriptures He inspired.
Any interpretation of parts of scripture that contradict the revelation of God given throughout the whole of scripture is a wrong interpretation. False interpretations are guaranteed when we start with individual texts. When we take those false interpretations and project them onto the rest of scripture we can not fail to produce a false view of God and His purposes.
That is the inevitable result of the traditions and theologies of man: teachings that focus on texts rather than on God’s character. It is far easier to intellectually debate the meanings of individual verses of scripture than it is to receive and share the revelation God has given of Himself.
The first we can pick up from books and teachers. The latter comes through relationship with God through His Son, by His Spirit aided by the scriptures He inspired.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
TRUTH or Tolerance and Compromise?
It is becoming increasing evident that the teachings of men have replaced the authority of scripture in the church’s theological foundations. The evidence has become overwhelming. Rather than accept and trust scripture, people will go to all kinds of lengths to explain why it doesn’t mean what it is clearly saying.
We have Calvinism redefining salvation and the means by which God has made it available. Then there are the extreme charismatics who have redefined signs and wonders and have turned God’s love into an expression of His desperation to be accepted. And what about the “extreme prophetic” and the “New Apostolic Reformation”? They’ve created new definitions of the prophetic and apostolic?
No matter which direction we turn there’s someone trying to improve on the truth God has provided in His written word.
I don’t know how many feel the same kind of frustration that I’ve been experiencing increasingly over the last year. From regular involvement with a variety of blogs and forums I’m coming across more and more people who are content to tolerate clear cut doctrinal error.
The first clear (recent) examples came in response to concerns about Todd Bentley and his Lakeland “revival”. No matter how weird and perverse things became there were always those who jumped up to defend what was happening. No matter how aberrant the preaching; no matter how many flaky prophecies were given; no matter how much occultic mysticism was mixed with a sampling of bible quotes – there was always a stridently vocal cheer squad singing the “revival’s” praises and condemning the ‘heresy hunters”.
Even Bentley’s open immorality was not enough to open the eyes of many. Instead the support continues.
But the modern day charismanic circus is only one aspect of the problem. The deceiver knows that you can’t tempt everyone with the same flavours. There are other things he provides for the unwary to taste. Those without a sweet tooth, who are not attracted to fluffy, sugary carnival treats, might prefer something a bit meatier; something with more substance. While the extreme charismatics prefer a scripture-lite approach that shuns “traditional interpretations”, others cling to traditional teachings as if they have the authority of scripture itself. They prize scripture – as long as it’s been filtered through a trained and ordained intermediary. Scripture is beyond the average believer and contains mysteries that are best left to those more qualified to seek out its truths.
And so centuries old traditions are passed from generation to generation and defended ferociously should they be challenged.
My personal journey over this last year (and more) has included experience with these opposite extremes of Christian tradition. One group interprets scripture through a centuries old theological system while the other group seems to make things up as they go along.
One group gives lip service to the authority of scripture while in reality authority is given to their theological tradition and how IT interprets scripture.
The other group gives lip service to scripture while in reality giving authority to spiritual experiences and glib clichés.
One group esteems long dead theologians the other adores the flamboyant man (or woman) of the hour.
In these different groups it seems that the Word of God and the Spirit of God are pitted against each other. One is governed by established doctrines, and interprets scripture according to those doctrines. The other is governed by “the Spirit” and interprets scripture according to “spiritual” revelation.
There are obviously some very distinct and irreconcilable differences between these two groups. And yet they have at least one common factor. Both in reality have applied some kind of condition to their approach to scripture that takes away the average believer’s relationship with God’s word. Those average believers are TOLD what can be believed and how it should be believed. They are told that scripture doesn’t necessarily mean what it seems to mean, promoting the understanding that a (traditionally) college trained or a (charismatically) anointed teacher is required to convey what scripture really saying.
Of course, the extent of how this affects the church is immense and it would be impossible to go into every aspect of the problem. But to the person who wants to know and understand the truth, and is willing to spend the time and make the effort required, the truth is easily accessible. Everyone reading this blog has the means and the ability to search the scriptures for themselves because they can obviously read. But are they willing to utilise that ability?
To a great degree we have been conditioned to believe that scripture is hard to understand and that we need someone to explain it all and to share its hidden secrets. We lack confidence. But we should recognise that it is not only a lack of confidence in ourselves – we are lacking confidence in the God who desires to make Himself known through the revelation of scripture. We lack confidence in the One who promised to send His Spirit to be our teacher, and we lack confidence in His Spirit’s ability and willingness to teach us.
The conditioning process that has distanced us from scripture has also worked by giving us an expectation of how scripture should be approached. Our exposure to scripture has been through “texts” – often meaning isolated verses that are expounded upon at length by an appointed teacher of the word. In most cases little attention is given to context and meaning is given to the selected “text” that indicates some kind of special insight has been needed to get to what was really meant by that text.
Through this experience, we ourselves then try to delve into parts of scripture according to the same method used by the teacher. We dig around and try to find the deeper things hidden within those parts of scripture. And this is usually done before the student has developed even a rudimentary understanding of how the whole bible fits together, and what its overall revelation is about.
There is little understanding of how God has related to mankind throughout history and there is little understanding about the significance of God’s relationship with Israel. To most believers, the Old Testament account is a total mystery – beyond a few half remembered stories of certain bible characters.
Now I’ve waffled on and on about this for long enough. A lot of it I’ve touched upon before on this blog and on others. But is the message getting through? Is what I’m saying having any effect?
It seems not. From what I’ve read elsewhere people are quite content to cling to their personal traditions and to tolerate the traditions of others. Relativism is alive and thriving within the “church” and it has been demonstrated time and again in some of the responses my writings have received.
While I have made it abundantly clear that I am totally opposed to Calvinism and its abhorrent “doctrines of grace” – those Calvinists that have been most ferocious in their responses to me have at least shown a devotion to those things that they believe. They recognise the exclusivity of their beliefs and see little room for compromise. The same can not be said for so many others who demonstrate (though they would surely deny it) that they accept the relativity of “truth” – that what is true for one person is okay for that person, and what is true for me is okay for me. There is a clear opposition to any idea of bringing correction to others – such actions would be seen as divisive, and it seems like division should be avoided at all costs, even if it meant compromising on the truth.
Recently I have seen time and again how people will twist scripture in every direction possible to avoid accepting what it clearly states. All kinds of mental and logical gymnastics are performed to come to an understanding that contradicts or ignores what would be unavoidable if only the actual words of scripture were accepted for what they actually said.
Why do so many persist with this wilful blindness? And why do so many let them persist, all in the name of keeping the peace?
We have Calvinism redefining salvation and the means by which God has made it available. Then there are the extreme charismatics who have redefined signs and wonders and have turned God’s love into an expression of His desperation to be accepted. And what about the “extreme prophetic” and the “New Apostolic Reformation”? They’ve created new definitions of the prophetic and apostolic?
No matter which direction we turn there’s someone trying to improve on the truth God has provided in His written word.
I don’t know how many feel the same kind of frustration that I’ve been experiencing increasingly over the last year. From regular involvement with a variety of blogs and forums I’m coming across more and more people who are content to tolerate clear cut doctrinal error.
The first clear (recent) examples came in response to concerns about Todd Bentley and his Lakeland “revival”. No matter how weird and perverse things became there were always those who jumped up to defend what was happening. No matter how aberrant the preaching; no matter how many flaky prophecies were given; no matter how much occultic mysticism was mixed with a sampling of bible quotes – there was always a stridently vocal cheer squad singing the “revival’s” praises and condemning the ‘heresy hunters”.
Even Bentley’s open immorality was not enough to open the eyes of many. Instead the support continues.
But the modern day charismanic circus is only one aspect of the problem. The deceiver knows that you can’t tempt everyone with the same flavours. There are other things he provides for the unwary to taste. Those without a sweet tooth, who are not attracted to fluffy, sugary carnival treats, might prefer something a bit meatier; something with more substance. While the extreme charismatics prefer a scripture-lite approach that shuns “traditional interpretations”, others cling to traditional teachings as if they have the authority of scripture itself. They prize scripture – as long as it’s been filtered through a trained and ordained intermediary. Scripture is beyond the average believer and contains mysteries that are best left to those more qualified to seek out its truths.
And so centuries old traditions are passed from generation to generation and defended ferociously should they be challenged.
My personal journey over this last year (and more) has included experience with these opposite extremes of Christian tradition. One group interprets scripture through a centuries old theological system while the other group seems to make things up as they go along.
One group gives lip service to the authority of scripture while in reality authority is given to their theological tradition and how IT interprets scripture.
The other group gives lip service to scripture while in reality giving authority to spiritual experiences and glib clichés.
One group esteems long dead theologians the other adores the flamboyant man (or woman) of the hour.
In these different groups it seems that the Word of God and the Spirit of God are pitted against each other. One is governed by established doctrines, and interprets scripture according to those doctrines. The other is governed by “the Spirit” and interprets scripture according to “spiritual” revelation.
There are obviously some very distinct and irreconcilable differences between these two groups. And yet they have at least one common factor. Both in reality have applied some kind of condition to their approach to scripture that takes away the average believer’s relationship with God’s word. Those average believers are TOLD what can be believed and how it should be believed. They are told that scripture doesn’t necessarily mean what it seems to mean, promoting the understanding that a (traditionally) college trained or a (charismatically) anointed teacher is required to convey what scripture really saying.
Of course, the extent of how this affects the church is immense and it would be impossible to go into every aspect of the problem. But to the person who wants to know and understand the truth, and is willing to spend the time and make the effort required, the truth is easily accessible. Everyone reading this blog has the means and the ability to search the scriptures for themselves because they can obviously read. But are they willing to utilise that ability?
To a great degree we have been conditioned to believe that scripture is hard to understand and that we need someone to explain it all and to share its hidden secrets. We lack confidence. But we should recognise that it is not only a lack of confidence in ourselves – we are lacking confidence in the God who desires to make Himself known through the revelation of scripture. We lack confidence in the One who promised to send His Spirit to be our teacher, and we lack confidence in His Spirit’s ability and willingness to teach us.
The conditioning process that has distanced us from scripture has also worked by giving us an expectation of how scripture should be approached. Our exposure to scripture has been through “texts” – often meaning isolated verses that are expounded upon at length by an appointed teacher of the word. In most cases little attention is given to context and meaning is given to the selected “text” that indicates some kind of special insight has been needed to get to what was really meant by that text.
Through this experience, we ourselves then try to delve into parts of scripture according to the same method used by the teacher. We dig around and try to find the deeper things hidden within those parts of scripture. And this is usually done before the student has developed even a rudimentary understanding of how the whole bible fits together, and what its overall revelation is about.
There is little understanding of how God has related to mankind throughout history and there is little understanding about the significance of God’s relationship with Israel. To most believers, the Old Testament account is a total mystery – beyond a few half remembered stories of certain bible characters.
Now I’ve waffled on and on about this for long enough. A lot of it I’ve touched upon before on this blog and on others. But is the message getting through? Is what I’m saying having any effect?
It seems not. From what I’ve read elsewhere people are quite content to cling to their personal traditions and to tolerate the traditions of others. Relativism is alive and thriving within the “church” and it has been demonstrated time and again in some of the responses my writings have received.
While I have made it abundantly clear that I am totally opposed to Calvinism and its abhorrent “doctrines of grace” – those Calvinists that have been most ferocious in their responses to me have at least shown a devotion to those things that they believe. They recognise the exclusivity of their beliefs and see little room for compromise. The same can not be said for so many others who demonstrate (though they would surely deny it) that they accept the relativity of “truth” – that what is true for one person is okay for that person, and what is true for me is okay for me. There is a clear opposition to any idea of bringing correction to others – such actions would be seen as divisive, and it seems like division should be avoided at all costs, even if it meant compromising on the truth.
Recently I have seen time and again how people will twist scripture in every direction possible to avoid accepting what it clearly states. All kinds of mental and logical gymnastics are performed to come to an understanding that contradicts or ignores what would be unavoidable if only the actual words of scripture were accepted for what they actually said.
Why do so many persist with this wilful blindness? And why do so many let them persist, all in the name of keeping the peace?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
21 Things My Bible Didn’t Teach Me.
This list is potentially endless so I’m limiting it to those things that I’ve come across personally. Even with that limitation I might have to do a second list at a later date.
1) The correct response to the gospel in order to be saved is to either a) ask Jesus into your heart, b) say the sinner’s prayer c) respond to an “altar call” in which you do both a & b.
2) Believers will be “raptured” from the earth immediately prior to the Great Tribulation.
3) Upon death Christians go to their eternal home in heaven.
4) Satan and his demons reside in and rule their kingdom from hell.
5) Between His death and resurrection, Jesus was tormented in hell by the devil
6) Jesus victoriously snatched the keys of death and hell from the devil.
7) The devil made me do it.
8) Baptism is optional (it can also be done to babies with a sprinkling of water).
9) Sin in the life of a believer doesn’t matter because all of our sins have been forgiven
10) God loves the world so much…
11) TULIP
12) God offends the mind to reveal the heart
13) People need hours of counselling/ inner healing/ deliverance sessions to be freed from hurts and problems caused by their past.
14) Faith is a force
15) Confess and possess
16) We should not question our leaders (“touch not the Lord’s anointed!)
17) There are different kinds of anointing and some Christians are more anointed than others
18) Tongues is THE sign of being baptised in the Holy Spirit
19) Scripture doesn’t really matter
20) God knows the future because He has fore-ordained everything that will happen.
21) Man has no free will.
1) The correct response to the gospel in order to be saved is to either a) ask Jesus into your heart, b) say the sinner’s prayer c) respond to an “altar call” in which you do both a & b.
2) Believers will be “raptured” from the earth immediately prior to the Great Tribulation.
3) Upon death Christians go to their eternal home in heaven.
4) Satan and his demons reside in and rule their kingdom from hell.
5) Between His death and resurrection, Jesus was tormented in hell by the devil
6) Jesus victoriously snatched the keys of death and hell from the devil.
7) The devil made me do it.
8) Baptism is optional (it can also be done to babies with a sprinkling of water).
9) Sin in the life of a believer doesn’t matter because all of our sins have been forgiven
10) God loves the world so much…
11) TULIP
12) God offends the mind to reveal the heart
13) People need hours of counselling/ inner healing/ deliverance sessions to be freed from hurts and problems caused by their past.
14) Faith is a force
15) Confess and possess
16) We should not question our leaders (“touch not the Lord’s anointed!)
17) There are different kinds of anointing and some Christians are more anointed than others
18) Tongues is THE sign of being baptised in the Holy Spirit
19) Scripture doesn’t really matter
20) God knows the future because He has fore-ordained everything that will happen.
21) Man has no free will.
God’s word or Man’s – the choice is ours.
Almost daily I see more and more examples of Christians who have little respect for the scriptures. They give more authority to the words and teachings of men than they do to some of the clearest and simplest parts of the Word of God.
All manner of twisted and convoluted theologies are used to manipulate scripture into a form that is acceptable to their own wisdom. During discussion they quote page after page of their teachers in an attempt to demonstrate that scripture doesn’t really mean what it is clearly saying.
What more can be said about this? Doesn’t anyone trust God anymore? Why do so many “believers” put more faith in men and men’s wisdom than they do in God Himself?
Do they consider their own wisdom is greater than God's that they can reinterpret scripture to force it into their own ideas of acceptability?
All manner of twisted and convoluted theologies are used to manipulate scripture into a form that is acceptable to their own wisdom. During discussion they quote page after page of their teachers in an attempt to demonstrate that scripture doesn’t really mean what it is clearly saying.
What more can be said about this? Doesn’t anyone trust God anymore? Why do so many “believers” put more faith in men and men’s wisdom than they do in God Himself?
Do they consider their own wisdom is greater than God's that they can reinterpret scripture to force it into their own ideas of acceptability?
Monday, March 16, 2009
POTTER AND THE CLAY – MOULDING THE SCRIPTURES
Recently the teaching ministry of a particular woman was recommended to the members of a Christian discussion forum, so I read a transcript of one of her sermons based on “The Potter’s House”.
I was interested to see what was said about this topic because the image of the potter and the clay (from Romans 8) is a favourite proof text used by Calvinists.
While she presents some interesting ideas on potters and the use of clay – and even though she makes reference to biblical statements; it seems to me that she merely used the imagery to create her own message. It’s was the common practice of using a “text” as a springboard to present a message that the PREACHER wants to convey rather than taking the biblical text and seeing what IT has to say.To me this was made most clear by her avoidance of the interpretation GOD gives regarding Jeremiah’s observations in the potter’s house. She does make reference to Jeremiah 18 in which God has told Jeremiah to visit the potter – but then she stops after the potter/clay illustration is given. The following verses are not mentioned, and yet these give the very important context to the WHY God sent Jeremiah to observe the potter: and God’s interpretation turns the usual understanding of the story upon its head.
Usually the imagery of the potter and the clay are used to convey the idea that God is in control and that we are merely clay in His hands – subject totally to His will and His purpose for our lives. Some of us He has decided to make into vessels of honour and others He has decided to make as vessels of dishonour. The story is used to show how we have no involvement in our destiny – the potter (God) moulds the clay (us) as He desires.But when we see what God told Jeremiah we get a DIFFERENT picture.
God’s explanation of the potter and the clay shows how the clay (humanity) can change what God had decided. Those who God had determined to punish can avoid that punishment if they repent. Those who God had determined to reward could lose that reward if they turned to disobedience.The illustration shows that the clay can affect the outcome of the potter’s intention and if necessary he will make it into another pot, one different from his first intention.This sermon was a classic example of how to avoid scriptural context to mould God’s word into a form that WE choose to support our favoured theology.
----
Here is the PURPOSE of God’s message about the potter and the clay given in the part of the text that was not addressed in the sermon: Jeremiah 18 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
I was interested to see what was said about this topic because the image of the potter and the clay (from Romans 8) is a favourite proof text used by Calvinists.
While she presents some interesting ideas on potters and the use of clay – and even though she makes reference to biblical statements; it seems to me that she merely used the imagery to create her own message. It’s was the common practice of using a “text” as a springboard to present a message that the PREACHER wants to convey rather than taking the biblical text and seeing what IT has to say.To me this was made most clear by her avoidance of the interpretation GOD gives regarding Jeremiah’s observations in the potter’s house. She does make reference to Jeremiah 18 in which God has told Jeremiah to visit the potter – but then she stops after the potter/clay illustration is given. The following verses are not mentioned, and yet these give the very important context to the WHY God sent Jeremiah to observe the potter: and God’s interpretation turns the usual understanding of the story upon its head.
Usually the imagery of the potter and the clay are used to convey the idea that God is in control and that we are merely clay in His hands – subject totally to His will and His purpose for our lives. Some of us He has decided to make into vessels of honour and others He has decided to make as vessels of dishonour. The story is used to show how we have no involvement in our destiny – the potter (God) moulds the clay (us) as He desires.But when we see what God told Jeremiah we get a DIFFERENT picture.
God’s explanation of the potter and the clay shows how the clay (humanity) can change what God had decided. Those who God had determined to punish can avoid that punishment if they repent. Those who God had determined to reward could lose that reward if they turned to disobedience.The illustration shows that the clay can affect the outcome of the potter’s intention and if necessary he will make it into another pot, one different from his first intention.This sermon was a classic example of how to avoid scriptural context to mould God’s word into a form that WE choose to support our favoured theology.
----
Here is the PURPOSE of God’s message about the potter and the clay given in the part of the text that was not addressed in the sermon: Jeremiah 18 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)