For some time now I have been trying to encourage people not to rely so much on man’s teaching. I have stated that all disagreement and division within the church is caused through adopting the teaching of one man above the teaching of another. The only division caused by the truth comes through the exposing of error: the dividing of darkness from light.
There is an urgent need for Christians to accept responsibility. We have the scriptures and we have the promise of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would be our teacher. God has provided everything we need to guide us and to keep us in the truth. We need to trust His Spirit to teach us His word instead of putting our primary (and often only) trust in man’s teachings.
When I’ve written about this before a common response has been to point out that teachers are included in the ministry gifts mentioned in Ephesians (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers.*)
There clearly is a God given place for GENUINE teachers.
Genuine teachers not only lead us to understanding in areas where we are lacking, they also train us to search the scriptures for ourselves, thereby decreasing our reliance upon their ministry.
Any teacher who promotes ideas contrary to scripture is not a God given teacher.
Any teacher who makes him or herself above question is not a God given teacher.
Any teacher who makes sure students remain reliant upon him/her is not a God given teacher.
Too often laziness encourages us to rely on teachers more than we should, to the extent that we don’t keep THEM accountable for what they teach. By holding them accountable, not only are we guarding our selves – we are showing true love to the teacher, helping THEM stay on the right path with their doctrine and teaching.
____________________________________
*Ironically, many who readily cling to teachers are equally ready to dismiss any present day reality of the first two ministries in that list
Showing posts with label Traditions of man. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Traditions of man. Show all posts
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
God’s Truth Not Man’s Opinion
Two forms of replacement theology which favour man’s opinion above biblical revelation. (1. The church has replaced Israel, 2. Scripture has replaced Spiritual gifts)
____________________________________________________________
In an earlier post, here, I linked to a sermon about Romans 9-11. That sermon helped me to understand why replacement theology gained such a strong foothold in the church.
For most of the church’s history Israel as a distinct and recognisable nation had been erased from the world map. So what understanding could be brought to the NT references to Israel, and in particular Paul’s strong statements that God had not and would not forsake Israel?
Israel was no more – so was Paul mistaken? Was scripture wrong?
It’s not surprising that a different approach to understanding scripture was seen as necessary. Ambiguous hints could be found that might suggest that the position of Israel had been taken over by the church. So references to Israel were seen as being symbolic instead of literal and the church was seen as the NEW or SPIRITUAL Israel.
That was perhaps the most logical position to take…
…until 1948, when Israel again appeared on the map.
Not everyone had accepted the idea of the church replacing Israel. Some remained faithful to a literal reading of scripture and expected Jews to return to the land of their ancestors. They trusted the word of biblical prophecy instead of geographical and political appearances.
Why is it that today, over 60 years after the return of Israel, the majority of the church still rejects the literal word of scripture regarding Israel? That literal word prophesied both the exile of Israel to all the nations, and also the return of Israel to the land of their ancestors.
They still reject it because they prefer the theology and reasoning of men above the clear word of scripture. Loved traditions are hard to abandon. This example also shows how much man prefers to base his beliefs on his own observations and his own reasoning rather than on the revelation of the word of God.
A similar thing can be seen with regard to Spiritual gifts, in particular those mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians. Wide sections of the church deny the relevance of those gifts. They say the gifts were made redundant by the compiling of the scriptures. They even quote Paul:
Their explanation is based on the assumption that “when perfection comes” refers to the coming of the scriptures – and therefore scripture has replaced Spiritual gifts within the church.
How can such a leap of logic take place and be so widely accepted?
The foundation of this assumption comes from a very tenuous inference projected into the phrase “when perfection comes”. It is a case of looking for something that can be MADE to support the already held conclusion that Spiritual gifts no longer exist.
Again it’s a matter of looking at the world around us and basing theology upon what is seen and interpreting scripture to support that view, instead of accepting scripture as written and seeking answers about why our experience doesn’t match scripture’s clearest meaning.
The process goes like this:
Example 1: The bible speaks about Israel and God’s continued faithfulness to Israel – but Israel no longer existed, so the church must have replaced Israel.
Example 2: Spiritual gifts are missing from the church, so they obvious no longer exist.
The final step in both of these examples is to find parts of scripture that can be interpreted in a way that supports the favoured conclusions.
The question arising out of all of this is: Do we REALLY rely on the revelation given in scripture and interpret our world and experience according to what God has revealed?
Or do we insist on interpreting the world and scripture according to our experience and what we can see?
____________________________________________________________
In an earlier post, here, I linked to a sermon about Romans 9-11. That sermon helped me to understand why replacement theology gained such a strong foothold in the church.
For most of the church’s history Israel as a distinct and recognisable nation had been erased from the world map. So what understanding could be brought to the NT references to Israel, and in particular Paul’s strong statements that God had not and would not forsake Israel?
Israel was no more – so was Paul mistaken? Was scripture wrong?
It’s not surprising that a different approach to understanding scripture was seen as necessary. Ambiguous hints could be found that might suggest that the position of Israel had been taken over by the church. So references to Israel were seen as being symbolic instead of literal and the church was seen as the NEW or SPIRITUAL Israel.
That was perhaps the most logical position to take…
…until 1948, when Israel again appeared on the map.
Not everyone had accepted the idea of the church replacing Israel. Some remained faithful to a literal reading of scripture and expected Jews to return to the land of their ancestors. They trusted the word of biblical prophecy instead of geographical and political appearances.
Why is it that today, over 60 years after the return of Israel, the majority of the church still rejects the literal word of scripture regarding Israel? That literal word prophesied both the exile of Israel to all the nations, and also the return of Israel to the land of their ancestors.
They still reject it because they prefer the theology and reasoning of men above the clear word of scripture. Loved traditions are hard to abandon. This example also shows how much man prefers to base his beliefs on his own observations and his own reasoning rather than on the revelation of the word of God.
A similar thing can be seen with regard to Spiritual gifts, in particular those mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians. Wide sections of the church deny the relevance of those gifts. They say the gifts were made redundant by the compiling of the scriptures. They even quote Paul:
“But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.”
Their explanation is based on the assumption that “when perfection comes” refers to the coming of the scriptures – and therefore scripture has replaced Spiritual gifts within the church.
How can such a leap of logic take place and be so widely accepted?
The foundation of this assumption comes from a very tenuous inference projected into the phrase “when perfection comes”. It is a case of looking for something that can be MADE to support the already held conclusion that Spiritual gifts no longer exist.
Again it’s a matter of looking at the world around us and basing theology upon what is seen and interpreting scripture to support that view, instead of accepting scripture as written and seeking answers about why our experience doesn’t match scripture’s clearest meaning.
The process goes like this:
Example 1: The bible speaks about Israel and God’s continued faithfulness to Israel – but Israel no longer existed, so the church must have replaced Israel.
Example 2: Spiritual gifts are missing from the church, so they obvious no longer exist.
The final step in both of these examples is to find parts of scripture that can be interpreted in a way that supports the favoured conclusions.
The question arising out of all of this is: Do we REALLY rely on the revelation given in scripture and interpret our world and experience according to what God has revealed?
Or do we insist on interpreting the world and scripture according to our experience and what we can see?
Thursday, July 29, 2010
It’s MY blog and I’ll rant if I want to!
What happens when a respected “Rabbi” takes offense at having his disobedience indirectly mentioned in the comment section of his blog?
Of course, as expected, he deletes the offending comment. Then he sends a personal email strongly conveying his displeasure.
Now what rudeness of mine sparked this response?
The gentile born “rabbi”, in justifying his choice to convert to Judaism (AFTER professing faith in Messiah) pointed to the legitimacy of conversion for those with a “healthy sense of identity and a persistent desire to belong to the people of Israel”.
I’m not sure when “healthy sense of identity” and persistent desire” were valid reasons to contravene clearly stated prohibitions written by the apostle Paul*. Can those reasons be used to excuse all of our disobedience? Is persistent desire a legitimate reason for giving in to any temptation?
What exactly caused the offense?
I made a blunt comparison.
I mentioned a person I know who was born male. However this person has a sense of identity with and a persistent desire to be female. As a result he has been living as a woman and intends to “convert” through a “sex-change” operation.
Does this person’s “sense of identity” (which he would consider healthy) and his “persistent desire” legitimize HIS conversion?
------
* From the apostle Paul:
Gal 5:2
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
And
1 Cor 7:18
Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised
Of course, as expected, he deletes the offending comment. Then he sends a personal email strongly conveying his displeasure.
Now what rudeness of mine sparked this response?
The gentile born “rabbi”, in justifying his choice to convert to Judaism (AFTER professing faith in Messiah) pointed to the legitimacy of conversion for those with a “healthy sense of identity and a persistent desire to belong to the people of Israel”.
I’m not sure when “healthy sense of identity” and persistent desire” were valid reasons to contravene clearly stated prohibitions written by the apostle Paul*. Can those reasons be used to excuse all of our disobedience? Is persistent desire a legitimate reason for giving in to any temptation?
What exactly caused the offense?
I made a blunt comparison.
I mentioned a person I know who was born male. However this person has a sense of identity with and a persistent desire to be female. As a result he has been living as a woman and intends to “convert” through a “sex-change” operation.
Does this person’s “sense of identity” (which he would consider healthy) and his “persistent desire” legitimize HIS conversion?
------
* From the apostle Paul:
Gal 5:2
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
And
1 Cor 7:18
Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
What does SCRIPTURE say without our added interpretation?
Recently I have seen a lot of people claiming that we all “interpret” scripture because we all approach it with a particular bias. But is that really the case and to what extent do we “interpret” scripture?
As far as possible I take scripture at face value, accepting what is written without trying to redefine its clearest meaning, as long as its context does not suggest that it should be taken as being symbolic. (Regarding biblical symbolism – rarely is the reader left in ignorance about the meaning of a symbol. The interpretation is usually revealed in the text.)
Let me give you an example of accepting God’s word AS WRITTEN compared to God’s word “INTERPRETED”
BIBLICAL TEXT:
How do we address this passage:
AS WRITTEN: After Jesus’ return Satan will be imprisoned and his deceptive power over the nations will be totally removed from the earth. Jesus will reign with his saints for 1000 years. After the 1000 years Satan will be released and will gather an army to oppose the rule of Jesus. Satan will be defeated and thrown into the lake of fire. There will be a thousand year gap between Jesus’ return (and the resurrection of the saints) and a second resurrection (that of the unsaved) which will precede the judgement.
AS INTERPRETED: This 1000 years is a symbolic period representing the church age, Satan was bound by Jesus at the cross and the saints are now ruling with Christ who is seated on His throne in heaven. Jesus’ return will be immediately followed by the judgement because there is no literal 1000 year earthly reign.
This is an extreme example – but it is one that is very WIDELY applied. Am I guilty of “interpreting scripture” because I choose to believe what is actually written instead of trying to explain why it doesn’t really mean what the passage actually says?
Another example:
When scripture tells me that
And
Why should this mean anything different to what it says?
And yet many add to, change or reinterpret the meaning of these verses because taken according to their literal meaning they totally discredit their favoured doctrines.
When scripture tells me that God desires all to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth and that God doesn’t want any to perish – then I don’t try to “interpret” or explain those statement away to make them fit other doctrines.
When I read statements that refer to election – those references to election do not negate the truths about who God desires to be saved. Instead of ignoring or redefining the statements about God’s desires, we should look further and see WHO is said to be elected and under what conditions. Again, when we find the answer to that it would be foolish to ignore that answer because it contradicts a doctrinal bias. Especially when that answer is totally consistent with other references through scripture
Is it “INTERPRETING” these verses when we accept that they mean that God wants ALL MEN to be saved, that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for ALL MEN, that God does not want ANYONE to perish but wants EVERYONE to come to repentance?
Is there anything in the context of these statements that would indicate that a literal meaning should not be applied?
Sometimes the intended meaning of a few verses isn’t always immediately apparent from the content of the verses themselves. If that is the case we must allow scripture to interpret scripture . In other words, what does scripture elsewhere say that will open our understanding?
For example, what are we to make of John 1?
What would this mean to us if we were reading it for the first time? There is nothing in these first two verses to tell us what or who this “Word” is. We have to read further into the chapter to see:
From this we get a better idea of what the first two verses are about. The “Word”, from the context of the following verses can be seen to be Jesus. This truth becomes even more apparent when we continue into John’s writing.
This is also the case with Ephesians 1 – one of the favourite proof text passages regarding unconditional “election”. Not only is it the case that nowhere in this chapter does it indicate that “election” is unconditional, the chapter actually spells out the condition continually.
That election and every benefit available to “the elect” are THROUGH HIM (Christ) and IN HIM. And the passage also includes the revelation of how people come to be IN HIM.
So to be in Christ someone has to hear the gospel and believe. And then being in Christ we are included in the elect. This is also totally consistent with other parts of scripture that reveal that believing or having faith in Jesus is a primary condition of salvation. (A well known example being John 3:16 – “Whoever BELIEVES will not perish…”).
During many doctrinal discussions I find myself repeating “But what does SCRIPTURE say. What are the words on the page telling us – not how can I manipulate those words to make them fit my doctrine.
Too often we are prone to “interpreting” scripture instead of submitting ourselves to its clearest and plainest meaning because that clearest meaning can be more challenging than we like. Recognising the clearest meaning would require some kind of change, whether in doctrine or behaviour. It is much more comfortable to find a way of “interpreting” the text so that uncomfortable change is not necessary.
As far as possible I take scripture at face value, accepting what is written without trying to redefine its clearest meaning, as long as its context does not suggest that it should be taken as being symbolic. (Regarding biblical symbolism – rarely is the reader left in ignorance about the meaning of a symbol. The interpretation is usually revealed in the text.)
Let me give you an example of accepting God’s word AS WRITTEN compared to God’s word “INTERPRETED”
BIBLICAL TEXT:
Revelation 20: 1-10 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
How do we address this passage:
AS WRITTEN: After Jesus’ return Satan will be imprisoned and his deceptive power over the nations will be totally removed from the earth. Jesus will reign with his saints for 1000 years. After the 1000 years Satan will be released and will gather an army to oppose the rule of Jesus. Satan will be defeated and thrown into the lake of fire. There will be a thousand year gap between Jesus’ return (and the resurrection of the saints) and a second resurrection (that of the unsaved) which will precede the judgement.
AS INTERPRETED: This 1000 years is a symbolic period representing the church age, Satan was bound by Jesus at the cross and the saints are now ruling with Christ who is seated on His throne in heaven. Jesus’ return will be immediately followed by the judgement because there is no literal 1000 year earthly reign.
This is an extreme example – but it is one that is very WIDELY applied. Am I guilty of “interpreting scripture” because I choose to believe what is actually written instead of trying to explain why it doesn’t really mean what the passage actually says?
Another example:
When scripture tells me that
“God our Savior, … wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men”
And
“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is
patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”
Why should this mean anything different to what it says?
And yet many add to, change or reinterpret the meaning of these verses because taken according to their literal meaning they totally discredit their favoured doctrines.
When scripture tells me that God desires all to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth and that God doesn’t want any to perish – then I don’t try to “interpret” or explain those statement away to make them fit other doctrines.
When I read statements that refer to election – those references to election do not negate the truths about who God desires to be saved. Instead of ignoring or redefining the statements about God’s desires, we should look further and see WHO is said to be elected and under what conditions. Again, when we find the answer to that it would be foolish to ignore that answer because it contradicts a doctrinal bias. Especially when that answer is totally consistent with other references through scripture
Is it “INTERPRETING” these verses when we accept that they mean that God wants ALL MEN to be saved, that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for ALL MEN, that God does not want ANYONE to perish but wants EVERYONE to come to repentance?
Is there anything in the context of these statements that would indicate that a literal meaning should not be applied?
Sometimes the intended meaning of a few verses isn’t always immediately apparent from the content of the verses themselves. If that is the case we must allow scripture to interpret scripture . In other words, what does scripture elsewhere say that will open our understanding?
For example, what are we to make of John 1?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.
What would this mean to us if we were reading it for the first time? There is nothing in these first two verses to tell us what or who this “Word” is. We have to read further into the chapter to see:
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "
From this we get a better idea of what the first two verses are about. The “Word”, from the context of the following verses can be seen to be Jesus. This truth becomes even more apparent when we continue into John’s writing.
This is also the case with Ephesians 1 – one of the favourite proof text passages regarding unconditional “election”. Not only is it the case that nowhere in this chapter does it indicate that “election” is unconditional, the chapter actually spells out the condition continually.
That election and every benefit available to “the elect” are THROUGH HIM (Christ) and IN HIM. And the passage also includes the revelation of how people come to be IN HIM.
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.
So to be in Christ someone has to hear the gospel and believe. And then being in Christ we are included in the elect. This is also totally consistent with other parts of scripture that reveal that believing or having faith in Jesus is a primary condition of salvation. (A well known example being John 3:16 – “Whoever BELIEVES will not perish…”).
During many doctrinal discussions I find myself repeating “But what does SCRIPTURE say. What are the words on the page telling us – not how can I manipulate those words to make them fit my doctrine.
Too often we are prone to “interpreting” scripture instead of submitting ourselves to its clearest and plainest meaning because that clearest meaning can be more challenging than we like. Recognising the clearest meaning would require some kind of change, whether in doctrine or behaviour. It is much more comfortable to find a way of “interpreting” the text so that uncomfortable change is not necessary.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Questions to ponder
When does scripture mean exactly what it says and when does it REALLY mean what we prefer it to say?
To what extent will our answer to the question above affect our understanding and knowledge of God and His ways?
To what extent will our answer to the question above affect our understanding and knowledge of God and His ways?
Friday, February 19, 2010
If you seek him, he will be found by you.
Many people seek God but do so on their own terms and make their search conditional upon what they want God to be like.
Many want God to be an all-loving, all singing and dancing being who is so desperate for a following that he will do anything to please those who accept him.
Others seek a God who is like an impersonal fashion accessory that makes no personal demands. Such a God can be brought out in public occasionally and be thanked for helping in our achievements - making a show of our "humility" in thanking him, no matter how puerile our achievement may have been (think of Grammy award acceptance speeches here).
Others seek a God who will promote their own self esteem and make them feel good about themselves, one who will commend them for being such good people compared to the rest of the world.
I could go on...
How many genuinely attempt to seek God according to HIS terms?
I saw the following question and statement on another blog: "Do Jews or Muslims or Baha'is search for God? Obviously the answer is yes."
The implication here is that they have sought God and found one who is different to the Christian God, so who was to say which “god” was the right one, if any?
But how many of those people are actually searching for something other than God, something more selfish? How many are really interested in a genuine encounter with the creator of the universe? Are they genuinely looking for the one who has the ultimate authority over what He created whether we like it or not?
Returning to the blogger’s question :
“Do Jews or Muslims or Baha'is search for God?
I said that many seek God but on their own terms. This can be seen in the case of the Muslim and Baha'i. Both of these accept the reality of Jesus and recognise Him as a prophet and/or teacher – as do MOST other religions. But they only pay lip-service to those parts of His teaching that appeal to what they want to believe. They ignore His claim that HE exclusively is the way to God. They ignore His teaching on hell. They ignore the reason for and the significance of His crucifixion and resurrection. In other words they seek His teaching ONLY when it conforms to their own desires.
The Jews are a little different. They recognise the one true God, the very same God worshipped by the Christian. The significant difference is their failure to recognise that Jesus is the Messiah they have been waiting for. They do not recognise that Jesus’ life death and resurrection were the fulfilment of the word of their prophets because Jesus did not bring about the deliverance of Israel from the oppression of Rome. They fail to see that the prophesied glorious future for Israel that their Messiah will bring will come about when Jesus returns as foretold in the New Testament.
While the Jews currently reject Jesus, the bible predicts a time when they WILL recognise Him as the King they have been waiting for.
Looking at the matter openly, the very fact that the Jews are still around today, and that Israel is once again on the map, is a very convincing reason to recognise the reality of the God of Israel who is also the God of Jesus Christ.
What other ethnic group has remained recognisably intact after 2000 years of exile from their land - and has returned to that same land as a powerful and influential nation.
Of course it must be coincidence (not!) that the long exile and the return from nations around the world was predicted by their prophets hundreds of years before that exile took place.
Many want God to be an all-loving, all singing and dancing being who is so desperate for a following that he will do anything to please those who accept him.
Others seek a God who is like an impersonal fashion accessory that makes no personal demands. Such a God can be brought out in public occasionally and be thanked for helping in our achievements - making a show of our "humility" in thanking him, no matter how puerile our achievement may have been (think of Grammy award acceptance speeches here).
Others seek a God who will promote their own self esteem and make them feel good about themselves, one who will commend them for being such good people compared to the rest of the world.
I could go on...
How many genuinely attempt to seek God according to HIS terms?
I saw the following question and statement on another blog: "Do Jews or Muslims or Baha'is search for God? Obviously the answer is yes."
The implication here is that they have sought God and found one who is different to the Christian God, so who was to say which “god” was the right one, if any?
But how many of those people are actually searching for something other than God, something more selfish? How many are really interested in a genuine encounter with the creator of the universe? Are they genuinely looking for the one who has the ultimate authority over what He created whether we like it or not?
"the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever."
Returning to the blogger’s question :
“Do Jews or Muslims or Baha'is search for God?
I said that many seek God but on their own terms. This can be seen in the case of the Muslim and Baha'i. Both of these accept the reality of Jesus and recognise Him as a prophet and/or teacher – as do MOST other religions. But they only pay lip-service to those parts of His teaching that appeal to what they want to believe. They ignore His claim that HE exclusively is the way to God. They ignore His teaching on hell. They ignore the reason for and the significance of His crucifixion and resurrection. In other words they seek His teaching ONLY when it conforms to their own desires.
The Jews are a little different. They recognise the one true God, the very same God worshipped by the Christian. The significant difference is their failure to recognise that Jesus is the Messiah they have been waiting for. They do not recognise that Jesus’ life death and resurrection were the fulfilment of the word of their prophets because Jesus did not bring about the deliverance of Israel from the oppression of Rome. They fail to see that the prophesied glorious future for Israel that their Messiah will bring will come about when Jesus returns as foretold in the New Testament.
While the Jews currently reject Jesus, the bible predicts a time when they WILL recognise Him as the King they have been waiting for.
Looking at the matter openly, the very fact that the Jews are still around today, and that Israel is once again on the map, is a very convincing reason to recognise the reality of the God of Israel who is also the God of Jesus Christ.
What other ethnic group has remained recognisably intact after 2000 years of exile from their land - and has returned to that same land as a powerful and influential nation.
Of course it must be coincidence (not!) that the long exile and the return from nations around the world was predicted by their prophets hundreds of years before that exile took place.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Sharks & Jellyfish. Two types of deception
I have participated in a lot of forum discussion about Todd Bentley et al, since the start of the so called Lakeland revival. Despite the very clear warning given through his hurried divorce and remarriage (that started during that so-called revival) thousands will still blindly follow him and the ministries that support him.
Such a situation must surely be seen a clear line in the sand, and only the most immature new believer could have any excuse for getting caught up in the Bentley circus. A clearer indication could not be given – those “ministers” who support and promote Bentley are exposing their own falsehood and those who willing cling to an allegiance to those men and women are wilfully ignoring the blatantly obvious, choosing a lie instead of the truth.
Apart from those who willingly ignore the apostasy of Bentley and his supporters, I see another danger arising from this situation. By concentrating on exposing Bentley and his false gospel other more subtle errors will be overlooked.
In Australia there we have some very real dangers in the ocean. We have the sharks – large predatory fish that mostly, with the right precautions, can be detected and avoided before they present a real threat (my sister is an observer on an aerial shark patrol). We also have some very tiny jellyfish with an extremely toxic sting. They are not as easily noticeable and protection from the danger they present will only come through awareness of their territory.
I see Bentley and his supporters as being like the sharks. They are blatantly obvious to those who are both willing to look for the signs and to listen to the warnings of those in a position to detect the danger.
Other false theologies are not so easily recognised. They are well camouflaged and slip through the defences. Like the toxic jelly fish they may have an appearance of being the same as their surroundings and their dangerous presence is not acknowledged or observed.
Ironically many of those who recognise the clear dangers of the likes of Bentley are not so discerning when it comes to more (apparently) subtle theological errors.
I have often read about the lack of discernment among those who follow Bentley. I don’t think that is the problem. It takes NO discernment to recognise the falsehood of his “ministry” and those who promote him.
What is lacking is an understanding of the TRUE gospel of Jesus Christ – and even worse than that, a lack of relationship with the TRUE Jesus Christ. These people promote a false gospel and a false saviour.
If we can’t recognise the blatantly false – what hope have we got of recognising genuinely deceptive (more subtle) false teachings and practices?
Such a situation must surely be seen a clear line in the sand, and only the most immature new believer could have any excuse for getting caught up in the Bentley circus. A clearer indication could not be given – those “ministers” who support and promote Bentley are exposing their own falsehood and those who willing cling to an allegiance to those men and women are wilfully ignoring the blatantly obvious, choosing a lie instead of the truth.
Apart from those who willingly ignore the apostasy of Bentley and his supporters, I see another danger arising from this situation. By concentrating on exposing Bentley and his false gospel other more subtle errors will be overlooked.
In Australia there we have some very real dangers in the ocean. We have the sharks – large predatory fish that mostly, with the right precautions, can be detected and avoided before they present a real threat (my sister is an observer on an aerial shark patrol). We also have some very tiny jellyfish with an extremely toxic sting. They are not as easily noticeable and protection from the danger they present will only come through awareness of their territory.I see Bentley and his supporters as being like the sharks. They are blatantly obvious to those who are both willing to look for the signs and to listen to the warnings of those in a position to detect the danger.
Other false theologies are not so easily recognised. They are well camouflaged and slip through the defences. Like the toxic jelly fish they may have an appearance of being the same as their surroundings and their dangerous presence is not acknowledged or observed.Ironically many of those who recognise the clear dangers of the likes of Bentley are not so discerning when it comes to more (apparently) subtle theological errors.
I have often read about the lack of discernment among those who follow Bentley. I don’t think that is the problem. It takes NO discernment to recognise the falsehood of his “ministry” and those who promote him.
What is lacking is an understanding of the TRUE gospel of Jesus Christ – and even worse than that, a lack of relationship with the TRUE Jesus Christ. These people promote a false gospel and a false saviour.
If we can’t recognise the blatantly false – what hope have we got of recognising genuinely deceptive (more subtle) false teachings and practices?
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
OSAS & the New Birth
Many have developed an understanding of regeneration/ the new birth in which they believe that the experience makes the regenerated individual immune to the possibility of falling away. They believe that those who are truly born again are new creatures who, according to that new nature, cannot turn from Christ.
This belief will then move further down the path to claim that any who do fall away were never saved anyway but were mistaken in their belief that their relationship with Jesus was ever real.
This is a common excuse used by those supporting ideas of “Once Saved Always Saved”.
It’s not surprising that those who hold to that view also have no hesitation in believing that they themselves ARE truly saved and would never have their faith exposed as being false by some future abandonment of it. But, apart from pride, can any of them be TRULY sure that their faith is genuine enough to last the distance?
This belief will then move further down the path to claim that any who do fall away were never saved anyway but were mistaken in their belief that their relationship with Jesus was ever real.
This is a common excuse used by those supporting ideas of “Once Saved Always Saved”.
It’s not surprising that those who hold to that view also have no hesitation in believing that they themselves ARE truly saved and would never have their faith exposed as being false by some future abandonment of it. But, apart from pride, can any of them be TRULY sure that their faith is genuine enough to last the distance?
"if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!"
1 Cor 10:12
"Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off." Romans 11
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.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Arminianism vs. Calvinism: my unpolished personal view.
Leaving aside “Catholic” and “Orthodox” believers, there seems to be a tendency to try to divide the rest of the Christian world into two neat camps: Arminian and Calvinist.
Despite being A Christian since the mid 70s I didn’t become aware of Calvinism until about 4 years ago when I read the contributions of a Calvinist writer on a Christian forum. I was appalled by the beliefs he was promoting. However I had no personal contact with Calvinists until two years ago. At that time I started to do some research and I found it hard to believe that any professing Christian could hold to such an aberrant view God.
My introduction to Arminianism came through my being accused of being an Arminian. While I find Arminian doctrine to be much closer to the truth than that of Calvinism, there is still the fact that its adherents are devoted to, and prize, the theology of a man. It is my view that there would be NO Arminianism/Calvinism debate if importance was genuinely placed on Scripture alone – something that both sides ironically claim is the basis of their doctrine. I would more easily believe that was the case if the devotion to Arminius and Calvin (and the associated religious systems) were repented of and the labels dropped.
I’ve been frequenting “Arminian” blogs for a few months now and have appreciated the interaction I’ve had with several people on those blogs. But one thing I have repeatedly noticed is that so much of the disagreement between Arminians and Calvinists is often demonstrated through multi-syllabic theological terminology and theological ideas instead of through plain and simple application of scriptural revelation. The result of this is disagreement over differing ideas of man-made philosophical concepts rather than God’s revelation of Himself through His word.
Infralapsarian, Supralapsarian, supraduperlapsarian… all meaningless and worthless twaddle just like so much of the vain concepts that take centre stage in man’s theology. Most of them are merely intellectual sounding alternatives to that age old question of how many angels fit on a pin head.
Get back to the gospel people. Turn to God’s Word and not mans’.
Because there is too much reliance on human theology and wanting to identify with a label rather than with a lifestyle, “Faith” to many has become a matter of assent to a series of tenets Why not DEMONSTRATE the truths we believe rather than try to give a short cut by identifying with a theological system?
Surely this IS what Paul was writing about when he criticised some for saying “I am of Apollos or I am of Paul” Was Arminius or Calvin crucified for you?
I am definitely NOT a Calvinist (as if anyone would mistake me for one) and neither am I associated with any of the theological labels that others have tried to pin on me. In all my weakness, with all of my faults and despite stumbling many times – it is my desire to be nothing more or less than a disciple of Jesus.
All of the rest: the theological posturing and labelling, are dangerous distractions.
Despite being A Christian since the mid 70s I didn’t become aware of Calvinism until about 4 years ago when I read the contributions of a Calvinist writer on a Christian forum. I was appalled by the beliefs he was promoting. However I had no personal contact with Calvinists until two years ago. At that time I started to do some research and I found it hard to believe that any professing Christian could hold to such an aberrant view God.
My introduction to Arminianism came through my being accused of being an Arminian. While I find Arminian doctrine to be much closer to the truth than that of Calvinism, there is still the fact that its adherents are devoted to, and prize, the theology of a man. It is my view that there would be NO Arminianism/Calvinism debate if importance was genuinely placed on Scripture alone – something that both sides ironically claim is the basis of their doctrine. I would more easily believe that was the case if the devotion to Arminius and Calvin (and the associated religious systems) were repented of and the labels dropped.
I’ve been frequenting “Arminian” blogs for a few months now and have appreciated the interaction I’ve had with several people on those blogs. But one thing I have repeatedly noticed is that so much of the disagreement between Arminians and Calvinists is often demonstrated through multi-syllabic theological terminology and theological ideas instead of through plain and simple application of scriptural revelation. The result of this is disagreement over differing ideas of man-made philosophical concepts rather than God’s revelation of Himself through His word.
Infralapsarian, Supralapsarian, supraduperlapsarian… all meaningless and worthless twaddle just like so much of the vain concepts that take centre stage in man’s theology. Most of them are merely intellectual sounding alternatives to that age old question of how many angels fit on a pin head.
Get back to the gospel people. Turn to God’s Word and not mans’.
Because there is too much reliance on human theology and wanting to identify with a label rather than with a lifestyle, “Faith” to many has become a matter of assent to a series of tenets Why not DEMONSTRATE the truths we believe rather than try to give a short cut by identifying with a theological system?
Surely this IS what Paul was writing about when he criticised some for saying “I am of Apollos or I am of Paul” Was Arminius or Calvin crucified for you?
I am definitely NOT a Calvinist (as if anyone would mistake me for one) and neither am I associated with any of the theological labels that others have tried to pin on me. In all my weakness, with all of my faults and despite stumbling many times – it is my desire to be nothing more or less than a disciple of Jesus.
All of the rest: the theological posturing and labelling, are dangerous distractions.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
"Why I am Not a Calvinist" by Dr Tim Pierce
The first three parts of a series being written by Dr Tim Pierce (a former Calvinist) on his blog.
I look forward to reading the next installments.
Why I am not calvinist part 1
Why I am not calvinist part 2
Why I am not calvinist part 3
I look forward to reading the next installments.
Why I am not calvinist part 1
Why I am not calvinist part 2
Why I am not calvinist part 3
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Moving on from a Theological Rut
This blog was never intended to be a place where anyone and everyone could try to promote their questionable doctrines. Many other blogs allow (and some even encourage) the ongoing “Arminian/Calvinism debate” and the same old ground is trodden and the theological rut deepens.
I have made no secret that I detest the doctrines of Calvinism. They portray a god far different from the one true God revealed through scripture by the Holy Spirit. But constantly going over that same old ground, refuting the same old arguments and facing a barrage of the same old proof texts is clearly a waste of time and it distracts from things that are genuinely important. I will no longer give time to answering the same misrepresentations of the gospel presented by the same people over and over again. Therefore I will make more active use of the moderation options and will delete those comments that try to perpetuate the theological rut-digging.
That process has already begun – and if the writers of the comments I have deleted feel snubbed by not having their views addressed, I suggest they go back to the replies I gave to their earlier comments and see what I said about the very same views the first time they were expressed.
Before I move on from the matter of deleting comments; the following statement comes from a comment I rejected for the reasons stated above.
Paul G said: “Because you don’t believe or understand the doctrine of election, it ultimately forces you to trust and believe in your own TRUST and BELIEF and not in the finished work of Calvary.”
Firstly I have quite a good understanding of “election” as depicted in scripture. I also have a good understanding of the Calvinist doctrine of “unconditional election” – a doctrine that clearly contradicts God’s revelation given in scripture. But that is not the main part of the statement that I want to address.
Note the confusion in the latter part of the statement: the part that accuses me of trusting and believing in my “own TRUST and BELIEF and not in the finished work of Calvary”. Does Paul G trust in the finished work of Calvary? Is he not then trusting in his own trust in the finished work of Calvary? What makes his situation and his “trust” different to mine?
The difference is that the Calvinist doctrine of “unconditional election” effectively bypasses Calvary all together. It makes salvation the result of a pre-creation decree that determined which individuals were lucky enough to be saved. Therefore salvation has nothing to do with Calvary and Christ’s sacrifice and everything to do with having one’s name drawn out in god’s salvation lottery.
Paul closes his comment with the statement “Salvation is of the Lord” – and I totally agree. The disagreement is not with the source of salvation (the Lord), it is with the MEANS by which salvation is made available. Does that means reflect the character of God as revealed throughout scripture: does that means reflect His justice, His righteousness, His love and His mercy?
Debating Calvinists has never been my intention. My only interest in this matter has been to expose the evils of Calvinism’s doctrines. Those who choose to remain adherents to those false doctrines do so according to their own free will (ironically a free will many of them would deny having).
One of the most difficult experiences of the past few months has not been due to the response I've had from Calvinists. It has come from the reactions of some who deny being Calvinists who for some reason took offense when I drew attention to what Calvinism really promotes. To me this reveals a false sense of loyalty, an almost ecumenical approach that is willing to “agree to disagree” over important truths in order to maintain an appearance of peace.
Despite those difficult experiences, there have been indications that some have taken note and have realised for themselves how sinister the doctrines of Calvinism really are.
I have made no secret that I detest the doctrines of Calvinism. They portray a god far different from the one true God revealed through scripture by the Holy Spirit. But constantly going over that same old ground, refuting the same old arguments and facing a barrage of the same old proof texts is clearly a waste of time and it distracts from things that are genuinely important. I will no longer give time to answering the same misrepresentations of the gospel presented by the same people over and over again. Therefore I will make more active use of the moderation options and will delete those comments that try to perpetuate the theological rut-digging.
That process has already begun – and if the writers of the comments I have deleted feel snubbed by not having their views addressed, I suggest they go back to the replies I gave to their earlier comments and see what I said about the very same views the first time they were expressed.
Before I move on from the matter of deleting comments; the following statement comes from a comment I rejected for the reasons stated above.
Paul G said: “Because you don’t believe or understand the doctrine of election, it ultimately forces you to trust and believe in your own TRUST and BELIEF and not in the finished work of Calvary.”
Firstly I have quite a good understanding of “election” as depicted in scripture. I also have a good understanding of the Calvinist doctrine of “unconditional election” – a doctrine that clearly contradicts God’s revelation given in scripture. But that is not the main part of the statement that I want to address.
Note the confusion in the latter part of the statement: the part that accuses me of trusting and believing in my “own TRUST and BELIEF and not in the finished work of Calvary”. Does Paul G trust in the finished work of Calvary? Is he not then trusting in his own trust in the finished work of Calvary? What makes his situation and his “trust” different to mine?
The difference is that the Calvinist doctrine of “unconditional election” effectively bypasses Calvary all together. It makes salvation the result of a pre-creation decree that determined which individuals were lucky enough to be saved. Therefore salvation has nothing to do with Calvary and Christ’s sacrifice and everything to do with having one’s name drawn out in god’s salvation lottery.
Paul closes his comment with the statement “Salvation is of the Lord” – and I totally agree. The disagreement is not with the source of salvation (the Lord), it is with the MEANS by which salvation is made available. Does that means reflect the character of God as revealed throughout scripture: does that means reflect His justice, His righteousness, His love and His mercy?
Debating Calvinists has never been my intention. My only interest in this matter has been to expose the evils of Calvinism’s doctrines. Those who choose to remain adherents to those false doctrines do so according to their own free will (ironically a free will many of them would deny having).
One of the most difficult experiences of the past few months has not been due to the response I've had from Calvinists. It has come from the reactions of some who deny being Calvinists who for some reason took offense when I drew attention to what Calvinism really promotes. To me this reveals a false sense of loyalty, an almost ecumenical approach that is willing to “agree to disagree” over important truths in order to maintain an appearance of peace.
Despite those difficult experiences, there have been indications that some have taken note and have realised for themselves how sinister the doctrines of Calvinism really are.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Salvation: Fire Insurance or Extreme Makeover?
How much do we really understand about “salvation”? To most people it seems to mean salvation from an eternity in hell. Therefore our eyes become set on our ultimate future instead of our lives here and now.
But does scripture EVER portray salvation as an escape from hell? It may be surprising to find that most references to eternal damnation are directed towards believers.
Hell was not used as an incentive to turn sinners into saints. If anything it was an incentive for believers to remain faithful and to maintain their fear of God.
The New Testament message of salvation is far different to the common idea of someone stepping from a state of “unsaved” to “saved”. Yet many people understand that a single step is all it takes. Whether that step comes by God “unconditionally electing” a people, or through those people making a personal response to a preached gospel message, the common idea sees an instant safety from eternal damnation has been obtained. But is that the case?
Romans 8:29 is often used to support the Calvinist idea of an elect few being “predestined” for salvation. Yet the actual reference is not addressing “salvation” (at least NOT the common understanding of salvation). Instead predestination is associated with being “conformed to the likeness of his Son”.
To me there seems to be much more profound and challenging being revealed here than an alleged “elect” group being given an undeserved “get out of hell” free card.
Peter also wrote about being “partakers of the divine nature” – something made possible by God through “great and precious promises” and “His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness”. Again this tells us something about God’s intention for His people – to be “conformed to the likeness of His Son”
Salvation is not about our future destiny it is about NOW. It is about being brought into relationship with God NOW. It is about being transformed NOW. It is about trusting in God NOW. It is submitting ourselves to God and His provision NOW so that day by day we increasingly become partakers of the divine nature. Day by day we are increasingly conformed to His likeness until that day when “the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” and He “will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body” and “ we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is”.
Jesus told us that He is the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except through Him. He did not say He is the way the truth and the life and no one avoids hell except through Him.
A secure eternal destiny, being with God in His new creation, is a continuation of our salvation. It is the result of a life lived IN salvation – a life lived IN CHRIST and obtaining a family likeness. It is the result of an ongoing relationship with God. Salvation is intended to bring us into that relationship. Escape from hell is a mere fringe benefit.
But does scripture EVER portray salvation as an escape from hell? It may be surprising to find that most references to eternal damnation are directed towards believers.
Hell was not used as an incentive to turn sinners into saints. If anything it was an incentive for believers to remain faithful and to maintain their fear of God.
“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him”. (Luke 12: 4-5)
The New Testament message of salvation is far different to the common idea of someone stepping from a state of “unsaved” to “saved”. Yet many people understand that a single step is all it takes. Whether that step comes by God “unconditionally electing” a people, or through those people making a personal response to a preached gospel message, the common idea sees an instant safety from eternal damnation has been obtained. But is that the case?
Romans 8:29 is often used to support the Calvinist idea of an elect few being “predestined” for salvation. Yet the actual reference is not addressing “salvation” (at least NOT the common understanding of salvation). Instead predestination is associated with being “conformed to the likeness of his Son”.
To me there seems to be much more profound and challenging being revealed here than an alleged “elect” group being given an undeserved “get out of hell” free card.
Peter also wrote about being “partakers of the divine nature” – something made possible by God through “great and precious promises” and “His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness”. Again this tells us something about God’s intention for His people – to be “conformed to the likeness of His Son”
Salvation is not about our future destiny it is about NOW. It is about being brought into relationship with God NOW. It is about being transformed NOW. It is about trusting in God NOW. It is submitting ourselves to God and His provision NOW so that day by day we increasingly become partakers of the divine nature. Day by day we are increasingly conformed to His likeness until that day when “the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” and He “will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body” and “ we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is”.
Jesus told us that He is the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except through Him. He did not say He is the way the truth and the life and no one avoids hell except through Him.
A secure eternal destiny, being with God in His new creation, is a continuation of our salvation. It is the result of a life lived IN salvation – a life lived IN CHRIST and obtaining a family likeness. It is the result of an ongoing relationship with God. Salvation is intended to bring us into that relationship. Escape from hell is a mere fringe benefit.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Commit mass murder then still go to heaven…
“There is nothing more dangerous than someone with two verses of Scripture that he has strung together to create a doctrine. We need to take the whole Bible into consideration.”
David Servant.
As a Father
by David Servant
Last month, George Sodini walked into a women's aerobics class at an LA Fitness Club just a few miles from where I live. He turned out the lights and began shooting into the darkness, firing fifty rounds. Within seconds, he killed three women and wounded nine others. Then he shot and killed himself.
According to his blog, he had been planning the killings and his suicide at LA Fitness for months in advance. In December, he wrote in that blog of the evangelical church he had attended for thirteen years, saying of the pastor, "This guy teaches (and convinced me) you can commit mass murder then still go to heaven."
Just one day before his murder spree and suicide, he wrote:
Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell.
complete article here:
As a Father
.
David Servant.
As a Father
by David Servant
Last month, George Sodini walked into a women's aerobics class at an LA Fitness Club just a few miles from where I live. He turned out the lights and began shooting into the darkness, firing fifty rounds. Within seconds, he killed three women and wounded nine others. Then he shot and killed himself.
According to his blog, he had been planning the killings and his suicide at LA Fitness for months in advance. In December, he wrote in that blog of the evangelical church he had attended for thirteen years, saying of the pastor, "This guy teaches (and convinced me) you can commit mass murder then still go to heaven."
Just one day before his murder spree and suicide, he wrote:
Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell.
complete article here:
As a Father
.
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.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Controversies: Scripture or Men’s Traditions?
There are countless controversies raging among those identified by the generic names of “Christian” or “Church”. Adherents to the various divisions of theology being promoted would all claim to be basing their views on scripture. But how can that be true unless scripture itself is divided and is intentionally contradictory.
It is my view that scripture is NOT the problem. Competing traditions arise when man departs from scripture and adds his own interpretations of what scripture needs to mean in order to confirm his preconceived doctrines.
It is a process that starts at the beginning of our Christian experience. As newcomers to the faith we are particularly vulnerable to the teachings of the church we attend and the particular doctrinal stance they take. It is so easy for us to trust the word of those we consider to be more mature in the faith and we rely on them more than personal study of the scriptures. By the time we do address the scriptures for ourselves, our reading has become coloured by the doctrines we expect to see proclaimed in the bible.
One of the clearest tests to see how our understanding of scripture has been adversely affected by traditional teachings is to assess whether we find ourselves trying to explain why scripture DOESN’T mean what it seems to be clearly saying: when it requires the performance of some energetic intellectual gymnastics to make the written word of scripture conform to our beliefs.
I am seeing more and more instances of spiritual-contortionists in action. Instead of starting with the clearest and simplest meaning of scripture, they start with a belief and search out “secondary” scriptures to “prove” that the clearest meaning of their initial reading can not be the right one.
Examples are found in the Calvinist response to:
Nothing could be clearer than the categorical statements that God wants ALL men to be saved and that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for ALL men. There is no way for the Calvinist to reconcile these statements with their doctrines of “Unconditional Election” and “Limited Atonement”, so they choose their doctrine above the clear and simple word of scripture.
That is merely one example, but almost any area of controversy could be examined in the same way, such as:
1) Spiritual gifts: valid or did they end with the Apostles?
2) The millennium: literal or symbolic
3) Rapture: pre-trib, mid-trib. Post trib or no trib?
4) Hell: eternal suffering, annihilationism or universal salvation?
5) Predestination: of an elect minority or of a collective body who are in Christ
6) Election: to salvation or to service
7) Baptism: essential or optional/ of babies or believers/ sprinkling or immersion
Where do OUR personal beliefs on these issues lie? With what scripture actually reveals? Or with what our tradition has taught us?
What are the simplest and clearest messages given in scripture relating to these issues? Does my belief conform with that clearest and simplest meaning? Or did I obtain my belief from men's teaching? Am I more interested in defending the teaching I received or am I more interested in what scripture says?
It is my view that scripture is NOT the problem. Competing traditions arise when man departs from scripture and adds his own interpretations of what scripture needs to mean in order to confirm his preconceived doctrines.
It is a process that starts at the beginning of our Christian experience. As newcomers to the faith we are particularly vulnerable to the teachings of the church we attend and the particular doctrinal stance they take. It is so easy for us to trust the word of those we consider to be more mature in the faith and we rely on them more than personal study of the scriptures. By the time we do address the scriptures for ourselves, our reading has become coloured by the doctrines we expect to see proclaimed in the bible.
One of the clearest tests to see how our understanding of scripture has been adversely affected by traditional teachings is to assess whether we find ourselves trying to explain why scripture DOESN’T mean what it seems to be clearly saying: when it requires the performance of some energetic intellectual gymnastics to make the written word of scripture conform to our beliefs.
I am seeing more and more instances of spiritual-contortionists in action. Instead of starting with the clearest and simplest meaning of scripture, they start with a belief and search out “secondary” scriptures to “prove” that the clearest meaning of their initial reading can not be the right one.
Examples are found in the Calvinist response to:
1 Tim2:3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men
Nothing could be clearer than the categorical statements that God wants ALL men to be saved and that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for ALL men. There is no way for the Calvinist to reconcile these statements with their doctrines of “Unconditional Election” and “Limited Atonement”, so they choose their doctrine above the clear and simple word of scripture.
That is merely one example, but almost any area of controversy could be examined in the same way, such as:
1) Spiritual gifts: valid or did they end with the Apostles?
2) The millennium: literal or symbolic
3) Rapture: pre-trib, mid-trib. Post trib or no trib?
4) Hell: eternal suffering, annihilationism or universal salvation?
5) Predestination: of an elect minority or of a collective body who are in Christ
6) Election: to salvation or to service
7) Baptism: essential or optional/ of babies or believers/ sprinkling or immersion
Where do OUR personal beliefs on these issues lie? With what scripture actually reveals? Or with what our tradition has taught us?
What are the simplest and clearest messages given in scripture relating to these issues? Does my belief conform with that clearest and simplest meaning? Or did I obtain my belief from men's teaching? Am I more interested in defending the teaching I received or am I more interested in what scripture says?
Friday, September 04, 2009
Scripture and Knowing God.
This is an answer to a comment made about the previous post. Due to the length I though it better to post it here instead of in the comments box.
-----------------------------
Knowing God begins before the new birth
When man comes into relationship with God through faith in Jesus that knowledge deepens to become something more personal. But to come into that relationship we need to have faith. And how do we have faith in someone we do not know?
Of course the Calvinist would put regeneration ahead of the ability to have faith. But scripture makes it clear that faith in Jesus comes first. It is the one who believes who is saved. The gospel is the power of God for the salvation of the one who believes. It is the one who believes (and continues to believe) in Jesus who will not perish but will have everlasting life…
I agree. Knowledge of scripture will not necessarily lead to knowledge of God. There is a requirement to ACT on what scripture says. It is DOING and not only HEARING that is required.
A growing understanding of scripture IS required if we are to grow in true knowledge of God. Without that understanding of scripture we can never be sure that it IS God that we are following. There are many deceptive voices in the world and also in the church, as Jesus warned. And of course, that warning comes to us through scripture, so an ignorance of scripture will also result in an ignorance of the dangers that scripture warns us about.
The article that I recommended (see previous post) addresses the disturbing tendency that many professing Christians display when they are ambivalent and at times antagonistic towards the scriptures. The results of this can be seen in the experience based “faith” being pursued by millions in the western world – a symptom of which was last year’s “Lakeland Revival”.
People are choosing hype and spectacle with the flimsiest of Christian veneers, and are promoting that as genuine Christianity. Those people get caught up because they choose to be ignorant of God’s word and thereby remain ignorant of the God who inspired that word.
They are easily led astray by false doctrine, and end up following a false god – because they have not learned to recognise and know the TRUE God
When we are first introduced to someone our knowledge of them is limited and relatively superficial. Like in ALL relationships, our knowing of God increases according to the time spent together and the quality of communication that takes place. If we shut ourselves off when someone tries to share their plans, hopes, desires and intentions – then our relationship will never develop. Instead it is likely to lapse and eventually come to an end.
In scripture God has given us a revelation of everything we need to know about Him and His plans for mankind. Ignore scripture and we will remain ignorant of God and His desires and will be susceptible to receiving false ideas in place of the truth we pushed aside.
-----------------------------
Knowing God begins before the new birth
From Romans:
…what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
When man comes into relationship with God through faith in Jesus that knowledge deepens to become something more personal. But to come into that relationship we need to have faith. And how do we have faith in someone we do not know?
Of course the Calvinist would put regeneration ahead of the ability to have faith. But scripture makes it clear that faith in Jesus comes first. It is the one who believes who is saved. The gospel is the power of God for the salvation of the one who believes. It is the one who believes (and continues to believe) in Jesus who will not perish but will have everlasting life…
I agree. Knowledge of scripture will not necessarily lead to knowledge of God. There is a requirement to ACT on what scripture says. It is DOING and not only HEARING that is required.
A growing understanding of scripture IS required if we are to grow in true knowledge of God. Without that understanding of scripture we can never be sure that it IS God that we are following. There are many deceptive voices in the world and also in the church, as Jesus warned. And of course, that warning comes to us through scripture, so an ignorance of scripture will also result in an ignorance of the dangers that scripture warns us about.
The article that I recommended (see previous post) addresses the disturbing tendency that many professing Christians display when they are ambivalent and at times antagonistic towards the scriptures. The results of this can be seen in the experience based “faith” being pursued by millions in the western world – a symptom of which was last year’s “Lakeland Revival”.
People are choosing hype and spectacle with the flimsiest of Christian veneers, and are promoting that as genuine Christianity. Those people get caught up because they choose to be ignorant of God’s word and thereby remain ignorant of the God who inspired that word.
They are easily led astray by false doctrine, and end up following a false god – because they have not learned to recognise and know the TRUE God
When we are first introduced to someone our knowledge of them is limited and relatively superficial. Like in ALL relationships, our knowing of God increases according to the time spent together and the quality of communication that takes place. If we shut ourselves off when someone tries to share their plans, hopes, desires and intentions – then our relationship will never develop. Instead it is likely to lapse and eventually come to an end.
In scripture God has given us a revelation of everything we need to know about Him and His plans for mankind. Ignore scripture and we will remain ignorant of God and His desires and will be susceptible to receiving false ideas in place of the truth we pushed aside.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Scripture under attack again.
Yet again I’ve come across an argument intended to reduce the importance of the Bible in the believer’s life. Not surprisingly it came from someone whose faith is based upon a theological system instead of the revelation of God that we have been given through scripture.
The argument mentions the billions of Christians throughout history who didn’t have access to the Bible and uses their example as a reason why it’s not necessary for US to pay too much attention to scripture.
The fact is that we DO have access to the Bible and as such we have no excuse for ignoring it. The generations that didn't have access to the bible will not be held accountable for what they did not have.
It's amazing that those who DO have easy access to the WHOLE of scripture (and usually multiple copies) are the ones who create reasons for ignoring most of it.
The argument mentions the billions of Christians throughout history who didn’t have access to the Bible and uses their example as a reason why it’s not necessary for US to pay too much attention to scripture.
The fact is that we DO have access to the Bible and as such we have no excuse for ignoring it. The generations that didn't have access to the bible will not be held accountable for what they did not have.
It's amazing that those who DO have easy access to the WHOLE of scripture (and usually multiple copies) are the ones who create reasons for ignoring most of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)