Some very important things I have learned:
Don't to rely too much on man's teachings and don't put too much trust in man's testimony.
No matter how "right" man's words may seem, no matter how appealing they may be, no matter how much they make sense, no matter how well they may "work":
Test all things.
Search the scriptures.
Trust God and His word not man and his word.
Showing posts with label Man's theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Man's theology. Show all posts
Monday, July 11, 2011
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The True Israel of God: recommended article
There is an insightful and recommended article here:
The True Israel of God
It discusses God’s relationship with Israel as revealed through scripture, compared to God’s relationship with Israel according to man.
Where we stand on this issue depends on who we believe and who we follow: God and His word or man and apostate theology.
The True Israel of God
It discusses God’s relationship with Israel as revealed through scripture, compared to God’s relationship with Israel according to man.
Where we stand on this issue depends on who we believe and who we follow: God and His word or man and apostate theology.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Scripture Diminished and Downplayed: a continuing concern
Are there false doctrines and deceivers around today?
Of course there are – but how are they recognised and how do we avoid becoming victim to them?
Our foundational defence is scripture, the word of God. One of the first warning signs given that everything is NOT ok, is often the way scripture is treated. Downplay the scriptures, or pick and choose which bits are really inspired, and we open the gate wide for everyone to determine what is right in their own eyes.
We open the gate wide to every deceiving spirit to come (claiming to be the Holy Spirit), whispering all manner of false revelation into our ears.
Unfortunately the denigration of scripture has become common practice among some professing Christians, and open forums and blogs tend to give them a platform to promote their ideas. Usually they dress their message in very spiritual sounding terms in which the Holy Spirit is presented as superseding His inspired word, making scripture almost unnecessary. Why do we need scripture when we have God Himself inside?
Others will make the claim that JESUS is the Living word of God and we should relate to Him and not words on a page (which by implication or even direct statement are dismissed as NOT being the word of God).
The questioning of the nature of scripture is not uncommon. This is especially true of those who have had their faith shaken at some stage, with the realisation that most things they were taught and took for granted were wrong. If everything else was wrong – what about our understanding of what scripture is? Is it really “the word of God”? Was it really inspired by the Holy Spirit? Weren’t the writers fallible men who could make mistakes?
I’ve seen all of these questions, and in the past I asked some of them myself.
But it is ironic that those who try to question the authority of scripture often do so by referring to PARTS of scripture to defend their viewpoint.
A popular quote used for this purpose is:
John 5:39-40
“You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”
These verses are not diminishing the importance of scripture; they specifically state that the scriptures testify about Jesus! He was NOT criticising the Pharisees for studying the scriptures, He was criticising them for not seeing what was THERE in the scriptures. Like in so many cases today the actual content of scripture was replaced by other things – like tradition and theology.
So often we are too keen to read our doctrines INTO scripture that we blind ourselves to what scripture is actually saying. This practice seems to be ingrained into us, by example, through a lot of preaching within the church. A preacher will base a sermon on a “text”, he will then make several points based around his application of that “text” – and will usually throw in a sampling of other “texts” from around the bible to add extra support for his points.
Most listeners will take it all in without a second thought, with no questions about what has been said. Others will be a little more diligent and will note down the references and check them later for themselves, but in doing so will fail to check the context to see whether the “texts” were being applied correctly. The common attitude is to do nothing more than check whether the references are in scripture or not.
In effect we are not learning what scripture is REALLY saying, we learn what the preacher is telling us that it says. We are also adopting a wrong understanding of how scripture should be handled.
Scripture is NOT a collection of disconnected texts to apply according to personal preference. Scripture is a collection of books that must be addressed according to context to see what those books are saying. No prophecy of scripture is open to private interpretation.
We should be determining what the Spirit was and is saying through the words He inspired men to write?
At one time Jesus said: "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.”
And that truth remains – people fall into error because they do not know the scriptures.
So often there has been an obsession with “the power of God” at the expense of the Scriptures, and people run here and there whenever rumours of displays of power are heard. If scripture had been given the same importance as “the power” those people may have become more familiar with what Jesus said:
“…if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time.
"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.”
Heeding those warnings about the coming end-times should make everyone wary of running here and there in response to reports of “the anointed one” (the Christ) being in a particular place performing great signs and miracles.
But how can those warnings be heeded if the importance and authority of scripture is ignored or dismissed
------
Blessed are those who do not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers,
but who delight in the law of the LORD and meditate on his law* day and night.
They are like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither— whatever they do prospers.
(Psalm 1)
Of course there are – but how are they recognised and how do we avoid becoming victim to them?
Our foundational defence is scripture, the word of God. One of the first warning signs given that everything is NOT ok, is often the way scripture is treated. Downplay the scriptures, or pick and choose which bits are really inspired, and we open the gate wide for everyone to determine what is right in their own eyes.
We open the gate wide to every deceiving spirit to come (claiming to be the Holy Spirit), whispering all manner of false revelation into our ears.
Unfortunately the denigration of scripture has become common practice among some professing Christians, and open forums and blogs tend to give them a platform to promote their ideas. Usually they dress their message in very spiritual sounding terms in which the Holy Spirit is presented as superseding His inspired word, making scripture almost unnecessary. Why do we need scripture when we have God Himself inside?
Others will make the claim that JESUS is the Living word of God and we should relate to Him and not words on a page (which by implication or even direct statement are dismissed as NOT being the word of God).
The questioning of the nature of scripture is not uncommon. This is especially true of those who have had their faith shaken at some stage, with the realisation that most things they were taught and took for granted were wrong. If everything else was wrong – what about our understanding of what scripture is? Is it really “the word of God”? Was it really inspired by the Holy Spirit? Weren’t the writers fallible men who could make mistakes?
I’ve seen all of these questions, and in the past I asked some of them myself.
But it is ironic that those who try to question the authority of scripture often do so by referring to PARTS of scripture to defend their viewpoint.
A popular quote used for this purpose is:
John 5:39-40
“You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”
These verses are not diminishing the importance of scripture; they specifically state that the scriptures testify about Jesus! He was NOT criticising the Pharisees for studying the scriptures, He was criticising them for not seeing what was THERE in the scriptures. Like in so many cases today the actual content of scripture was replaced by other things – like tradition and theology.
So often we are too keen to read our doctrines INTO scripture that we blind ourselves to what scripture is actually saying. This practice seems to be ingrained into us, by example, through a lot of preaching within the church. A preacher will base a sermon on a “text”, he will then make several points based around his application of that “text” – and will usually throw in a sampling of other “texts” from around the bible to add extra support for his points.
Most listeners will take it all in without a second thought, with no questions about what has been said. Others will be a little more diligent and will note down the references and check them later for themselves, but in doing so will fail to check the context to see whether the “texts” were being applied correctly. The common attitude is to do nothing more than check whether the references are in scripture or not.
In effect we are not learning what scripture is REALLY saying, we learn what the preacher is telling us that it says. We are also adopting a wrong understanding of how scripture should be handled.
Scripture is NOT a collection of disconnected texts to apply according to personal preference. Scripture is a collection of books that must be addressed according to context to see what those books are saying. No prophecy of scripture is open to private interpretation.
We should be determining what the Spirit was and is saying through the words He inspired men to write?
At one time Jesus said: "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.”
And that truth remains – people fall into error because they do not know the scriptures.
So often there has been an obsession with “the power of God” at the expense of the Scriptures, and people run here and there whenever rumours of displays of power are heard. If scripture had been given the same importance as “the power” those people may have become more familiar with what Jesus said:
“…if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time.
"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.”
Heeding those warnings about the coming end-times should make everyone wary of running here and there in response to reports of “the anointed one” (the Christ) being in a particular place performing great signs and miracles.
But how can those warnings be heeded if the importance and authority of scripture is ignored or dismissed
------
Blessed are those who do not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers,
but who delight in the law of the LORD and meditate on his law* day and night.
They are like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither— whatever they do prospers.
(Psalm 1)
Friday, April 16, 2010
Predestined by God
Here is an excellent article covering predestination, Foreknowledge, OSAS, Romans 9, Free will and many other issues that have been distorted by the theologies of men.
This article brings a BIBLICAL view of these issues.
Predestined by God
.
This article brings a BIBLICAL view of these issues.
Predestined by God
.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Relativism. On denying God and gravity.
There is an attitude I’ve experienced that I’m having trouble understanding. I think it exposes the depths of human pride and arrogance and is a clear example of the relativism pervading human thought (especially WESTERN thought).
How do I describe it?
Well - it’s the kind of thinking that assumes our own beliefs are what is important and those beliefs make our own reality.
The particular example I have in mind was a discussion with a person who assumed that his non-belief in God excused him from any possible consequences for that non-belief.
There was no recognition of a firm concrete truth that remains firm and concrete regardless of human belief.
Every human on earth could deny God’s existence and that would make absolutely no difference to whether God exists or not.
Likewise, every human could believe strongly in God and that belief would make absolutely no difference to whether God exists or not.
Either he REALLY exists or He doesn't - and it would be foolish to think our own beliefs make a difference to that truth.
I could deny the reality of gravity, but my non-belief would not protect me from the consequences of jumping from a plane without a parachute. Therefore if I intended to jump from a plane I would be wise to check out the validity of my belief before it became too late.
How do I describe it?
Well - it’s the kind of thinking that assumes our own beliefs are what is important and those beliefs make our own reality.
The particular example I have in mind was a discussion with a person who assumed that his non-belief in God excused him from any possible consequences for that non-belief.
There was no recognition of a firm concrete truth that remains firm and concrete regardless of human belief.
Every human on earth could deny God’s existence and that would make absolutely no difference to whether God exists or not.
Likewise, every human could believe strongly in God and that belief would make absolutely no difference to whether God exists or not.
Either he REALLY exists or He doesn't - and it would be foolish to think our own beliefs make a difference to that truth.
I could deny the reality of gravity, but my non-belief would not protect me from the consequences of jumping from a plane without a parachute. Therefore if I intended to jump from a plane I would be wise to check out the validity of my belief before it became too late.
Friday, January 22, 2010
AUGUSTINE. An article by William Birch
Here is an link to a recommended article AUGUSTINE: THE INTRODUCTION OF AUGUSTINIANISM (AND LATER CALVINISM) INTO THE CHURCH
By William Birch (excerpt below).
By William Birch (excerpt below).
When one considers the amount of false, and at times heretical, views to which he held, it is truly a wonder how he became such an authority or cherished figure in the Protestant Church. In some circles, to quote Augustine is tantamount to quoting Scripture.
But for the purpose of this post, one thing stands out above his other errors. It is more than merely interesting that Augustine was the first one to introduce the idea that God had unconditionally elected some unto faith and salvation by decree and not others. And this he did not attribute to God's foreknowledge of forseen faith or rejection of Christ, as did his predecessors, but to God's sole prior decision and delight.
Even more shocking, however, in light of his novelty of unconditional election, was his statement, that, "It is, indeed, to be wondered at, and greatly to be wondered at, that to some of His own children ~ whom He has regenerated in Christ ~ to whom He has given faith, hope, and love, God does not give perseverance also." One seldom hears the Calvinist quoting this statement from Augustine.
.
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, December 01, 2009
Sovereignty: True and False
Which of the following is most consistent with a biblical view of God’s sovereignty?
1) God is sovereign; therefore everything that happens within His creation has been predetermined and controlled by God. If anything happened that was contrary to God’s specific will (including anything that man does), then God’s sovereignty would be compromised. To maintain the integrity of His sovereignty, God and God alone chooses which individuals will be saved and will ensure that they are saved no matter what their individual attitudes towards God may have been. Man has no part to play (and no responsibility at all) regarding his own salvation or damnation because that would undermine God’s sovereignty.
Or
2) God is sovereign; therefore He alone has the sovereign right to determine the purpose for which His creation exists and He alone has the right to determine the laws and conditions by which His creation exists and continues to exist. By His sovereign choice He has given a degree of free will to mankind. God does not control man’s choices and actions but He has made mankind responsible for the choices he makes within that freedom given to him by God. God and God alone has determined the consequences for man’s obedience or disobedience. Man is able to make choices that are contrary to God’s will but as a result of that disobedience will suffer the penalty that God has ordained and that God will enforce. God expresses His sovereignty in a way of His own choosing to obtain an outcome of His own choosing. That outcome includes the adoption of men and women who willingly respond to the gift He has given to all – His Son Jesus
-----------------------
I wrote the two alternatives above because of the following (deleted) comment left earlier on this blog, submitted by the multi-pseudonymed Calvinist who may be familiar from other threads.
In addition to the above alternative types of “sovereignty” I would ask which is the TRULY sovereign God:
1) One who can not maintain sovereignty unless he personally controls everything and everyone; who has to personally control every thought and action otherwise he can not be sure that his sovereign will can come to fruition. A god who needs to control man’s thought and action to ensure he has followers (even though they are followers against their will).
2) One who is secure enough in His sovereignty that He can allow man a degree of free will to enable man to become willing followers.
The issue of the definition of sovereignty depends upon what kind of God and gospel we believe; and how secure He and His sovereignty really are.
I’ve used the illustration before – what kind of God do you worship?
1) One who creates a Stepford wife for His son? A wife who “loves” because she is programmed to do so and has no real feeling for her husband?
Or
2) One who seeks a willing bride, a bride who can willingly respond with genuine love and affection for the bridegroom?
And note the common accusation at the end of “the evangelical’s” comment. It is an accusation many make in an attempt to discredit a person and his point of view without actually addressing the issue. They accuse a person of thinking they know it all because that person dares to oppose their own beliefs.
No I do not know it all – but I know enough to approach the whole of scripture with integrity so I can understand what God is revealing, and not merely use parts of scripture to support what I have already determined to believe.
Also, the claim about all pagan systems being ‘synergistic” is very ironic, considering that Calvinism shares the fatalistic viewpoint of both paganism and Islam.
1) God is sovereign; therefore everything that happens within His creation has been predetermined and controlled by God. If anything happened that was contrary to God’s specific will (including anything that man does), then God’s sovereignty would be compromised. To maintain the integrity of His sovereignty, God and God alone chooses which individuals will be saved and will ensure that they are saved no matter what their individual attitudes towards God may have been. Man has no part to play (and no responsibility at all) regarding his own salvation or damnation because that would undermine God’s sovereignty.
Or
2) God is sovereign; therefore He alone has the sovereign right to determine the purpose for which His creation exists and He alone has the right to determine the laws and conditions by which His creation exists and continues to exist. By His sovereign choice He has given a degree of free will to mankind. God does not control man’s choices and actions but He has made mankind responsible for the choices he makes within that freedom given to him by God. God and God alone has determined the consequences for man’s obedience or disobedience. Man is able to make choices that are contrary to God’s will but as a result of that disobedience will suffer the penalty that God has ordained and that God will enforce. God expresses His sovereignty in a way of His own choosing to obtain an outcome of His own choosing. That outcome includes the adoption of men and women who willingly respond to the gift He has given to all – His Son Jesus
-----------------------
I wrote the two alternatives above because of the following (deleted) comment left earlier on this blog, submitted by the multi-pseudonymed Calvinist who may be familiar from other threads.
the evangelical has left a new comment on your post "Frustration and Cranial Bruising":
"These people respect God’s revelation more than man’s theology"--excepting of course the revelation of His absolute sovereignty.
Really, Tim, which is it--monergism or synergism? The truth is humbling. All pagan systems are synergistic. ALL. What does that say about your synergistic system? Oh, but of course you alone hold all knowledge, and wisdom will die with you. Academics; head knowledge--or new birth...
In addition to the above alternative types of “sovereignty” I would ask which is the TRULY sovereign God:
1) One who can not maintain sovereignty unless he personally controls everything and everyone; who has to personally control every thought and action otherwise he can not be sure that his sovereign will can come to fruition. A god who needs to control man’s thought and action to ensure he has followers (even though they are followers against their will).
2) One who is secure enough in His sovereignty that He can allow man a degree of free will to enable man to become willing followers.
The issue of the definition of sovereignty depends upon what kind of God and gospel we believe; and how secure He and His sovereignty really are.
I’ve used the illustration before – what kind of God do you worship?
1) One who creates a Stepford wife for His son? A wife who “loves” because she is programmed to do so and has no real feeling for her husband?
Or
2) One who seeks a willing bride, a bride who can willingly respond with genuine love and affection for the bridegroom?
And note the common accusation at the end of “the evangelical’s” comment. It is an accusation many make in an attempt to discredit a person and his point of view without actually addressing the issue. They accuse a person of thinking they know it all because that person dares to oppose their own beliefs.
No I do not know it all – but I know enough to approach the whole of scripture with integrity so I can understand what God is revealing, and not merely use parts of scripture to support what I have already determined to believe.
Also, the claim about all pagan systems being ‘synergistic” is very ironic, considering that Calvinism shares the fatalistic viewpoint of both paganism and Islam.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Frustration and Cranial Bruising
I have been very discouraged in recent months, after seeing scripture so often being twisted and distorted to support beliefs that are clearly contrary to God’s revelation. Seeing this happening on every side makes me wonder why I should consider myself to be right and so many others wrong.
I do NOT consider myself immune to error – especially knowing that I’ve been VERY wrong in the past. The main difference now is that I’m learning to recognise the clarity and simplicity of scripture when it is taken in context. Those people who have concerned me have ALL taken parts of scripture and used them in ways that don’t fit clear context. An obvious example relates to Ezekiel 36 (see previous post) which has come up recently on different and unrelated blogs. In all cases the majority of Ezekiel’s prophecy is ignored and attention is given to two or three verses at the most – because to consider the WHOLE text as written would require an overhaul of attitudes to Israel.
I have also seen the same proof texting going on regarding other theologies. Most theological understanding seems to depend on chosen portions of scripture at the expense of others (i.e. those parts of scripture that cast questions upon a favoured doctrine are ignored or creatively re-interpreted).
There seems to be very few people who genuinely recognise the importance of scriptural context. It is far easier, more convenient, and less challenging to rely on pre-digested theology that requires little more than knowledge of a handful of proof texts.
How can anyone claim to have a desire for truth when they go to such lengths to ignore what scripture is plainly saying? How can they ignore so much as they look for verses here and there to support what they want to believe?
Not only is there a manipulation of scripture, there is the blatant misrepresentation of the beliefs of others. When justification of their own beliefs starts to get difficult, they distort the beliefs of others and then refute the distortion they have created.
The meaning of the term “banging one’s head against a wall” is totally clear when trying to discuss an issue with people who are so blinded by their own theological conditioning that they refuse to consider what others are actually saying – but instead project their own presuppositions into what has been said.
For example, in a discussion here, addressing Israel and replacement theology there is a refusal to recognise that NO ONE has been saying that Israel can be saved apart from the New Covenant. What HAS been said is that Israel WILL ONE DAY be saved by entering into the New Covenant. It is not a matter of present day reality, but a matter of prophetic certainty.
Returning to the earlier question of why I can consider myself to be right and so many others wrong…
It’s because I have come across enough people from diverse backgrounds who have NOT bowed their knee to theological systems that resort to distorting scripture to maintain a semblance of credibility. These people respect God’s revelation more than man’s theology and have been willing to change their direction, sometimes at great sacrifice, when their beliefs and practices have been exposed as false by the light of God’s word. These people encourage and challenge me. None would claim to have reached perfect understanding – but at least they are following the right path and are open to the Spirit’s direction if ever they start to deviate from that path.
I do NOT consider myself immune to error – especially knowing that I’ve been VERY wrong in the past. The main difference now is that I’m learning to recognise the clarity and simplicity of scripture when it is taken in context. Those people who have concerned me have ALL taken parts of scripture and used them in ways that don’t fit clear context. An obvious example relates to Ezekiel 36 (see previous post) which has come up recently on different and unrelated blogs. In all cases the majority of Ezekiel’s prophecy is ignored and attention is given to two or three verses at the most – because to consider the WHOLE text as written would require an overhaul of attitudes to Israel.
I have also seen the same proof texting going on regarding other theologies. Most theological understanding seems to depend on chosen portions of scripture at the expense of others (i.e. those parts of scripture that cast questions upon a favoured doctrine are ignored or creatively re-interpreted).
There seems to be very few people who genuinely recognise the importance of scriptural context. It is far easier, more convenient, and less challenging to rely on pre-digested theology that requires little more than knowledge of a handful of proof texts.
How can anyone claim to have a desire for truth when they go to such lengths to ignore what scripture is plainly saying? How can they ignore so much as they look for verses here and there to support what they want to believe?
Not only is there a manipulation of scripture, there is the blatant misrepresentation of the beliefs of others. When justification of their own beliefs starts to get difficult, they distort the beliefs of others and then refute the distortion they have created.
The meaning of the term “banging one’s head against a wall” is totally clear when trying to discuss an issue with people who are so blinded by their own theological conditioning that they refuse to consider what others are actually saying – but instead project their own presuppositions into what has been said.
For example, in a discussion here, addressing Israel and replacement theology there is a refusal to recognise that NO ONE has been saying that Israel can be saved apart from the New Covenant. What HAS been said is that Israel WILL ONE DAY be saved by entering into the New Covenant. It is not a matter of present day reality, but a matter of prophetic certainty.
Returning to the earlier question of why I can consider myself to be right and so many others wrong…
It’s because I have come across enough people from diverse backgrounds who have NOT bowed their knee to theological systems that resort to distorting scripture to maintain a semblance of credibility. These people respect God’s revelation more than man’s theology and have been willing to change their direction, sometimes at great sacrifice, when their beliefs and practices have been exposed as false by the light of God’s word. These people encourage and challenge me. None would claim to have reached perfect understanding – but at least they are following the right path and are open to the Spirit’s direction if ever they start to deviate from that path.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Ezekiel 36: Context or Creative Theology
I believe that Scripture should be understood according to its simplest and most straight forward meaning unless the context determines that the meaning is not literal. Who am I to determine which parts of scripture don’t really mean what they seem to be clearly saying?
We cannot legitimately take a couple of verses out of their intended context and apply them in whatever way WE see fit. Unfortunately it has become a common practice to support a favoured theology by applying PARTS of scripture to an argument while ignoring the intended context of those parts of scripture.
I have recently seen a case of this in action where two verses of Ezekiel 36 were used to support a particular view of “regeneration”. However, those verses were part of a prophecy directed specifically at the people of Israel. The argument being made ignored that and concentrated on the chosen verses, projecting into them an argument about the nature and timing of “regeneration”.
That case showed that the same out of context portion of scripture can be used to support totally opposite beliefs - depending on what a person wants it to say, and depending on which surrounding parts of scripture are omitted
Such a misuse of scripture – using it to promote predetermined ends – will NEVER lead to knowledge of the truth. It will merely keep us entrenched in our chosen theology, blind to the revelation that God has given to His children.
In the Ezekiel 36 example, the proof-texting practice was defended with the assertion that New Testament writers also approached Old Testament writings in this way. Apart from the fact that WE are not among the writers of the NT scriptures and do not share their revelatory authority; what happens when two different theological viewpoints are using the same set of verses to support their opposite conclusions? Who determines which viewpoint (if any) is correct? Both use the same approach to biblical understanding but their conclusions differ according to which PARTS of the scripture are referenced
It is CONTEXT that determines the correct viewpoint.
Ezekiel 36 is NOT a general discourse on how and when regeneration occurs – it is a prophecy about Israel’s restoration as a physical nation (when they do not deserve it) and their ultimate restoration to fellowship with the God of Israel (AFTER they have been restored to the land, AFTER they have been taken from the nations, AFTER they have been gathered from all the countries).
All of this is NOT for Israel’s benefit but to show the holiness of God’s great name.
“Then the nations around you that remain will know that I the LORD have rebuilt what was destroyed and have replanted what was desolate. I the LORD have spoken and I WILL do it.”
That rebuilding and replanting that will be recognised by the surrounding nations has not yet taken place. Will the Lord do it as He said? Or do we “spiritualise” those promises and make them mean what WE want them to mean?
Proof texting is the lifeblood of human theology. Consider scripture according to its intended context and theology will be less prone to error.
Read and consider the WHOLE of the prophecy given in Ezekiel 36 – not just the verse or two that can be manipulated to suit a theological argument.
----------------
The example I refer to above can be found here:
ezekiel-36:26-27-regeneration-
We cannot legitimately take a couple of verses out of their intended context and apply them in whatever way WE see fit. Unfortunately it has become a common practice to support a favoured theology by applying PARTS of scripture to an argument while ignoring the intended context of those parts of scripture.
I have recently seen a case of this in action where two verses of Ezekiel 36 were used to support a particular view of “regeneration”. However, those verses were part of a prophecy directed specifically at the people of Israel. The argument being made ignored that and concentrated on the chosen verses, projecting into them an argument about the nature and timing of “regeneration”.
That case showed that the same out of context portion of scripture can be used to support totally opposite beliefs - depending on what a person wants it to say, and depending on which surrounding parts of scripture are omitted
Such a misuse of scripture – using it to promote predetermined ends – will NEVER lead to knowledge of the truth. It will merely keep us entrenched in our chosen theology, blind to the revelation that God has given to His children.
In the Ezekiel 36 example, the proof-texting practice was defended with the assertion that New Testament writers also approached Old Testament writings in this way. Apart from the fact that WE are not among the writers of the NT scriptures and do not share their revelatory authority; what happens when two different theological viewpoints are using the same set of verses to support their opposite conclusions? Who determines which viewpoint (if any) is correct? Both use the same approach to biblical understanding but their conclusions differ according to which PARTS of the scripture are referenced
It is CONTEXT that determines the correct viewpoint.
Ezekiel 36 is NOT a general discourse on how and when regeneration occurs – it is a prophecy about Israel’s restoration as a physical nation (when they do not deserve it) and their ultimate restoration to fellowship with the God of Israel (AFTER they have been restored to the land, AFTER they have been taken from the nations, AFTER they have been gathered from all the countries).
All of this is NOT for Israel’s benefit but to show the holiness of God’s great name.
“Then the nations around you that remain will know that I the LORD have rebuilt what was destroyed and have replanted what was desolate. I the LORD have spoken and I WILL do it.”
That rebuilding and replanting that will be recognised by the surrounding nations has not yet taken place. Will the Lord do it as He said? Or do we “spiritualise” those promises and make them mean what WE want them to mean?
Proof texting is the lifeblood of human theology. Consider scripture according to its intended context and theology will be less prone to error.
Read and consider the WHOLE of the prophecy given in Ezekiel 36 – not just the verse or two that can be manipulated to suit a theological argument.
----------------
The example I refer to above can be found here:
ezekiel-36:26-27-regeneration-
Monday, October 19, 2009
A Question for My Beloved Calvinists
Another recommended article written by David Servant.
A Question for My Beloved Calvinists
by David Servant
Those who have been reading with me through the New Testament chronologically---by means of our daily emailed devotional that we call HeavenWord Daily---know that I am not a Calvinist. In fact, practically every time we happen upon one of the many passages of Scripture that contradict the doctrines of Calvinism, I point it out. Consequently, I've pointed out scores of scriptures that illustrate where Calvinism deviates from biblical truth.
For readers who may not know what Calvinism is, let me briefly explain. Calvinists believe that, in eternity past, God sovereignly selected some people to be saved, and thus He also sovereignly selected everyone else to be damned. At a pre-determined point during the lifetimes of those who are allegedly pre-selected for salvation, God draws them irresistibly, and they are born again. Calvinists also believe, and understandably so, that Jesus did not die for the sins of everyone. Rather, He only died for those whom He allegedly predestined for salvation. Finally, because Calvinists believe that salvation does not depend on any person's free will and only upon the sovereign decree and action of God, they also believe that no genuinely-saved person could possibly ever become unsaved. Once genuinely saved, people are guaranteed to be saved in the end, which is probably the most attractive element of Calvinism, and which may explain why some people readily embrace it. Once a person is convinced that he has been sovereignly pre-selected for salvation, he knows he has salvation "in the bag."
I would like to offer some food for thought for Calvinists, ending with a challenge, and at the same time fortify non-Calvinists from being persuaded by some common Calvinist arguments.
Full article is here:
Question for Calvinists
A Question for My Beloved Calvinists
by David Servant
Those who have been reading with me through the New Testament chronologically---by means of our daily emailed devotional that we call HeavenWord Daily---know that I am not a Calvinist. In fact, practically every time we happen upon one of the many passages of Scripture that contradict the doctrines of Calvinism, I point it out. Consequently, I've pointed out scores of scriptures that illustrate where Calvinism deviates from biblical truth.
For readers who may not know what Calvinism is, let me briefly explain. Calvinists believe that, in eternity past, God sovereignly selected some people to be saved, and thus He also sovereignly selected everyone else to be damned. At a pre-determined point during the lifetimes of those who are allegedly pre-selected for salvation, God draws them irresistibly, and they are born again. Calvinists also believe, and understandably so, that Jesus did not die for the sins of everyone. Rather, He only died for those whom He allegedly predestined for salvation. Finally, because Calvinists believe that salvation does not depend on any person's free will and only upon the sovereign decree and action of God, they also believe that no genuinely-saved person could possibly ever become unsaved. Once genuinely saved, people are guaranteed to be saved in the end, which is probably the most attractive element of Calvinism, and which may explain why some people readily embrace it. Once a person is convinced that he has been sovereignly pre-selected for salvation, he knows he has salvation "in the bag."
I would like to offer some food for thought for Calvinists, ending with a challenge, and at the same time fortify non-Calvinists from being persuaded by some common Calvinist arguments.
Full article is here:
Question for Calvinists
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
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?
Monday, August 24, 2009
Martyred For Resisting Man’s Theology: Joan Waste
I’ve been doing some reading about the history of the area where I spent my childhood. I was born in Burton-on Trent in England and for my first 13 years lived in South Derbyshire.
I was interested to come across the story of Joan Waste, a blind woman who was martyred for her faith during the reign of Queen Mary.
Even though she was blind she wanted a bible of her own, intending to find someone who would read it to her. Despite the expense she worked and saved until she was able to afford a New Testament. She then had the problem of finding someone willing to read to her on a daily basis. Eventually she found an old man in Derby jail, imprisoned for not paying his debts. He appreciated her visits and read to her on a daily basis until his health started to fail.
She then turned to the Clerk of All Saints Church (now Derby Cathedral) and persuaded him to read to her. When he was not available others would charge her a penny to read a few chapters. A penny was about a full days pay
Joan started memorising passages of scripture and began to speak out against false religion which abounded at the time.
Edward VI died in early 1553 and his Roman Catholic sister Mary became Queen. Almost straight away attendance at the Roman Catholic Mass was once again made compulsory and Protestantism was denounced. Joan refused to attend mass and at twenty two years of age was summoned to appear before the Bishop on a charge of Heresy.
Joan declared that she believed only the things taught by Scripture and told them was also ready to give her life for her faith rather than embrace Catholicism.
The order was given to burn Joan to death. She was taken away to a place called the Windmill Pit on the Burton Road in Derby where, holding her brother's hand, she prepared herself for execution.
She was hanged over the fire with a rope and she fell into the fire when the rope burned through.
There is a memorial to her in Birchover church Derbyshire. The place where she was executed is now the site of a Roman Catholic Church.
I was interested to come across the story of Joan Waste, a blind woman who was martyred for her faith during the reign of Queen Mary.
Even though she was blind she wanted a bible of her own, intending to find someone who would read it to her. Despite the expense she worked and saved until she was able to afford a New Testament. She then had the problem of finding someone willing to read to her on a daily basis. Eventually she found an old man in Derby jail, imprisoned for not paying his debts. He appreciated her visits and read to her on a daily basis until his health started to fail.
She then turned to the Clerk of All Saints Church (now Derby Cathedral) and persuaded him to read to her. When he was not available others would charge her a penny to read a few chapters. A penny was about a full days pay
Joan started memorising passages of scripture and began to speak out against false religion which abounded at the time.
Edward VI died in early 1553 and his Roman Catholic sister Mary became Queen. Almost straight away attendance at the Roman Catholic Mass was once again made compulsory and Protestantism was denounced. Joan refused to attend mass and at twenty two years of age was summoned to appear before the Bishop on a charge of Heresy.
Joan declared that she believed only the things taught by Scripture and told them was also ready to give her life for her faith rather than embrace Catholicism.
The order was given to burn Joan to death. She was taken away to a place called the Windmill Pit on the Burton Road in Derby where, holding her brother's hand, she prepared herself for execution.
She was hanged over the fire with a rope and she fell into the fire when the rope burned through.
There is a memorial to her in Birchover church Derbyshire. The place where she was executed is now the site of a Roman Catholic Church.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
GOD IN THE HANDS OF ANGRY CALVINISTS by William Watson Birch
The article linked below would be worthwhile just for the title alone. But don’t stop there, read the whole lot!
GOD IN HANDS OF ANGRY CALVINISTS
This part at the beginning immediately stood out:
“According to John Piper, typically, certain types of people are prone to accepting Calvinism. "What types of people are these?" you ask. These, according to Piper, are the intellectual types…”
After reading some of the Calvinist arguments I’ve seen lately, that statement does not surprise me. The arguments have paid little regard for scripture but have been centred on “reasoning” the “truth”. For example, if God really wanted all to be saved, then all WOULD be saved. All are not saved, therefore the atonement is limited. This application of reason results in an outcome that is totally contrary to clear scriptural statements.
I have also found that the Calvinist obsession with election and predestination is based on particular interpretations being projected into various texts. However a clear leap in logic needs to be taken when references to predestination and election are assumed to be referring to “unconditionally elected for salvation”.
That leap of logic is not warranted, and in reality it leads to an entirely false conclusion that contradicts many CLEAR and CATEGORICAL scriptural statements.
(See 1 Corinthians 1: 17-29 regarding man’s wisdom and intellect.)
GOD IN HANDS OF ANGRY CALVINISTS
This part at the beginning immediately stood out:
“According to John Piper, typically, certain types of people are prone to accepting Calvinism. "What types of people are these?" you ask. These, according to Piper, are the intellectual types…”
After reading some of the Calvinist arguments I’ve seen lately, that statement does not surprise me. The arguments have paid little regard for scripture but have been centred on “reasoning” the “truth”. For example, if God really wanted all to be saved, then all WOULD be saved. All are not saved, therefore the atonement is limited. This application of reason results in an outcome that is totally contrary to clear scriptural statements.
I have also found that the Calvinist obsession with election and predestination is based on particular interpretations being projected into various texts. However a clear leap in logic needs to be taken when references to predestination and election are assumed to be referring to “unconditionally elected for salvation”.
That leap of logic is not warranted, and in reality it leads to an entirely false conclusion that contradicts many CLEAR and CATEGORICAL scriptural statements.
(See 1 Corinthians 1: 17-29 regarding man’s wisdom and intellect.)
Monday, July 06, 2009
LIMITED ATONEMENT IN JOHN 10?
In the comments section of my previous article (Election, Salvation & God’s Purposes) I was asked the following (relating to John 10):
-----
-----
I see that the question above specifically relates to the Calvinist doctrine of “Limited Atonement” but a second Calvinist doctrine is also inferred due to its close relationship to the first. It is that of Unconditional Election: that God unconditionally elected some to be saved, and that Jesus laid down His life ONLY for those whom God had unconditionally elected for salvation.
Firstly, before considering the portion of scripture quoted, I again draw attention to the fact that scripture as a whole is a revelation of God and His purposes. Any interpretation of a PORTION of scripture MUST be compatible with the revelation contained in the rest of scripture. If an interpretation contradicts the clear meaning of the rest of scripture, that interpretation is clearly wrong.
The excerpt from John, taken in isolation, could be seen to give some support for the Calvinist doctrines that are alluded to in the question. However, should that inferred support lead us to ignore very CLEAR statements elsewhere in scripture that categorically say that God desires ALL to be saved and that he provided His Son to die for ALL and not a limited few?
“This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires ALL people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”(1Ti 2:3-4)
“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that ALL should reach repentance.” (2Pe 3:9)
"For God so loved THE WORLD, that he gave his only Son, that WHOEVER believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that THE WORLD MIGHT BE SAVED through him. (John 3:16 -17)
“And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL people to myself." (Joh 12:32)
“For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on ALL.” (Rom 11:32)
Could any statements about God’s will be CLEARER than those? Are they in any way compatible with the view that God has already chosen an elect few to be saved, and by His will and His will alone has determined that the rest will be damned for eternity?
Therefore is it even remotely possible that John 10 is promoting those Calvinist doctrines of limited atonement and unconditional election when it is made blatantly clear elsewhere in scripture that He desires ALL to be saved and that he gave His Son for THE WORLD and not for a pre-elected minority?
Clearly not without some very creative redefining of what is meant by some very simple words such as ALL, the WORLD and WHOEVER.
Unfortunately, that is exactly the approach taken by those who choose to protect their theology from the exposing light of scripture. When scripture reads “ALL” the Calvinist sees “All of the elect”, and therefore changes the meaning of scripture to enable him to justify his theology.
So how do we reconcile John 10 with the broader view of scripture, as demonstrated above? Who are the sheep according to Jesus?
The answer is given half way through the excerpt from John 10.
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” (John 10:27)
His sheep are those who hear His voice and follow Him. Those who do not hear His voice and follow Him are not His sheep. We see elsewhere in scripture that there is a relationship between hearing Jesus’ word and faith.
Rom 10:17, tells us that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ”.
Within its context, this quote from Romans 10 addresses Israel’s disobedience to the word they have heard. They heard the word but remained disobedient and contrary. They heard the word but did not HEED the word.
Faith (belief) will not come to those who do not hear (give heed to) the word of Christ.
This is exactly the picture of those to who Jesus is speaking in John 10. They are people who have witnessed the miraculous works Jesus has done and have heard His teaching, and yet remain contrary in nature – refusing to accept the clear evidence readily available to them, they ask for more.
They refused to heed what Jesus had already said and done and therefore were not His sheep. They did not hear his words so they were denied the faith that comes through the word of Christ.
See another passage also loved by Calvinists that Calvinists assume limits the redeemed to a group specifically chosen and given to the Son by the Father.
Joh 6:37–39 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
But the following verse adds the qualifying statement of :
Joh 6:40 “For this is the will of my Father, that EVERYONE who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
EVERYONE who looks on the Son and believes in Him.
Compare with the famous John 3:16 (and especially note its context)
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (Joh 3:14-18)
In the wilderness everyone who LOOKED UPON the serpent were saved from the poison of the snakes. Those who chose not to look upon the serpent were not saved.
Likewise, it is the will of that Father that EVERYONE who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life. Those are the ones who the Father gives to Jesus, those who look upon Him and believe in Him.
Who are those able to believe in Him?
Those who hear and give heed to His word.
Rom 1:16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes”
“If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."
“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says…”
Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years.
Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, 'They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways.'
As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest.'"
Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.
But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.
As it is said, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion."
For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?
And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient?
So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief. (Heb 3:7-19 )
Relationship with Jesus is conditional upon BELIEVING in Him. Belief (faith) in Him comes through hearing (giving heed to) His word and acting upon it.
Who are the sheep that are able to believe in Jesus? Those who give heed to his word and follow Him.
How can they give heed to his word? Because there is POWER to SAVE in HIS gospel.
So who are you going to hear and heed? Jesus and HIS word? Or the word of man's theology?
-----
I have a question; I am curious as to how non-Calvinists will understand a text that (I think) plainly teaches a distinction between those for whom Christ died for and whom he didn't die for. You claim that Jesus died for everyone in your post, so I suppose it is relevant.
How do you interpret the text from the Gospel of John where Jesus is recorded as saying the following:
22 At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter,
23 and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon.
24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me,
26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
30 I and the Father are one.”
And prior to this Jesus claims that he lays his life down for the sheep.
Here he clearly, it seems to me, describes two different group of persons: the sheep, for whom he lays his life down, those whom the Father had given him, who will never die (because they have eternal life); the non-sheep, who don't believe in him because they are not a part of his flock, for whom he does not lay his life.
This text seems clear to me; it may not teach exactly what I understand it as teaching however.
What sense can you make of it?
-----
I see that the question above specifically relates to the Calvinist doctrine of “Limited Atonement” but a second Calvinist doctrine is also inferred due to its close relationship to the first. It is that of Unconditional Election: that God unconditionally elected some to be saved, and that Jesus laid down His life ONLY for those whom God had unconditionally elected for salvation.
Firstly, before considering the portion of scripture quoted, I again draw attention to the fact that scripture as a whole is a revelation of God and His purposes. Any interpretation of a PORTION of scripture MUST be compatible with the revelation contained in the rest of scripture. If an interpretation contradicts the clear meaning of the rest of scripture, that interpretation is clearly wrong.
The excerpt from John, taken in isolation, could be seen to give some support for the Calvinist doctrines that are alluded to in the question. However, should that inferred support lead us to ignore very CLEAR statements elsewhere in scripture that categorically say that God desires ALL to be saved and that he provided His Son to die for ALL and not a limited few?
“This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires ALL people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”(1Ti 2:3-4)
“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that ALL should reach repentance.” (2Pe 3:9)
"For God so loved THE WORLD, that he gave his only Son, that WHOEVER believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that THE WORLD MIGHT BE SAVED through him. (John 3:16 -17)
“And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL people to myself." (Joh 12:32)
“For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on ALL.” (Rom 11:32)
Could any statements about God’s will be CLEARER than those? Are they in any way compatible with the view that God has already chosen an elect few to be saved, and by His will and His will alone has determined that the rest will be damned for eternity?
Therefore is it even remotely possible that John 10 is promoting those Calvinist doctrines of limited atonement and unconditional election when it is made blatantly clear elsewhere in scripture that He desires ALL to be saved and that he gave His Son for THE WORLD and not for a pre-elected minority?
Clearly not without some very creative redefining of what is meant by some very simple words such as ALL, the WORLD and WHOEVER.
Unfortunately, that is exactly the approach taken by those who choose to protect their theology from the exposing light of scripture. When scripture reads “ALL” the Calvinist sees “All of the elect”, and therefore changes the meaning of scripture to enable him to justify his theology.
So how do we reconcile John 10 with the broader view of scripture, as demonstrated above? Who are the sheep according to Jesus?
The answer is given half way through the excerpt from John 10.
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” (John 10:27)
His sheep are those who hear His voice and follow Him. Those who do not hear His voice and follow Him are not His sheep. We see elsewhere in scripture that there is a relationship between hearing Jesus’ word and faith.
Rom 10:17, tells us that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ”.
Within its context, this quote from Romans 10 addresses Israel’s disobedience to the word they have heard. They heard the word but remained disobedient and contrary. They heard the word but did not HEED the word.
Faith (belief) will not come to those who do not hear (give heed to) the word of Christ.
This is exactly the picture of those to who Jesus is speaking in John 10. They are people who have witnessed the miraculous works Jesus has done and have heard His teaching, and yet remain contrary in nature – refusing to accept the clear evidence readily available to them, they ask for more.
They refused to heed what Jesus had already said and done and therefore were not His sheep. They did not hear his words so they were denied the faith that comes through the word of Christ.
See another passage also loved by Calvinists that Calvinists assume limits the redeemed to a group specifically chosen and given to the Son by the Father.
Joh 6:37–39 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
But the following verse adds the qualifying statement of :
Joh 6:40 “For this is the will of my Father, that EVERYONE who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
EVERYONE who looks on the Son and believes in Him.
Compare with the famous John 3:16 (and especially note its context)
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (Joh 3:14-18)
In the wilderness everyone who LOOKED UPON the serpent were saved from the poison of the snakes. Those who chose not to look upon the serpent were not saved.
Likewise, it is the will of that Father that EVERYONE who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life. Those are the ones who the Father gives to Jesus, those who look upon Him and believe in Him.
Who are those able to believe in Him?
Those who hear and give heed to His word.
Rom 1:16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes”
“If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."
“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says…”
Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years.
Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, 'They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways.'
As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest.'"
Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.
But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.
As it is said, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion."
For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?
And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient?
So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief. (Heb 3:7-19 )
Relationship with Jesus is conditional upon BELIEVING in Him. Belief (faith) in Him comes through hearing (giving heed to) His word and acting upon it.
Who are the sheep that are able to believe in Jesus? Those who give heed to his word and follow Him.
How can they give heed to his word? Because there is POWER to SAVE in HIS gospel.
So who are you going to hear and heed? Jesus and HIS word? Or the word of man's theology?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Total Depravity: Depraved or Deprived?
In a recent contribution to a Christian forum, I was commenting on the Calvinist understanding of “Total depravity”. Within that article I got my words confused and instead of using “depraved” I wrote “deprived”.
This mix-up was soon brought to my attention.
However, looking again at the differences between the definitions of the words “depraved” and “deprived” – I now see that my use of “deprived” was totally appropriate.
In the Calvinist scheme of things man comes into the world DEPRIVED of the ability to seek or desire God in any way. It is NOT man’s depraved nature that leads him to be condemned to hell. The determination of his eternal destiny was made before creation – therefore it was made PRIOR to the man being born with a depraved nature and obviously before he has had the opportunity to sin.
According to Calvinist doctrine a man is destined to hell entirely because God withheld his saving grace from them. In other words they have been totally DEPRIVED of the very thing that they need for salvation.
This mix-up was soon brought to my attention.
However, looking again at the differences between the definitions of the words “depraved” and “deprived” – I now see that my use of “deprived” was totally appropriate.
In the Calvinist scheme of things man comes into the world DEPRIVED of the ability to seek or desire God in any way. It is NOT man’s depraved nature that leads him to be condemned to hell. The determination of his eternal destiny was made before creation – therefore it was made PRIOR to the man being born with a depraved nature and obviously before he has had the opportunity to sin.
According to Calvinist doctrine a man is destined to hell entirely because God withheld his saving grace from them. In other words they have been totally DEPRIVED of the very thing that they need for salvation.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
TRUTH or Tolerance and Compromise?
It is becoming increasing evident that the teachings of men have replaced the authority of scripture in the church’s theological foundations. The evidence has become overwhelming. Rather than accept and trust scripture, people will go to all kinds of lengths to explain why it doesn’t mean what it is clearly saying.
We have Calvinism redefining salvation and the means by which God has made it available. Then there are the extreme charismatics who have redefined signs and wonders and have turned God’s love into an expression of His desperation to be accepted. And what about the “extreme prophetic” and the “New Apostolic Reformation”? They’ve created new definitions of the prophetic and apostolic?
No matter which direction we turn there’s someone trying to improve on the truth God has provided in His written word.
I don’t know how many feel the same kind of frustration that I’ve been experiencing increasingly over the last year. From regular involvement with a variety of blogs and forums I’m coming across more and more people who are content to tolerate clear cut doctrinal error.
The first clear (recent) examples came in response to concerns about Todd Bentley and his Lakeland “revival”. No matter how weird and perverse things became there were always those who jumped up to defend what was happening. No matter how aberrant the preaching; no matter how many flaky prophecies were given; no matter how much occultic mysticism was mixed with a sampling of bible quotes – there was always a stridently vocal cheer squad singing the “revival’s” praises and condemning the ‘heresy hunters”.
Even Bentley’s open immorality was not enough to open the eyes of many. Instead the support continues.
But the modern day charismanic circus is only one aspect of the problem. The deceiver knows that you can’t tempt everyone with the same flavours. There are other things he provides for the unwary to taste. Those without a sweet tooth, who are not attracted to fluffy, sugary carnival treats, might prefer something a bit meatier; something with more substance. While the extreme charismatics prefer a scripture-lite approach that shuns “traditional interpretations”, others cling to traditional teachings as if they have the authority of scripture itself. They prize scripture – as long as it’s been filtered through a trained and ordained intermediary. Scripture is beyond the average believer and contains mysteries that are best left to those more qualified to seek out its truths.
And so centuries old traditions are passed from generation to generation and defended ferociously should they be challenged.
My personal journey over this last year (and more) has included experience with these opposite extremes of Christian tradition. One group interprets scripture through a centuries old theological system while the other group seems to make things up as they go along.
One group gives lip service to the authority of scripture while in reality authority is given to their theological tradition and how IT interprets scripture.
The other group gives lip service to scripture while in reality giving authority to spiritual experiences and glib clichés.
One group esteems long dead theologians the other adores the flamboyant man (or woman) of the hour.
In these different groups it seems that the Word of God and the Spirit of God are pitted against each other. One is governed by established doctrines, and interprets scripture according to those doctrines. The other is governed by “the Spirit” and interprets scripture according to “spiritual” revelation.
There are obviously some very distinct and irreconcilable differences between these two groups. And yet they have at least one common factor. Both in reality have applied some kind of condition to their approach to scripture that takes away the average believer’s relationship with God’s word. Those average believers are TOLD what can be believed and how it should be believed. They are told that scripture doesn’t necessarily mean what it seems to mean, promoting the understanding that a (traditionally) college trained or a (charismatically) anointed teacher is required to convey what scripture really saying.
Of course, the extent of how this affects the church is immense and it would be impossible to go into every aspect of the problem. But to the person who wants to know and understand the truth, and is willing to spend the time and make the effort required, the truth is easily accessible. Everyone reading this blog has the means and the ability to search the scriptures for themselves because they can obviously read. But are they willing to utilise that ability?
To a great degree we have been conditioned to believe that scripture is hard to understand and that we need someone to explain it all and to share its hidden secrets. We lack confidence. But we should recognise that it is not only a lack of confidence in ourselves – we are lacking confidence in the God who desires to make Himself known through the revelation of scripture. We lack confidence in the One who promised to send His Spirit to be our teacher, and we lack confidence in His Spirit’s ability and willingness to teach us.
The conditioning process that has distanced us from scripture has also worked by giving us an expectation of how scripture should be approached. Our exposure to scripture has been through “texts” – often meaning isolated verses that are expounded upon at length by an appointed teacher of the word. In most cases little attention is given to context and meaning is given to the selected “text” that indicates some kind of special insight has been needed to get to what was really meant by that text.
Through this experience, we ourselves then try to delve into parts of scripture according to the same method used by the teacher. We dig around and try to find the deeper things hidden within those parts of scripture. And this is usually done before the student has developed even a rudimentary understanding of how the whole bible fits together, and what its overall revelation is about.
There is little understanding of how God has related to mankind throughout history and there is little understanding about the significance of God’s relationship with Israel. To most believers, the Old Testament account is a total mystery – beyond a few half remembered stories of certain bible characters.
Now I’ve waffled on and on about this for long enough. A lot of it I’ve touched upon before on this blog and on others. But is the message getting through? Is what I’m saying having any effect?
It seems not. From what I’ve read elsewhere people are quite content to cling to their personal traditions and to tolerate the traditions of others. Relativism is alive and thriving within the “church” and it has been demonstrated time and again in some of the responses my writings have received.
While I have made it abundantly clear that I am totally opposed to Calvinism and its abhorrent “doctrines of grace” – those Calvinists that have been most ferocious in their responses to me have at least shown a devotion to those things that they believe. They recognise the exclusivity of their beliefs and see little room for compromise. The same can not be said for so many others who demonstrate (though they would surely deny it) that they accept the relativity of “truth” – that what is true for one person is okay for that person, and what is true for me is okay for me. There is a clear opposition to any idea of bringing correction to others – such actions would be seen as divisive, and it seems like division should be avoided at all costs, even if it meant compromising on the truth.
Recently I have seen time and again how people will twist scripture in every direction possible to avoid accepting what it clearly states. All kinds of mental and logical gymnastics are performed to come to an understanding that contradicts or ignores what would be unavoidable if only the actual words of scripture were accepted for what they actually said.
Why do so many persist with this wilful blindness? And why do so many let them persist, all in the name of keeping the peace?
We have Calvinism redefining salvation and the means by which God has made it available. Then there are the extreme charismatics who have redefined signs and wonders and have turned God’s love into an expression of His desperation to be accepted. And what about the “extreme prophetic” and the “New Apostolic Reformation”? They’ve created new definitions of the prophetic and apostolic?
No matter which direction we turn there’s someone trying to improve on the truth God has provided in His written word.
I don’t know how many feel the same kind of frustration that I’ve been experiencing increasingly over the last year. From regular involvement with a variety of blogs and forums I’m coming across more and more people who are content to tolerate clear cut doctrinal error.
The first clear (recent) examples came in response to concerns about Todd Bentley and his Lakeland “revival”. No matter how weird and perverse things became there were always those who jumped up to defend what was happening. No matter how aberrant the preaching; no matter how many flaky prophecies were given; no matter how much occultic mysticism was mixed with a sampling of bible quotes – there was always a stridently vocal cheer squad singing the “revival’s” praises and condemning the ‘heresy hunters”.
Even Bentley’s open immorality was not enough to open the eyes of many. Instead the support continues.
But the modern day charismanic circus is only one aspect of the problem. The deceiver knows that you can’t tempt everyone with the same flavours. There are other things he provides for the unwary to taste. Those without a sweet tooth, who are not attracted to fluffy, sugary carnival treats, might prefer something a bit meatier; something with more substance. While the extreme charismatics prefer a scripture-lite approach that shuns “traditional interpretations”, others cling to traditional teachings as if they have the authority of scripture itself. They prize scripture – as long as it’s been filtered through a trained and ordained intermediary. Scripture is beyond the average believer and contains mysteries that are best left to those more qualified to seek out its truths.
And so centuries old traditions are passed from generation to generation and defended ferociously should they be challenged.
My personal journey over this last year (and more) has included experience with these opposite extremes of Christian tradition. One group interprets scripture through a centuries old theological system while the other group seems to make things up as they go along.
One group gives lip service to the authority of scripture while in reality authority is given to their theological tradition and how IT interprets scripture.
The other group gives lip service to scripture while in reality giving authority to spiritual experiences and glib clichés.
One group esteems long dead theologians the other adores the flamboyant man (or woman) of the hour.
In these different groups it seems that the Word of God and the Spirit of God are pitted against each other. One is governed by established doctrines, and interprets scripture according to those doctrines. The other is governed by “the Spirit” and interprets scripture according to “spiritual” revelation.
There are obviously some very distinct and irreconcilable differences between these two groups. And yet they have at least one common factor. Both in reality have applied some kind of condition to their approach to scripture that takes away the average believer’s relationship with God’s word. Those average believers are TOLD what can be believed and how it should be believed. They are told that scripture doesn’t necessarily mean what it seems to mean, promoting the understanding that a (traditionally) college trained or a (charismatically) anointed teacher is required to convey what scripture really saying.
Of course, the extent of how this affects the church is immense and it would be impossible to go into every aspect of the problem. But to the person who wants to know and understand the truth, and is willing to spend the time and make the effort required, the truth is easily accessible. Everyone reading this blog has the means and the ability to search the scriptures for themselves because they can obviously read. But are they willing to utilise that ability?
To a great degree we have been conditioned to believe that scripture is hard to understand and that we need someone to explain it all and to share its hidden secrets. We lack confidence. But we should recognise that it is not only a lack of confidence in ourselves – we are lacking confidence in the God who desires to make Himself known through the revelation of scripture. We lack confidence in the One who promised to send His Spirit to be our teacher, and we lack confidence in His Spirit’s ability and willingness to teach us.
The conditioning process that has distanced us from scripture has also worked by giving us an expectation of how scripture should be approached. Our exposure to scripture has been through “texts” – often meaning isolated verses that are expounded upon at length by an appointed teacher of the word. In most cases little attention is given to context and meaning is given to the selected “text” that indicates some kind of special insight has been needed to get to what was really meant by that text.
Through this experience, we ourselves then try to delve into parts of scripture according to the same method used by the teacher. We dig around and try to find the deeper things hidden within those parts of scripture. And this is usually done before the student has developed even a rudimentary understanding of how the whole bible fits together, and what its overall revelation is about.
There is little understanding of how God has related to mankind throughout history and there is little understanding about the significance of God’s relationship with Israel. To most believers, the Old Testament account is a total mystery – beyond a few half remembered stories of certain bible characters.
Now I’ve waffled on and on about this for long enough. A lot of it I’ve touched upon before on this blog and on others. But is the message getting through? Is what I’m saying having any effect?
It seems not. From what I’ve read elsewhere people are quite content to cling to their personal traditions and to tolerate the traditions of others. Relativism is alive and thriving within the “church” and it has been demonstrated time and again in some of the responses my writings have received.
While I have made it abundantly clear that I am totally opposed to Calvinism and its abhorrent “doctrines of grace” – those Calvinists that have been most ferocious in their responses to me have at least shown a devotion to those things that they believe. They recognise the exclusivity of their beliefs and see little room for compromise. The same can not be said for so many others who demonstrate (though they would surely deny it) that they accept the relativity of “truth” – that what is true for one person is okay for that person, and what is true for me is okay for me. There is a clear opposition to any idea of bringing correction to others – such actions would be seen as divisive, and it seems like division should be avoided at all costs, even if it meant compromising on the truth.
Recently I have seen time and again how people will twist scripture in every direction possible to avoid accepting what it clearly states. All kinds of mental and logical gymnastics are performed to come to an understanding that contradicts or ignores what would be unavoidable if only the actual words of scripture were accepted for what they actually said.
Why do so many persist with this wilful blindness? And why do so many let them persist, all in the name of keeping the peace?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)