God has given us a revelation of Himself throughout the WHOLE of scripture. It is a revelation given NOT in the form of a systematic theology, but through life situations and through examples of personal interaction between God and mankind.
Any interpretation of parts of scripture that contradict the revelation of God given throughout the whole of scripture is a wrong interpretation. False interpretations are guaranteed when we start with individual texts. When we take those false interpretations and project them onto the rest of scripture we can not fail to produce a false view of God and His purposes.
That is the inevitable result of the traditions and theologies of man: teachings that focus on texts rather than on God’s character. It is far easier to intellectually debate the meanings of individual verses of scripture than it is to receive and share the revelation God has given of Himself.
The first we can pick up from books and teachers. The latter comes through relationship with God through His Son, by His Spirit aided by the scriptures He inspired.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
THE QUESTION that CHANGED MY LIFE by Dr. David Ryser
A number of years ago, I had the privilege of teaching at a school
of ministry. My students were hungry for God, and I was constantly
searching for ways to challenge them to fall more in love with
Jesus and to become voices for revival in the Church. I came across
a quote attributed most often to Rev. Sam Pascoe. It is a short
version of the history of Christianity, and it goes like this:
Christianity started in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece
and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution;
it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and
became an enterprise. Some of the students were only 18 or 19
years old--barely out of diapers--and I wanted them to understand
and appreciate the import of the last line, so I clarified it by adding,
"An enterprise. That's a business." After a few moments Martha,
the youngest student in the class, raised her hand. I could not
imagine what her question might be. I thought the little vignette was
self-explanatory, and that I had performed it brilliantly. Nevertheless,
I acknowledged Martha's raised hand, "Yes, Martha." She asked
such a simple question, "A business? But isn't it supposed to be
a body?" I could not envision where this line of questioning was going,
and the only response I could think of was, "Yes." She continued,
"But when a body becomes a business, isn't that a prostitute?"
The room went dead silent. For several seconds no one moved or
spoke. We were stunned, afraid to make a sound because the
presence of God had flooded into the room, and we knew we were
on holy ground. All I could think in those sacred moments was,
"Wow, I wish I'd thought of that." I didn't dare express that thought
aloud. God had taken over the class.
Martha's question changed my life. For six months, I thought about
her question at least once every day. "When a body becomes a
business, isn't that a prostitute?" There is only one answer to her
question. The answer is "Yes." The American Church, tragically,
is heavily populated by people who do not love God. How can we
love Him? We don't even know Him; and I mean really know Him.
... I stand by my statement that most American Christians do not
know God--much less love Him. The root of this condition originates
in how we came to God. Most of us came to Him because of what
we were told He would do for us. We were promised that He would
bless us in life and take us to heaven after death. We married Him
for His money, and we don't care if He lives or dies as long as we
can get His stuff. We have made the Kingdom of God into a business,
merchandising His anointing. This should not be. We are commanded
to love God, and are called to be the Bride of Christ--that's pretty
intimate stuff. We are supposed to be His lovers. How can we love
someone we don't even know? And even if we do know someone,
is that a guarantee that we truly love them? Are we lovers or
prostitutes?
I was pondering Martha's question again one day, and considered
the question, "What's the difference between a lover and a prostitute?"
I realized that both do many of the same things, but a lover does
what she does because she loves. A prostitute pretends to love, but
only as long as you pay. Then I asked the question, "What would
happen if God stopped paying me?"
For the next several months, I allowed God to search me to uncover
my motives for loving and serving Him. Was I really a true lover of
God? What would happen if He stopped blessing me? What if He
never did another thing for me? Would I still love Him? Please
understand, I believe in the promises and blessings of God. The
issue here is not whether God blesses His children; the issue is
the condition of my heart. Why do I serve Him? Are His blessings
in my life the gifts of a loving Father, or are they a wage that I have
earned or a bribe/payment to love Him? Do I love God without any
conditions? It took several months to work through these questions.
Even now I wonder if my desire to love God is always matched by
my attitude and behavior. I still catch myself being disappointed
with God and angry that He has not met some perceived need in
my life. I suspect this is something which is never fully resolved,
but I want more than anything else to be a true lover of God.
So what is it going to be? Which are we, lover or prostitute?
There are no prostitutes in heaven, or in the Kingdom of God for
that matter, but there are plenty of former prostitutes in both
places. Take it from a recovering prostitute when I say there is no
substitute or unconditional, intimate relationship with God. And I
mean there is no palatable substitute available to us (take another
look at Matthew 7:21-23 sometime). We must choose.
-Dr. David Ryser.
-------------------------
As received from Andrew Strom's revivalschool newsletter.
--
YES! - You have permission to post these emails
to friends or other groups, blogs, boards, etc. Go for it!
To subscribe, please send a 'subscribe' email to-
prophetic@revivalschool.com
See our website and discussion board-
http://www.revivalschool.com
of ministry. My students were hungry for God, and I was constantly
searching for ways to challenge them to fall more in love with
Jesus and to become voices for revival in the Church. I came across
a quote attributed most often to Rev. Sam Pascoe. It is a short
version of the history of Christianity, and it goes like this:
Christianity started in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece
and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution;
it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and
became an enterprise. Some of the students were only 18 or 19
years old--barely out of diapers--and I wanted them to understand
and appreciate the import of the last line, so I clarified it by adding,
"An enterprise. That's a business." After a few moments Martha,
the youngest student in the class, raised her hand. I could not
imagine what her question might be. I thought the little vignette was
self-explanatory, and that I had performed it brilliantly. Nevertheless,
I acknowledged Martha's raised hand, "Yes, Martha." She asked
such a simple question, "A business? But isn't it supposed to be
a body?" I could not envision where this line of questioning was going,
and the only response I could think of was, "Yes." She continued,
"But when a body becomes a business, isn't that a prostitute?"
The room went dead silent. For several seconds no one moved or
spoke. We were stunned, afraid to make a sound because the
presence of God had flooded into the room, and we knew we were
on holy ground. All I could think in those sacred moments was,
"Wow, I wish I'd thought of that." I didn't dare express that thought
aloud. God had taken over the class.
Martha's question changed my life. For six months, I thought about
her question at least once every day. "When a body becomes a
business, isn't that a prostitute?" There is only one answer to her
question. The answer is "Yes." The American Church, tragically,
is heavily populated by people who do not love God. How can we
love Him? We don't even know Him; and I mean really know Him.
... I stand by my statement that most American Christians do not
know God--much less love Him. The root of this condition originates
in how we came to God. Most of us came to Him because of what
we were told He would do for us. We were promised that He would
bless us in life and take us to heaven after death. We married Him
for His money, and we don't care if He lives or dies as long as we
can get His stuff. We have made the Kingdom of God into a business,
merchandising His anointing. This should not be. We are commanded
to love God, and are called to be the Bride of Christ--that's pretty
intimate stuff. We are supposed to be His lovers. How can we love
someone we don't even know? And even if we do know someone,
is that a guarantee that we truly love them? Are we lovers or
prostitutes?
I was pondering Martha's question again one day, and considered
the question, "What's the difference between a lover and a prostitute?"
I realized that both do many of the same things, but a lover does
what she does because she loves. A prostitute pretends to love, but
only as long as you pay. Then I asked the question, "What would
happen if God stopped paying me?"
For the next several months, I allowed God to search me to uncover
my motives for loving and serving Him. Was I really a true lover of
God? What would happen if He stopped blessing me? What if He
never did another thing for me? Would I still love Him? Please
understand, I believe in the promises and blessings of God. The
issue here is not whether God blesses His children; the issue is
the condition of my heart. Why do I serve Him? Are His blessings
in my life the gifts of a loving Father, or are they a wage that I have
earned or a bribe/payment to love Him? Do I love God without any
conditions? It took several months to work through these questions.
Even now I wonder if my desire to love God is always matched by
my attitude and behavior. I still catch myself being disappointed
with God and angry that He has not met some perceived need in
my life. I suspect this is something which is never fully resolved,
but I want more than anything else to be a true lover of God.
So what is it going to be? Which are we, lover or prostitute?
There are no prostitutes in heaven, or in the Kingdom of God for
that matter, but there are plenty of former prostitutes in both
places. Take it from a recovering prostitute when I say there is no
substitute or unconditional, intimate relationship with God. And I
mean there is no palatable substitute available to us (take another
look at Matthew 7:21-23 sometime). We must choose.
-Dr. David Ryser.
-------------------------
As received from Andrew Strom's revivalschool newsletter.
--
YES! - You have permission to post these emails
to friends or other groups, blogs, boards, etc. Go for it!
To subscribe, please send a 'subscribe' email to-
prophetic@revivalschool.com
See our website and discussion board-
http://www.revivalschool.com
Monday, June 15, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
GOG – MAGOG, Ezekiel Prophecy and the New Testament?
The basic framework of end time prophecy isn't too hard to grasp - but when we try to narrow it all down to specific timetables we are guaranteed to get it wrong. This is MORE likely if we try to read and understand scripture with a bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other.
We need to be wary of allowing our preconceptions to mislead us from the truth. The Gog-Magog prophecy in Ezekiel is one example to consider. This has often been interpreted as referring to Russia invading Israel, but what is the prophecy really about and what is its significance in the end time program? To gain understanding without being misled by speculation, it is important that we don’t deviate from what scripture itself reveals.
I tend to think it is not prophesying a single event. OT prophecies can predict separate events as if they are one. OT prophecies about Jesus were like this, in which there was no distinction made between His first and second comings.
I have heard this combining of two events into one prophecy being described with the illustration of an observer looking at two distant mountains one behind the other. The distant mountains seem to be one peak because the valley between can not be seen by the observer. Likewise two events (two mountain peaks) separated by time (the valley) are seen as a single event (mountain) by the prophet (the observer).
A battle involving Gog and Magog is mentioned only twice in scripture. There’s an extensive account in Ezekiel and a brief one in Revelation 20. Despite the brevity of the Revelation reference there are several similarities that indicate it is possibly describing the same event as the Ezekiel references.
But, while parts of the prophecy match this event in Revelation 20, there are also aspects that don't fit that scenario, but they do fit descriptions given in Revelation 19 of Armageddon.
So could Ezekiel be describing the events of Revelation 20?
Is he describing Armageddon? (Rev 16 & 19)
Is there possibly a combination of the two?
Or is it an event that the NT ignores? (I personally think this last option is unlikely)
Following is a comparison of the Ezekiel prophecy with the two different events in Revelation. Because the Ezekiel account spreads over three chapters I’ll note the relevant verses but won’t quote the text here. The Revelation accounts are much shorter so I’ll quote the whole relevant sections at the end of this article.
Similarities between Ezekiel and Rev 20 (end of millennium)
1) Gog and Magog are involved.
2) Their attack is directed upon on Israel
3) The attack is at a time when Israel is at peace (Eze 38:11) (Rev 20. end of the millennium, after 1000 years of Christ’s rule on earth)
4) It involves “the nations” or “many nations”.
5) The battle is ended before it begins by fire from God. (Eze 39:6)
Similarities between the Ezekiel account and Revelation’s description of Armageddon.
1) Attack directed on Israel.
2) Many nations join the attack
3) Massive earthquake and mountains thrown down (Eze 38:20)
4) Great hailstones fall (Eze 38:22)
5) Dead are left for the birds of the air to eat (Eze 39:4)
Those are the similarities but what about the differences?
The latter three events are not mentioned with regard to the post millennium battle.
Gog and Magog are not mentioned in the Armageddon account.
Will Israel be at peace and living in safety leading up to Armageddon?
The Antichrist’s army at Armageddon is not destroyed by fire from heaven – but by Jesus who has returned to earth.
The leaders of the battle at Armageddon are thrown alive into the lake of fire. The leaders in Ezekiel are given a grave.(Eze 39:11).
Other questions raised:
The aftermath of the Ezekiel battle leaves a battleground strewn with weaponry that is gathered and used for fuel. If this is after the millennium, it would mean that life continues on this earth for several more years prior to the second resurrection and the judgment. This is not suggested in Revelation – but then again it is not ruled out either.
If the Ezekiel battle does not fit anything described in Revelation, then the NT is entirely silent about a major event that happens in the end times. I don’t see this silence is likely but I suppose it is possible.
Armageddon, before millennium
Rev 16:16 -21
Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.
The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and out of the temple came a loud voice from the throne, saying, “It is done!”
Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since the human race has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake.
The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.
Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found.
From the sky huge hailstones, each weighing about a hundred pounds, fell on people. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible.
Rev 19:17-21
And I saw one angel standing in the sun. And he cried with a great voice, saying to all the birds that fly in mid-heaven, Come and gather together to the supper of the great God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of commanders, and the flesh of strong ones, and the flesh of horses, and those sitting on them, and the flesh of all, both free and slave, both small and great.
And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth and their armies, being gathered to make war against Him who sat on the horse, and against His army.
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet doing signs before it, (by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast), and those who had worshiped his image. The two were thrown alive into the Lake of Fire burning with brimstone.
And the rest were slain by the sword of Him who sat on the horse, it proceeding out of His mouth. And all the birds were filled from their flesh.
Scriptural account of Battle After the Millennium
Rev 20:7-9
And when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be loosed out of his prison. And he will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle. The number of them is as the sand of the sea. And they went up over the breadth of the earth and circled around the camp of the saints, and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of Heaven and devoured them.
We need to be wary of allowing our preconceptions to mislead us from the truth. The Gog-Magog prophecy in Ezekiel is one example to consider. This has often been interpreted as referring to Russia invading Israel, but what is the prophecy really about and what is its significance in the end time program? To gain understanding without being misled by speculation, it is important that we don’t deviate from what scripture itself reveals.
I tend to think it is not prophesying a single event. OT prophecies can predict separate events as if they are one. OT prophecies about Jesus were like this, in which there was no distinction made between His first and second comings.
I have heard this combining of two events into one prophecy being described with the illustration of an observer looking at two distant mountains one behind the other. The distant mountains seem to be one peak because the valley between can not be seen by the observer. Likewise two events (two mountain peaks) separated by time (the valley) are seen as a single event (mountain) by the prophet (the observer).
A battle involving Gog and Magog is mentioned only twice in scripture. There’s an extensive account in Ezekiel and a brief one in Revelation 20. Despite the brevity of the Revelation reference there are several similarities that indicate it is possibly describing the same event as the Ezekiel references.
But, while parts of the prophecy match this event in Revelation 20, there are also aspects that don't fit that scenario, but they do fit descriptions given in Revelation 19 of Armageddon.
So could Ezekiel be describing the events of Revelation 20?
Is he describing Armageddon? (Rev 16 & 19)
Is there possibly a combination of the two?
Or is it an event that the NT ignores? (I personally think this last option is unlikely)
Following is a comparison of the Ezekiel prophecy with the two different events in Revelation. Because the Ezekiel account spreads over three chapters I’ll note the relevant verses but won’t quote the text here. The Revelation accounts are much shorter so I’ll quote the whole relevant sections at the end of this article.
Similarities between Ezekiel and Rev 20 (end of millennium)
1) Gog and Magog are involved.
2) Their attack is directed upon on Israel
3) The attack is at a time when Israel is at peace (Eze 38:11) (Rev 20. end of the millennium, after 1000 years of Christ’s rule on earth)
4) It involves “the nations” or “many nations”.
5) The battle is ended before it begins by fire from God. (Eze 39:6)
Similarities between the Ezekiel account and Revelation’s description of Armageddon.
1) Attack directed on Israel.
2) Many nations join the attack
3) Massive earthquake and mountains thrown down (Eze 38:20)
4) Great hailstones fall (Eze 38:22)
5) Dead are left for the birds of the air to eat (Eze 39:4)
Those are the similarities but what about the differences?
The latter three events are not mentioned with regard to the post millennium battle.
Gog and Magog are not mentioned in the Armageddon account.
Will Israel be at peace and living in safety leading up to Armageddon?
The Antichrist’s army at Armageddon is not destroyed by fire from heaven – but by Jesus who has returned to earth.
The leaders of the battle at Armageddon are thrown alive into the lake of fire. The leaders in Ezekiel are given a grave.(Eze 39:11).
Other questions raised:
The aftermath of the Ezekiel battle leaves a battleground strewn with weaponry that is gathered and used for fuel. If this is after the millennium, it would mean that life continues on this earth for several more years prior to the second resurrection and the judgment. This is not suggested in Revelation – but then again it is not ruled out either.
If the Ezekiel battle does not fit anything described in Revelation, then the NT is entirely silent about a major event that happens in the end times. I don’t see this silence is likely but I suppose it is possible.
Armageddon, before millennium
Rev 16:16 -21
Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.
The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and out of the temple came a loud voice from the throne, saying, “It is done!”
Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since the human race has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake.
The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.
Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found.
From the sky huge hailstones, each weighing about a hundred pounds, fell on people. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible.
Rev 19:17-21
And I saw one angel standing in the sun. And he cried with a great voice, saying to all the birds that fly in mid-heaven, Come and gather together to the supper of the great God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of commanders, and the flesh of strong ones, and the flesh of horses, and those sitting on them, and the flesh of all, both free and slave, both small and great.
And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth and their armies, being gathered to make war against Him who sat on the horse, and against His army.
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet doing signs before it, (by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast), and those who had worshiped his image. The two were thrown alive into the Lake of Fire burning with brimstone.
And the rest were slain by the sword of Him who sat on the horse, it proceeding out of His mouth. And all the birds were filled from their flesh.
Scriptural account of Battle After the Millennium
Rev 20:7-9
And when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be loosed out of his prison. And he will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle. The number of them is as the sand of the sea. And they went up over the breadth of the earth and circled around the camp of the saints, and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of Heaven and devoured them.
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?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
21 Things My Bible Didn’t Teach Me.
This list is potentially endless so I’m limiting it to those things that I’ve come across personally. Even with that limitation I might have to do a second list at a later date.
1) The correct response to the gospel in order to be saved is to either a) ask Jesus into your heart, b) say the sinner’s prayer c) respond to an “altar call” in which you do both a & b.
2) Believers will be “raptured” from the earth immediately prior to the Great Tribulation.
3) Upon death Christians go to their eternal home in heaven.
4) Satan and his demons reside in and rule their kingdom from hell.
5) Between His death and resurrection, Jesus was tormented in hell by the devil
6) Jesus victoriously snatched the keys of death and hell from the devil.
7) The devil made me do it.
8) Baptism is optional (it can also be done to babies with a sprinkling of water).
9) Sin in the life of a believer doesn’t matter because all of our sins have been forgiven
10) God loves the world so much…
11) TULIP
12) God offends the mind to reveal the heart
13) People need hours of counselling/ inner healing/ deliverance sessions to be freed from hurts and problems caused by their past.
14) Faith is a force
15) Confess and possess
16) We should not question our leaders (“touch not the Lord’s anointed!)
17) There are different kinds of anointing and some Christians are more anointed than others
18) Tongues is THE sign of being baptised in the Holy Spirit
19) Scripture doesn’t really matter
20) God knows the future because He has fore-ordained everything that will happen.
21) Man has no free will.
1) The correct response to the gospel in order to be saved is to either a) ask Jesus into your heart, b) say the sinner’s prayer c) respond to an “altar call” in which you do both a & b.
2) Believers will be “raptured” from the earth immediately prior to the Great Tribulation.
3) Upon death Christians go to their eternal home in heaven.
4) Satan and his demons reside in and rule their kingdom from hell.
5) Between His death and resurrection, Jesus was tormented in hell by the devil
6) Jesus victoriously snatched the keys of death and hell from the devil.
7) The devil made me do it.
8) Baptism is optional (it can also be done to babies with a sprinkling of water).
9) Sin in the life of a believer doesn’t matter because all of our sins have been forgiven
10) God loves the world so much…
11) TULIP
12) God offends the mind to reveal the heart
13) People need hours of counselling/ inner healing/ deliverance sessions to be freed from hurts and problems caused by their past.
14) Faith is a force
15) Confess and possess
16) We should not question our leaders (“touch not the Lord’s anointed!)
17) There are different kinds of anointing and some Christians are more anointed than others
18) Tongues is THE sign of being baptised in the Holy Spirit
19) Scripture doesn’t really matter
20) God knows the future because He has fore-ordained everything that will happen.
21) Man has no free will.
God’s word or Man’s – the choice is ours.
Almost daily I see more and more examples of Christians who have little respect for the scriptures. They give more authority to the words and teachings of men than they do to some of the clearest and simplest parts of the Word of God.
All manner of twisted and convoluted theologies are used to manipulate scripture into a form that is acceptable to their own wisdom. During discussion they quote page after page of their teachers in an attempt to demonstrate that scripture doesn’t really mean what it is clearly saying.
What more can be said about this? Doesn’t anyone trust God anymore? Why do so many “believers” put more faith in men and men’s wisdom than they do in God Himself?
Do they consider their own wisdom is greater than God's that they can reinterpret scripture to force it into their own ideas of acceptability?
All manner of twisted and convoluted theologies are used to manipulate scripture into a form that is acceptable to their own wisdom. During discussion they quote page after page of their teachers in an attempt to demonstrate that scripture doesn’t really mean what it is clearly saying.
What more can be said about this? Doesn’t anyone trust God anymore? Why do so many “believers” put more faith in men and men’s wisdom than they do in God Himself?
Do they consider their own wisdom is greater than God's that they can reinterpret scripture to force it into their own ideas of acceptability?
Friday, May 15, 2009
Problems due to change of template.
I have recently changed the template of my blog to (hopefully) improve its appearance. Unfortunately the change has affected some of the text leaving large sections of blank space; seemingly deleting some paragraphs.
As I notice these “deleted” sections I try to fix the problem. It is not always easy to find those sections that are missing so if anyone comes across a problem of missing text please let me know.
As I notice these “deleted” sections I try to fix the problem. It is not always easy to find those sections that are missing so if anyone comes across a problem of missing text please let me know.
"Weighed And Found Wanting"
THE FIVE POINTS OF CALVINISM
"Weighed And Found Wanting"
George Bryson.
I recommend the article at the following link. It is long but well worth reading if you want to get an understanding of Calvinism as promoted by Calvinist teachers. The first part of the article (pages 1-26) is constructed mainly of quotes from Calvinist writers. In my opinion their statements expose the lie of Calvinism more effectively than any opponent of Calvinism could. Of course that is conditional upon how affected by Calvinism the reader’s theology has become.
I don’t think the second part of the article has the effect of the first. The writer doesn’t always present his own arguments as clearly as he could – and he doesn’t expose the errors of Calvinism anywhere as efficiently as the Calvinists have already done themselves earlier in the article.
I came across this article recently and have only just read through it. I don’t agree with all of the conclusions the author makes, but it’s still a very interesting read.
The Five Points of Calvinism -"Weighed and Found Wanting" by George Bryson
"Weighed And Found Wanting"
George Bryson.
I recommend the article at the following link. It is long but well worth reading if you want to get an understanding of Calvinism as promoted by Calvinist teachers. The first part of the article (pages 1-26) is constructed mainly of quotes from Calvinist writers. In my opinion their statements expose the lie of Calvinism more effectively than any opponent of Calvinism could. Of course that is conditional upon how affected by Calvinism the reader’s theology has become.
I don’t think the second part of the article has the effect of the first. The writer doesn’t always present his own arguments as clearly as he could – and he doesn’t expose the errors of Calvinism anywhere as efficiently as the Calvinists have already done themselves earlier in the article.
I came across this article recently and have only just read through it. I don’t agree with all of the conclusions the author makes, but it’s still a very interesting read.
The Five Points of Calvinism -"Weighed and Found Wanting" by George Bryson
Friday, May 01, 2009
1 Corinthians 10:13 – regarding “The Believer and Sin”.
In a (now deleted*) comment from the “Am I an Arminian” thread, I was accused of “proof-texting” when I made reference to 1 Corinthians 10:13.
I quoted that verse to show that when a believer sins it is a result of his/her choice and not because of some irresistible tendency to sin that drives the believer to live in disobedience to God.
“No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.”
That verse makes it clear that no believer is tempted by anything that is beyond their ability to withstand. God Himself makes sure that all temptation we face IS resistible – and we therefore need to take PERSONAL responsibility for our sin. If we do not take that personal responsibility, then I cannot see how we can genuinely come to the Lord to confess OUR sins in order to receive forgiveness and cleansing from unrighteousness.
It is clear that I am not the only one to be faced with this same accusation of “proof-texting” by drawing attention to the promise God gives in the above mentioned verse.
See the blog entry at the following link:
A Contextual Examination of 1 Corinthians 10:13
---------
* I do not make a habit out of deleting comments, but the person referenced above became abusive and showed himself to be a wilful liar. Further information on the reason for the deletion of of his comments can be found in the comments section of the “Am I an Arminian” thread.
I quoted that verse to show that when a believer sins it is a result of his/her choice and not because of some irresistible tendency to sin that drives the believer to live in disobedience to God.
“No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.”
That verse makes it clear that no believer is tempted by anything that is beyond their ability to withstand. God Himself makes sure that all temptation we face IS resistible – and we therefore need to take PERSONAL responsibility for our sin. If we do not take that personal responsibility, then I cannot see how we can genuinely come to the Lord to confess OUR sins in order to receive forgiveness and cleansing from unrighteousness.
It is clear that I am not the only one to be faced with this same accusation of “proof-texting” by drawing attention to the promise God gives in the above mentioned verse.
See the blog entry at the following link:
A Contextual Examination of 1 Corinthians 10:13
---------
* I do not make a habit out of deleting comments, but the person referenced above became abusive and showed himself to be a wilful liar. Further information on the reason for the deletion of of his comments can be found in the comments section of the “Am I an Arminian” thread.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will
Two recommended articles by David Servant that address the issues of God’s foreknowledge and man’s free will.
God's Regrets
The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them" (Gen. 6:6-7).
I [the Lord] regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands (1 Sam. 15:11).
I suppose it is comforting to know that even God has His bad days. But on a more serious level, we can't help but wonder why God would regret something that He himself did. We just read that God said He was sorry that He "made man on the earth." He wished He hadn't done it. But if God is all-knowing, and if He knows everything that is yet to happen, why didn't He decide not to create man on the earth before He got started, knowing that He would regret it otherwise?
Deception is an Election
Moses' warning about false prophets in Deuteronomy 13:1-4 raises a question. If God knows everything, then why did He say that a false spiritual leader could be a means for Him to "find out" if we love Him with all our hearts?
The simple answer to that question is that God didn't create us as pre-programmed robots. Our choices are exactly that—our choices. Loving God is something we choose to do or choose not to do. God must therefore test us to see what we will choose.
Certainly God foreknows what we will do, but His foreknowledge is based on the outcomes of our tests. If there were no outcomes, there would be nothing for God to foreknow.
God's Regrets
The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them" (Gen. 6:6-7).
I [the Lord] regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands (1 Sam. 15:11).
I suppose it is comforting to know that even God has His bad days. But on a more serious level, we can't help but wonder why God would regret something that He himself did. We just read that God said He was sorry that He "made man on the earth." He wished He hadn't done it. But if God is all-knowing, and if He knows everything that is yet to happen, why didn't He decide not to create man on the earth before He got started, knowing that He would regret it otherwise?
Deception is an Election
Moses' warning about false prophets in Deuteronomy 13:1-4 raises a question. If God knows everything, then why did He say that a false spiritual leader could be a means for Him to "find out" if we love Him with all our hearts?
The simple answer to that question is that God didn't create us as pre-programmed robots. Our choices are exactly that—our choices. Loving God is something we choose to do or choose not to do. God must therefore test us to see what we will choose.
Certainly God foreknows what we will do, but His foreknowledge is based on the outcomes of our tests. If there were no outcomes, there would be nothing for God to foreknow.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Duelling Quizzes.
In the comments section of one of my articles, a Calvinist commentator provided a (now deleted) quiz intended to demonstrate the “truth” of the Calvinist approach to scripture.
The following link provides an answer to that quiz, demonstrating how vastly different theological viewpoints can be supported by the selective use of scripture.
quiz-for-your-calvinist-friends
As a personal comment, I have to say that THIS quiz has much more value than the Calvinist equivalent. At least I can recognise the God that is being promoted – I can’t say the same for the god being promoted by the Calvinist mob. That god is an imposter.
-----
While I have deleted the Calvinist quiz from this blog, it may be accessed via the "Wesleyan Arminian" blog at the link provided above.
The following link provides an answer to that quiz, demonstrating how vastly different theological viewpoints can be supported by the selective use of scripture.
quiz-for-your-calvinist-friends
As a personal comment, I have to say that THIS quiz has much more value than the Calvinist equivalent. At least I can recognise the God that is being promoted – I can’t say the same for the god being promoted by the Calvinist mob. That god is an imposter.
-----
While I have deleted the Calvinist quiz from this blog, it may be accessed via the "Wesleyan Arminian" blog at the link provided above.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
THE BELIEVER AND SIN
Can the believer live without sin?
Or maybe a better question would be “Why can’t the believer live without sin?”
Scripture makes it clear that we are EXPECTED to live in obedience but do we always live up to that expectation? I think Scripture also makes it clear that we have been equipped to live up to that expectation.
If God does not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability to resist – what does that mean to the believer? Does it mean what it clearly says? That we CAN resist ALL temptation we face? I can’t see that it means anything less than that.
If that is the case, how can we say that we always inevitably sin? That outlook is denying the clear promise God has given in His word.
When we DO sin – is it because we had no control, that we are totally incapable of doing anything else? Not if God is true to His word. He has made it clear that He has provided the way for us to avoid sin. If we give into temptation it is because we have chosen to do so, because we have not recognised and applied the resources God has provided – it is not because the temptation was beyond our ability to resist.
God has provided what is necessary for the believer to be free of sin. But He has also provided a means of being cleansed again IF we sin. Through confession of sin we can receive forgiveness and cleansing.
In His promise regarding confession, God has provided a “safety net”. It’s not something we should take for granted – it is not to be treated like a trampoline. It is there to give us protection as a last resort.
Then why do believers continue to sin?
There are probably many reasons but I suggest a MAJOR reason is that we expect to sin. We fail to recognise and rely upon the provision God has given. If we expect to continue in sin – then we are likely to meet that expectation. I see part of the answer to this tendency is the renewing of our minds - learning to think according to God's word and not according to our own traditions.
Many also expect to sin because they believe it is in their nature, but his view of the believer denies the reality of the new birth. We are a new creation in Christ the old has passed away. There needs to be a distinction made between the unregenerate man bound over to disobedience and the new man who is in Christ. There is a need to recognise that the new birth results in actual changes in the believer’s life, that the believer is equipped and motivated in ways not possible for the unbeliever.
When God requires obedience and freedom from sin – He also EQUIPS those who trust in Him to make those things attainable.
Yes we WERE all sinners but God does not leave His children AS sinners. By His grace He forgives and cleanses ALL who would come to Him in faith to receive His mercy.
---------
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
My dear children, I write this to you so that you WILL NOT sin. But IF anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but ALSO FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD.
We know that we have come to know him IF WE OBEY HIS COMMANDMENTS. The man who says, "I know him," BUT DOES NOT DO WHAT HE COMMANDS IS A LIAR, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: WHOEVER CLAIMS TO LIVE IN HIM MUST WALK AS JESUS DID.
(1 John 1:8 onwards)
Or maybe a better question would be “Why can’t the believer live without sin?”
Scripture makes it clear that we are EXPECTED to live in obedience but do we always live up to that expectation? I think Scripture also makes it clear that we have been equipped to live up to that expectation.
If God does not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability to resist – what does that mean to the believer? Does it mean what it clearly says? That we CAN resist ALL temptation we face? I can’t see that it means anything less than that.
If that is the case, how can we say that we always inevitably sin? That outlook is denying the clear promise God has given in His word.
When we DO sin – is it because we had no control, that we are totally incapable of doing anything else? Not if God is true to His word. He has made it clear that He has provided the way for us to avoid sin. If we give into temptation it is because we have chosen to do so, because we have not recognised and applied the resources God has provided – it is not because the temptation was beyond our ability to resist.
God has provided what is necessary for the believer to be free of sin. But He has also provided a means of being cleansed again IF we sin. Through confession of sin we can receive forgiveness and cleansing.
In His promise regarding confession, God has provided a “safety net”. It’s not something we should take for granted – it is not to be treated like a trampoline. It is there to give us protection as a last resort.
Then why do believers continue to sin?
There are probably many reasons but I suggest a MAJOR reason is that we expect to sin. We fail to recognise and rely upon the provision God has given. If we expect to continue in sin – then we are likely to meet that expectation. I see part of the answer to this tendency is the renewing of our minds - learning to think according to God's word and not according to our own traditions.
Many also expect to sin because they believe it is in their nature, but his view of the believer denies the reality of the new birth. We are a new creation in Christ the old has passed away. There needs to be a distinction made between the unregenerate man bound over to disobedience and the new man who is in Christ. There is a need to recognise that the new birth results in actual changes in the believer’s life, that the believer is equipped and motivated in ways not possible for the unbeliever.
When God requires obedience and freedom from sin – He also EQUIPS those who trust in Him to make those things attainable.
Yes we WERE all sinners but God does not leave His children AS sinners. By His grace He forgives and cleanses ALL who would come to Him in faith to receive His mercy.
---------
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
My dear children, I write this to you so that you WILL NOT sin. But IF anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but ALSO FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD.
We know that we have come to know him IF WE OBEY HIS COMMANDMENTS. The man who says, "I know him," BUT DOES NOT DO WHAT HE COMMANDS IS A LIAR, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: WHOEVER CLAIMS TO LIVE IN HIM MUST WALK AS JESUS DID.
(1 John 1:8 onwards)
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
From instrument of brutality to symbol of love
I found this article in the Easter weekend Sydney Morning Herald.
From instrument of brutality to symbol of love
by
John Dickson
I have recently bought two DVD sets presented by Dickson. Both examine the historical evidence of Jesus' life and ministry in a very accessible format. They are highly recommended - though may not be easily obtainable outside of Australia.
"The Christ Files"
and
"Life of Jesus"
More details at:
http://www.publicchristianity.org/
From instrument of brutality to symbol of love
by
John Dickson
I have recently bought two DVD sets presented by Dickson. Both examine the historical evidence of Jesus' life and ministry in a very accessible format. They are highly recommended - though may not be easily obtainable outside of Australia.
"The Christ Files"
and
"Life of Jesus"
More details at:
http://www.publicchristianity.org/
Thursday, March 26, 2009
TOLERATING FALSE GODS
When the Israelites made the golden calf, they referred to it as the God who had brought them out of Egypt. In one sense it was the RIGHT God they were worshipping, but instead of recognising Him for who He REALLY is they created their own image of Him.
At that time most of their knowledge of God was based on the spoken word of Moses and upon a few personal experiences as interpreted by Moses. They had no written scriptures and the Holy Spirit was not given to them in the way he has been given to believers today.
When Moses departed their camp, leaving them without their primary link to God, they reverted to the ideas of divinity they’d absorbed in Egypt over the previous 400 years. And God did not take it lightly when they created the false image and worshipped it.
Today Christians have the written scriptures and the Holy Spirit has been sent to lead us into all truth. Therefore there is no excuse for any major misunderstanding of God. Yet His character, His ways, His purposes and His method of salvation are viewed differently across various “Christian” camps.
At what point does a God cease to be the God of the Bible and become a false God?
Most Christians would have no hesitation in recognising that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons have departed from the truth, but what have those groups got wrong?
Their beliefs promote a different understanding of God’s character, God’s ways, God’s purposes and God’s method of salvation.
If we recognise the error within these groups and see them as false; why are we more tolerant of other “Christian” doctrines that like wise distort the character of God and His means of providing salvation?
At that time most of their knowledge of God was based on the spoken word of Moses and upon a few personal experiences as interpreted by Moses. They had no written scriptures and the Holy Spirit was not given to them in the way he has been given to believers today.
When Moses departed their camp, leaving them without their primary link to God, they reverted to the ideas of divinity they’d absorbed in Egypt over the previous 400 years. And God did not take it lightly when they created the false image and worshipped it.
Today Christians have the written scriptures and the Holy Spirit has been sent to lead us into all truth. Therefore there is no excuse for any major misunderstanding of God. Yet His character, His ways, His purposes and His method of salvation are viewed differently across various “Christian” camps.
At what point does a God cease to be the God of the Bible and become a false God?
Most Christians would have no hesitation in recognising that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons have departed from the truth, but what have those groups got wrong?
Their beliefs promote a different understanding of God’s character, God’s ways, God’s purposes and God’s method of salvation.
If we recognise the error within these groups and see them as false; why are we more tolerant of other “Christian” doctrines that like wise distort the character of God and His means of providing salvation?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
PUTTING ARMINIUS IN HIS PLACE
Over the last couple of weeks I have visited several “Arminian” blogs and I have been encouraged by many of the articles. This has been very welcome after months of being continually confronted and battered by Calvinists and their false teachings.
I have found that I am in agreement with most doctrine I’ve read on these websites. This agreement did not come about because I was conditioned by Arminius’ teaching, but because I studied and read the same Bible that Arminius studied and trusted the Holy Spirit’s teaching abilities.
Unfortunately, along with the good doctrine, I have also seen some evidence of a very unhealthy devotion to a man. Arminius is being given praise that is not due to him.
At times his teachings are mentioned in a way that gives the impression that they are THE means by which we understand truth and his teachings are held up as THE standard of doctrinal orthodoxy. In some cases this reliance on Arminius gives the impression that his teaching overshadows the value of scripture.
This situation is yet another example of man’s teaching being given too high a priority. Arminius was a man and the soundness in his teaching is due solely to its agreement with the scriptures. Go first to the SOURCE of scriptural truth and seek GOD alone for revelation through the Holy Spirit. Arminius (and other teachers) can later provide confirmation or otherwise of what we believe we have learned from the scriptures.
Promote the writings of Arminius as a valuable secondary resource by all means – but do not make him into a standard by which all teaching is judged. There is only ONE written standard of truth – the BIBLE.
I have found that I am in agreement with most doctrine I’ve read on these websites. This agreement did not come about because I was conditioned by Arminius’ teaching, but because I studied and read the same Bible that Arminius studied and trusted the Holy Spirit’s teaching abilities.
Unfortunately, along with the good doctrine, I have also seen some evidence of a very unhealthy devotion to a man. Arminius is being given praise that is not due to him.
At times his teachings are mentioned in a way that gives the impression that they are THE means by which we understand truth and his teachings are held up as THE standard of doctrinal orthodoxy. In some cases this reliance on Arminius gives the impression that his teaching overshadows the value of scripture.
This situation is yet another example of man’s teaching being given too high a priority. Arminius was a man and the soundness in his teaching is due solely to its agreement with the scriptures. Go first to the SOURCE of scriptural truth and seek GOD alone for revelation through the Holy Spirit. Arminius (and other teachers) can later provide confirmation or otherwise of what we believe we have learned from the scriptures.
Promote the writings of Arminius as a valuable secondary resource by all means – but do not make him into a standard by which all teaching is judged. There is only ONE written standard of truth – the BIBLE.
Monday, March 16, 2009
POTTER AND THE CLAY – MOULDING THE SCRIPTURES
Recently the teaching ministry of a particular woman was recommended to the members of a Christian discussion forum, so I read a transcript of one of her sermons based on “The Potter’s House”.
I was interested to see what was said about this topic because the image of the potter and the clay (from Romans 8) is a favourite proof text used by Calvinists.
While she presents some interesting ideas on potters and the use of clay – and even though she makes reference to biblical statements; it seems to me that she merely used the imagery to create her own message. It’s was the common practice of using a “text” as a springboard to present a message that the PREACHER wants to convey rather than taking the biblical text and seeing what IT has to say.To me this was made most clear by her avoidance of the interpretation GOD gives regarding Jeremiah’s observations in the potter’s house. She does make reference to Jeremiah 18 in which God has told Jeremiah to visit the potter – but then she stops after the potter/clay illustration is given. The following verses are not mentioned, and yet these give the very important context to the WHY God sent Jeremiah to observe the potter: and God’s interpretation turns the usual understanding of the story upon its head.
Usually the imagery of the potter and the clay are used to convey the idea that God is in control and that we are merely clay in His hands – subject totally to His will and His purpose for our lives. Some of us He has decided to make into vessels of honour and others He has decided to make as vessels of dishonour. The story is used to show how we have no involvement in our destiny – the potter (God) moulds the clay (us) as He desires.But when we see what God told Jeremiah we get a DIFFERENT picture.
God’s explanation of the potter and the clay shows how the clay (humanity) can change what God had decided. Those who God had determined to punish can avoid that punishment if they repent. Those who God had determined to reward could lose that reward if they turned to disobedience.The illustration shows that the clay can affect the outcome of the potter’s intention and if necessary he will make it into another pot, one different from his first intention.This sermon was a classic example of how to avoid scriptural context to mould God’s word into a form that WE choose to support our favoured theology.
----
Here is the PURPOSE of God’s message about the potter and the clay given in the part of the text that was not addressed in the sermon: Jeremiah 18 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
I was interested to see what was said about this topic because the image of the potter and the clay (from Romans 8) is a favourite proof text used by Calvinists.
While she presents some interesting ideas on potters and the use of clay – and even though she makes reference to biblical statements; it seems to me that she merely used the imagery to create her own message. It’s was the common practice of using a “text” as a springboard to present a message that the PREACHER wants to convey rather than taking the biblical text and seeing what IT has to say.To me this was made most clear by her avoidance of the interpretation GOD gives regarding Jeremiah’s observations in the potter’s house. She does make reference to Jeremiah 18 in which God has told Jeremiah to visit the potter – but then she stops after the potter/clay illustration is given. The following verses are not mentioned, and yet these give the very important context to the WHY God sent Jeremiah to observe the potter: and God’s interpretation turns the usual understanding of the story upon its head.
Usually the imagery of the potter and the clay are used to convey the idea that God is in control and that we are merely clay in His hands – subject totally to His will and His purpose for our lives. Some of us He has decided to make into vessels of honour and others He has decided to make as vessels of dishonour. The story is used to show how we have no involvement in our destiny – the potter (God) moulds the clay (us) as He desires.But when we see what God told Jeremiah we get a DIFFERENT picture.
God’s explanation of the potter and the clay shows how the clay (humanity) can change what God had decided. Those who God had determined to punish can avoid that punishment if they repent. Those who God had determined to reward could lose that reward if they turned to disobedience.The illustration shows that the clay can affect the outcome of the potter’s intention and if necessary he will make it into another pot, one different from his first intention.This sermon was a classic example of how to avoid scriptural context to mould God’s word into a form that WE choose to support our favoured theology.
----
Here is the PURPOSE of God’s message about the potter and the clay given in the part of the text that was not addressed in the sermon: Jeremiah 18 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
Friday, March 13, 2009
AM I AN ARMINIAN?
For most of my Christian life I was unaware of both Calvinism and Arminianism and the conflict between those different theologies.
My first knowledge of Calvinism came through participation on an internet forum; and I couldn’t believe that any professing Christian could believe such things about the God I’d grown to know over the previous 30 years.
Arminianism remained out of the picture until I started to be labelled as an Arminian by the Calvinists I was increasingly coming into contact with. While some used the label reasonably benignly, as if it was merely an alternative to their personal preference for Calvin; others used it as an accusation, as if an “Arminian” was something to be loathed.
From the first time I was identified as an “Arminian” I have objected to the label. Having not even heard of Arminius to that point, I knew that I was not a follower of the man or his doctrine. However, considering the number of times I was being associated with his teaching I eventually decided to find out more about him.
While I still object to be labelled as an “Arminian”, it is not because I have an objection to Arminius or his basic theology. My brief investigation into this matter has introduced me to some very worthwhile blogs associated with Arminian teachings. Through reading some of the articles I have been surprised how much I can identify and agree with their ideas and understanding. I have provided links to some of these on the sidebar.
In my previous blog entry I addressed my concerns about the use of none biblical “theological terminology”. That would perhaps be my main disagreement with the Arminian writers on the recommended blogs.
My experience with both charismanic and highly traditional churches has shown me how dangerous mans’ traditions can be, so I have a strong aversion to teachings that rely too much on sources other than the scriptures (this includes the use of non-biblical theological terminology). If these sources become too influential, then it becomes likely that we start to interpret scripture according to those sources rather than vice versa.
I was becoming increasingly discouraged by the apparently increasing influence of Calvinist thought among the Christians with whom I’ve come into contact in recent months. My first real contact with “Arminian” believers has given me a great deal of encouragement and I look forward to keeping up to date with their blog contributions.
At the moment I have the enjoyment of reading through some of their archived articles. One I found particularly interesting was “ON THEOLOGY” by Billy Birch found at the following link:
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-theology.html
His point about valid theology bringing glory to God draws a clear distinction between the Arminian and Calvinist views.
My first knowledge of Calvinism came through participation on an internet forum; and I couldn’t believe that any professing Christian could believe such things about the God I’d grown to know over the previous 30 years.
Arminianism remained out of the picture until I started to be labelled as an Arminian by the Calvinists I was increasingly coming into contact with. While some used the label reasonably benignly, as if it was merely an alternative to their personal preference for Calvin; others used it as an accusation, as if an “Arminian” was something to be loathed.
From the first time I was identified as an “Arminian” I have objected to the label. Having not even heard of Arminius to that point, I knew that I was not a follower of the man or his doctrine. However, considering the number of times I was being associated with his teaching I eventually decided to find out more about him.
While I still object to be labelled as an “Arminian”, it is not because I have an objection to Arminius or his basic theology. My brief investigation into this matter has introduced me to some very worthwhile blogs associated with Arminian teachings. Through reading some of the articles I have been surprised how much I can identify and agree with their ideas and understanding. I have provided links to some of these on the sidebar.
In my previous blog entry I addressed my concerns about the use of none biblical “theological terminology”. That would perhaps be my main disagreement with the Arminian writers on the recommended blogs.
My experience with both charismanic and highly traditional churches has shown me how dangerous mans’ traditions can be, so I have a strong aversion to teachings that rely too much on sources other than the scriptures (this includes the use of non-biblical theological terminology). If these sources become too influential, then it becomes likely that we start to interpret scripture according to those sources rather than vice versa.
I was becoming increasingly discouraged by the apparently increasing influence of Calvinist thought among the Christians with whom I’ve come into contact in recent months. My first real contact with “Arminian” believers has given me a great deal of encouragement and I look forward to keeping up to date with their blog contributions.
At the moment I have the enjoyment of reading through some of their archived articles. One I found particularly interesting was “ON THEOLOGY” by Billy Birch found at the following link:
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-theology.html
His point about valid theology bringing glory to God draws a clear distinction between the Arminian and Calvinist views.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)