I hope that my Catholic friends do not take offense at what is written here, but I am taking a stance against the practice of penance. For uninformed Protestants and other non-Catholics who might happen to read this, penance is a sacrament of the Catholic Church whereby a person shows their true sorrow and penitence by performing certain kinds of works. It begins with confession of the sin to a priest and ends with absolution once all the appropriate works are performed. (Protestants just confess their sins to God directly and receive forgiveness by faith.) These works generally include prayers and fastings, but used to include acts of public humiliation, which are rare today. Absolution is complete only when the prescribed works are done.
But I am not writing about the value of the Catholic rite, but rather about its secular counterpart. I guess we could call it something like "politically correct penance" though I am sure that those, especially in the news media, who promote this practice would object to any such terminology as, well, politically incorrect.
What do I mean by this? I mean that when a person, especially someone in the public eye, makes certain remarks, he is called upon by the media to do a kind of penance. Take, for example, Tracy Morgan, the comedian, who recently had a rant against homosexuals. Now I do not know the exact content of all that he said, but apparently he was quite nasty. And I agree that an apology would be the right thing to do.
But as you probably know, that is not all that he did, nor is it all that is expected of him. He must do some works of penance. He did the right thing in apologizing to a crowd in Nashville where he made the remarks. (To me, that should be sufficient for our forgiving this rant.) Then he went on an 'apology tour' where he confessed over and over again his terrible sin. After that he went to a homeless shelter for homosexual teens. (Why do they need their own shelter?) Finally, it seems that the media is satisfied that Tracy Morgan has done all of penance and can now be given absolution, and we all learned a valuable lesson.
I personally think that this is all ridiculous. First of all, I know that people like comedians to say things that are politically incorrect, but we know that many are thinking it anyway. Rants are heard about all kinds of people and groups and much of it is truly offensive. This kind of talk is unacceptable for Christians and we should all expect appropriate apologies when they occur.
But we know that in a politically correct environment, it is not the fact that you said something bad about someone, but the fact that you said it against certain select groups. Kobe Bryant, the basketball player, cursed out a referee a while ago, and in the midst of the cursing used a homosexual slur. The media pointed out the slur and the league fined him for it. Why was that singled out? - Because it is politically incorrect. Now, it is okay to point it out, but does not the disrespect shown to a referee count for more? In my mind it does. That is what he should have been fined for and what the media should have focused on.
What have we taught our youth here? That using slurs regarding homosexuality is wrong, but gross disrespect to referees and foul language is not as bad. This is wrong. Morgan in another venue, on a sports program, made a sexually crude remark about Sarah Palin. The network apologized, but it seems that no penance was required. No public confession, no apology tour, no rehab, no media outrage. I guess it was just not a mortal sin, but only a venial one. If I knew that he spoke to her and personally apologized, that would be good, but we are unaware of any such thing.
The media obviously plays the role of the priest. (It's amazing how they can act in concert.) The 'sinner' is the one who violated the commandment against politically correct diversity or whatever. Multiple public confessions and humiliations replace a single private confession. Going to rehab or 'diversity training' or speaking to or in support of a special group is the works. Only when these are complete will the media grant absolution.
It's funny that the media, which loves to bash Catholics among other Christians, would unwittingly adopt one of their sacraments. For me, as Protestant as I am, I would take the Catholic sacrament over the new, secular one every time.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
Harold Camping - how to deal with false prophecy
You will notice in the title that I said 'false prophecy' and not 'false prophet'. Now that the fervor regarding Camping's prediction that the Rapture will occur last May 21st, I feel it is time for some reasoned analysis. By that, I mean, reasoning according to the scriptures.
Whatever damage may have been by Camping's prediction, I think that there has been an overreaction by some in the church. None of wants the church,or the gospel, to be ridiculed because some goofball spouts off this way. We are rightfully concerned that the church and the Bible will be made a laughingstock by false predictions of the Return of Christ or the Rapture or whatever. Some, however, have too harshly judged and condemned the man for his foolishness.
That being said, we now must go back to the scriptures to see how the church ought to handle these things. First of all, I want to admit to not knowing a whole lot about this Camping fellow and what he preaches. I am unsure of exactly what he teaches nor his motives. So I will use the information that I have and go from there.
Based on incomplete information, I am not comfortable, at this point, calling him a false prophet. (Some of you may be upset with me at this point, but please keep reading.) You might ask, 'Doesn't his making a false prediction, especially regarding a future event in the Bible, automatically make him a false prophet?'. The answer to that is no.
Let me explain: If a person predicts something will happen based on his own study of the scriptures, they are not technically prophesying. They are teaching. I am not sure if Camping is basing his prediction on the Bible (wrongly interpreted) or if he is saying that he has had a special revelation from God. A prophecy is an inspired utterance. It is not the result of Bible study. If Camping is teaching in error, then he could be a foolish teacher and not a prophet at all.
But let's say that he is prophesying. How should we approach it? Many of us would turn to the Old Testament to find what it would say about false prophets. Deut 18:20-22 "The prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."
According to Deuteronomy, a false prophet was to die. I realize that nobody is suggesting such a thing for Camping, so we agree that we are not to respond to false prophets in the way that they did under the Old Covenant. We should not, however, be afraid of him. He is not speaking in the Lord's name.
Let's look at Deut. 13:1-3a “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams." There is something different going on here. The point that Moses makes is that the coming to pass of the prophecy is not the most important issue, but whether or not the prophet is leading people away from the Lord.
This, I think, is the real key to calling someone a false prophet. Does their prophecy bring people closer to God or further away from Him? This puts a new light on this issue. It is too simplistic to say that Camping was wrong and, therefore, he is a false prophet. Is he leading people away from Christ? I honestly say that I don't know since I do not know all that he is teaching. If he is teaching heresy then he is a false teacher/prophet. If not, he may just be a confused believer. If his general teaching is orthodox, then we must consider him a brother in Christ even if some people discouraged from following Christ because of his error. (Have we not all done damage to the Kingdom of God because of our sin or foolishness?)
We need to go to the New Testament to find out what Christians ought to do with prophecies, both false and real. 1 Thess. 5:20-21 "Despise not prophesyings.
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Apparently there was a misuse of prophecy in the church in Thessalonica. Paul, instead of banning all prophecy or condemning those who abused it, gave us sage and reasonable advice. He said to test all such things. Keep the good and throw away the bad.
He says nothing about making fun of false prophecies or excoriating those who do this. He tells us to simply judge the prophecy. Seems rather simple, doesn't it? No ranting about those who make foolish predictions. Rather the believer is to judge the prophecy, and those who give the prophecy must be humble enough to submit their prophecy to judgement without becoming haughty or offended.
So then, how do we judge prophecy? First and foremost by the Word of God. Does the prophecy line up with the Bible? If it does not, then the prophecy is easy to judge. Camping's prophecy falls under this category. Jesus said that we would not know the day nor the hour of His coming. Therefore, all such predictions are false.
Other prophecies are more difficult to judge. A prophecy may not contradict the Bible, but still be false. The next criteria is whether that prophecy gives glory to the Lord, or does it tend to draw us away. Many false prophets and teachers have used the Bible to exalt themselves and make themselves the center of their little group. We need to judge that as well.
Finally, does the prophecy bear witness with our spirits? All born-again believers have the inward witness (Romans 8:14) to help us know what is of God and what is not. We need to develop and cultivate the inward witness and become sensitive to God's Spirit. Just because something seems spiritual or exciting does not mean it is of God. (It's probably not the Devil either, but only the flesh.)
We need to remember as well that Paul also tells us to hold fast to that which is good. If a prophecy is from God, we have to embrace it. This is not, however, putting even a true prophecy on the level of scripture. All prophecy is subordinate to the Word of God. God may speak a true Word to you, but even that must be examined in light of scripture. Do not make some personal revelation into a doctrine. It could just be a Word for you and nobody else. We cannot expect others to follow what the Lord has shown you, unless you are in a position of authority and that Word is for the whole group. Then it still must be judged.
The person who gives a prophecy must not be haughty about it, and neither should those who judge the prophecy be haughty against those prophesying. None of us is perfect and we have all missed the mark regarding what the Lord has (supposedly) shown us.
Whatever damage may have been by Camping's prediction, I think that there has been an overreaction by some in the church. None of wants the church,or the gospel, to be ridiculed because some goofball spouts off this way. We are rightfully concerned that the church and the Bible will be made a laughingstock by false predictions of the Return of Christ or the Rapture or whatever. Some, however, have too harshly judged and condemned the man for his foolishness.
That being said, we now must go back to the scriptures to see how the church ought to handle these things. First of all, I want to admit to not knowing a whole lot about this Camping fellow and what he preaches. I am unsure of exactly what he teaches nor his motives. So I will use the information that I have and go from there.
Based on incomplete information, I am not comfortable, at this point, calling him a false prophet. (Some of you may be upset with me at this point, but please keep reading.) You might ask, 'Doesn't his making a false prediction, especially regarding a future event in the Bible, automatically make him a false prophet?'. The answer to that is no.
Let me explain: If a person predicts something will happen based on his own study of the scriptures, they are not technically prophesying. They are teaching. I am not sure if Camping is basing his prediction on the Bible (wrongly interpreted) or if he is saying that he has had a special revelation from God. A prophecy is an inspired utterance. It is not the result of Bible study. If Camping is teaching in error, then he could be a foolish teacher and not a prophet at all.
But let's say that he is prophesying. How should we approach it? Many of us would turn to the Old Testament to find what it would say about false prophets. Deut 18:20-22 "The prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."
According to Deuteronomy, a false prophet was to die. I realize that nobody is suggesting such a thing for Camping, so we agree that we are not to respond to false prophets in the way that they did under the Old Covenant. We should not, however, be afraid of him. He is not speaking in the Lord's name.
Let's look at Deut. 13:1-3a “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams." There is something different going on here. The point that Moses makes is that the coming to pass of the prophecy is not the most important issue, but whether or not the prophet is leading people away from the Lord.
This, I think, is the real key to calling someone a false prophet. Does their prophecy bring people closer to God or further away from Him? This puts a new light on this issue. It is too simplistic to say that Camping was wrong and, therefore, he is a false prophet. Is he leading people away from Christ? I honestly say that I don't know since I do not know all that he is teaching. If he is teaching heresy then he is a false teacher/prophet. If not, he may just be a confused believer. If his general teaching is orthodox, then we must consider him a brother in Christ even if some people discouraged from following Christ because of his error. (Have we not all done damage to the Kingdom of God because of our sin or foolishness?)
We need to go to the New Testament to find out what Christians ought to do with prophecies, both false and real. 1 Thess. 5:20-21 "Despise not prophesyings.
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Apparently there was a misuse of prophecy in the church in Thessalonica. Paul, instead of banning all prophecy or condemning those who abused it, gave us sage and reasonable advice. He said to test all such things. Keep the good and throw away the bad.
He says nothing about making fun of false prophecies or excoriating those who do this. He tells us to simply judge the prophecy. Seems rather simple, doesn't it? No ranting about those who make foolish predictions. Rather the believer is to judge the prophecy, and those who give the prophecy must be humble enough to submit their prophecy to judgement without becoming haughty or offended.
So then, how do we judge prophecy? First and foremost by the Word of God. Does the prophecy line up with the Bible? If it does not, then the prophecy is easy to judge. Camping's prophecy falls under this category. Jesus said that we would not know the day nor the hour of His coming. Therefore, all such predictions are false.
Other prophecies are more difficult to judge. A prophecy may not contradict the Bible, but still be false. The next criteria is whether that prophecy gives glory to the Lord, or does it tend to draw us away. Many false prophets and teachers have used the Bible to exalt themselves and make themselves the center of their little group. We need to judge that as well.
Finally, does the prophecy bear witness with our spirits? All born-again believers have the inward witness (Romans 8:14) to help us know what is of God and what is not. We need to develop and cultivate the inward witness and become sensitive to God's Spirit. Just because something seems spiritual or exciting does not mean it is of God. (It's probably not the Devil either, but only the flesh.)
We need to remember as well that Paul also tells us to hold fast to that which is good. If a prophecy is from God, we have to embrace it. This is not, however, putting even a true prophecy on the level of scripture. All prophecy is subordinate to the Word of God. God may speak a true Word to you, but even that must be examined in light of scripture. Do not make some personal revelation into a doctrine. It could just be a Word for you and nobody else. We cannot expect others to follow what the Lord has shown you, unless you are in a position of authority and that Word is for the whole group. Then it still must be judged.
The person who gives a prophecy must not be haughty about it, and neither should those who judge the prophecy be haughty against those prophesying. None of us is perfect and we have all missed the mark regarding what the Lord has (supposedly) shown us.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Atonement
The word 'atonement' is used as the term regarding what Christ did on our behalf by His death and resurrection to free us from sin and Satan. Theories of the atonement try to explain exactly how that atonement was accomplished.
The most common theory of atonement is what is called Penal Substitution. The idea is that Jesus satisfied the demands of justice by suffering for our sins, thereby relieving us of sin's penalty. This means that God was justifiably angry at our sin and that it must be punished. Jesus took our place in judgment so that we could be justified. I think that most of us agree on that. It is standard evangelical teaching.
But there was a theory, dominant in the church for many centuries, called the Ransom-to-Satan theory. It said that our sin put us in bondage to Satan and that Jesus, by his sacrifice, bought us out of this bondage. Jesus defeats Satan and frees us. Jesus' sacrifice is, then, a kind of ransom paid to Satan rather than a satisfaction of divine justice.
Now to many of us this will seem to be a strange theory not even worth considering as a proper theory of atonement. But I would caution the church not to throw out the baby with the bath water. I certainly do think that it is mistaken to consider Christ's sacrifice as a ransom paid to Satan, but there is something here that we will miss if we are not careful. The idea that Satan has mankind in bondage and that he must be freed is quite scriptural. Let's look at some scripture:
Hebrews 2:14-15 "Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives."
Colossians 2:13-15 "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them in it."
It sure looks to me like Jesus in His atoning work defeated Satan as well as satisfying the demands of justice. Our transgressions are forgiven because our debt is satisfied. Then Jesus disarms (spoils) the demonic powers freeing us from bondage. But some would have you to believe that this is not necessary. All that is needed is forgiveness of sins.
Apparently, forgiveness of sins alone is not enough to free us from Satan. Satan must be personally defeated. And that is what Jesus did after He had finished satisfying the demands of justice.
Here is a natural illustration: Suppose someone offends a king and part of his punishment is banishment. He goes to another country where the ruler puts him in chains. But the king wants his old subject back, but not without punishment for his sins. The king then allows another to take his place in judgment. Another will suffer in the offender's place. The substitute suffers on the offender's behalf. Wonderful! Can the former-offender go back home now? No. He is still in bondage. The substitute (or someone else) must defeat the ruler of the other country. Only then is the former offender truly free.
Too often in the church we are led to believe that if we accept one idea that we must reject another. This is not always the case. We need to study all ideas and keep the parts that are true of each theory and discard the rest. We certainly do need to make the idea of penal substitution the centerpiece of our atonement theology. However, we must often blend ideas together to explain all the biblical evidence. We must be careful not to adopt an 'either-or' mentality.
Happy Easter!
The most common theory of atonement is what is called Penal Substitution. The idea is that Jesus satisfied the demands of justice by suffering for our sins, thereby relieving us of sin's penalty. This means that God was justifiably angry at our sin and that it must be punished. Jesus took our place in judgment so that we could be justified. I think that most of us agree on that. It is standard evangelical teaching.
But there was a theory, dominant in the church for many centuries, called the Ransom-to-Satan theory. It said that our sin put us in bondage to Satan and that Jesus, by his sacrifice, bought us out of this bondage. Jesus defeats Satan and frees us. Jesus' sacrifice is, then, a kind of ransom paid to Satan rather than a satisfaction of divine justice.
Now to many of us this will seem to be a strange theory not even worth considering as a proper theory of atonement. But I would caution the church not to throw out the baby with the bath water. I certainly do think that it is mistaken to consider Christ's sacrifice as a ransom paid to Satan, but there is something here that we will miss if we are not careful. The idea that Satan has mankind in bondage and that he must be freed is quite scriptural. Let's look at some scripture:
Hebrews 2:14-15 "Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives."
Colossians 2:13-15 "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them in it."
It sure looks to me like Jesus in His atoning work defeated Satan as well as satisfying the demands of justice. Our transgressions are forgiven because our debt is satisfied. Then Jesus disarms (spoils) the demonic powers freeing us from bondage. But some would have you to believe that this is not necessary. All that is needed is forgiveness of sins.
Apparently, forgiveness of sins alone is not enough to free us from Satan. Satan must be personally defeated. And that is what Jesus did after He had finished satisfying the demands of justice.
Here is a natural illustration: Suppose someone offends a king and part of his punishment is banishment. He goes to another country where the ruler puts him in chains. But the king wants his old subject back, but not without punishment for his sins. The king then allows another to take his place in judgment. Another will suffer in the offender's place. The substitute suffers on the offender's behalf. Wonderful! Can the former-offender go back home now? No. He is still in bondage. The substitute (or someone else) must defeat the ruler of the other country. Only then is the former offender truly free.
Too often in the church we are led to believe that if we accept one idea that we must reject another. This is not always the case. We need to study all ideas and keep the parts that are true of each theory and discard the rest. We certainly do need to make the idea of penal substitution the centerpiece of our atonement theology. However, we must often blend ideas together to explain all the biblical evidence. We must be careful not to adopt an 'either-or' mentality.
Happy Easter!
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Sit, Walk, Stand
A friend of mine had a book by Watchman Nee called "Sit, Walk, Stand". He could not figure out what the title meant until he read it. It was a commentary on the book of Ephesians. 'Sit' refers to Ephesians 2:6 that says, "[God] raised us up with Christ, and made us sit with Him in heavenly places in Christ Jesus". 'Walk' refers to chapter 5, verse 2 which says, "Walk in love, as Christ also loved you, and delivered Himself up for you, an offering and sacrifice to God for an odor of sweet smell." 'Stand' refers to chapter 6, verse 11-12 which says, "Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil; because we do not wrestle against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers..."
First of all, I want to note that these three words also are prominent in the first psalm. "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of the sinner, nor sits in the seat of the scornful." Unlike the Ephesians passage, this psalm tells us how not to sit, walk or stand. The message here is a warning about how not to be, while Paul's message is positive.
What the psalm and Ephesians have in common, though, is the fact that the three words relate to each other. What I mean is that in the psalm, the psalmist is warning us not to sit, walk or stand in the way of evil. These things are related. If you do one, you will do the others. A person who walks in ungodly counsel will commit sin and develop a generally scornful attitude.
Paul, in writing Ephesians, no doubt had in mind Psalm 1 when he wrote to the Ephesians. He meant for us to relate these three words together in his epistle. First, we are told about how we (the church) are seated with Christ in Heaven. I am betting that most of you have never heard a sermon on this subject or know much about it at all. But Paul thought that it was so important that he prayed for the church at Ephesus that God would give them "a Spirit of wisdom and revelation" so they could understand this great truth. It is not something that we can figure out in our heads, we need a revelation of it by the Spirit.
So what does it mean to be seated with Christ? It means that positionally we are ruling with Him. He is seated at the right hand of God. That seat is a throne by which he rules. Are we ruling with Him now? Are we not going to reign with Him in the future? The answer to both questions is yes. We share in His authority in one aspect now, and it will be fully consummated in the future.
Ephesians 1:20-21 tells us that God "raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principalities, powers, might and dominion, and every name that is named." The expression 'principalities and powers' refers to the demonic powers in this world. These are the same demonic powers in that we read about in Ephesians 6:12. Jesus has absolute authority over the Devil and his demons. He has delegated that authority to the church.
"All authority was given to Me in Heaven and on earth." "Go into all the world ... in My Name cast out demons." (Matthew 28:18; Mark 16:17) These are the words of Jesus to the church right before he is seated at the right hand of the Father. He delegated authority over the Devil in this earth to us. This brings new light on the meaning of Ephesians 6 that says that we must stand against the Enemy. We do not have to defeat the Devil. Jesus has already done that for us. We do not have to try to get God to get the Devil off of us. We have authority over him in Jesus' Name. Jesus' Name is ours to use in our combat with the Enemy.
In order to stand against the Enemy we must first realize that we are seated with Christ. We cannot stand if we do not realize that we are seated with. We do not cry out to God for deliverance from the Devil. We must bind him and limit him and cast him out of our lives. Our dominion over the Devil is part of our redemption in Christ. We must realize our dominion and take advantage of it.
One more thing. It is also crucial that we walk in love. We do not wrestle with other people (flesh and blood) but against the Devil who is behind the evil that they try to inflict upon us. Failing to walk in love allows the Devil to defeat us. But if we walk in love, we walk in the light and darkness cannot overcome us.
If we want to walk in victory over the Devil we must sit, walk and stand.
First of all, I want to note that these three words also are prominent in the first psalm. "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of the sinner, nor sits in the seat of the scornful." Unlike the Ephesians passage, this psalm tells us how not to sit, walk or stand. The message here is a warning about how not to be, while Paul's message is positive.
What the psalm and Ephesians have in common, though, is the fact that the three words relate to each other. What I mean is that in the psalm, the psalmist is warning us not to sit, walk or stand in the way of evil. These things are related. If you do one, you will do the others. A person who walks in ungodly counsel will commit sin and develop a generally scornful attitude.
Paul, in writing Ephesians, no doubt had in mind Psalm 1 when he wrote to the Ephesians. He meant for us to relate these three words together in his epistle. First, we are told about how we (the church) are seated with Christ in Heaven. I am betting that most of you have never heard a sermon on this subject or know much about it at all. But Paul thought that it was so important that he prayed for the church at Ephesus that God would give them "a Spirit of wisdom and revelation" so they could understand this great truth. It is not something that we can figure out in our heads, we need a revelation of it by the Spirit.
So what does it mean to be seated with Christ? It means that positionally we are ruling with Him. He is seated at the right hand of God. That seat is a throne by which he rules. Are we ruling with Him now? Are we not going to reign with Him in the future? The answer to both questions is yes. We share in His authority in one aspect now, and it will be fully consummated in the future.
Ephesians 1:20-21 tells us that God "raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principalities, powers, might and dominion, and every name that is named." The expression 'principalities and powers' refers to the demonic powers in this world. These are the same demonic powers in that we read about in Ephesians 6:12. Jesus has absolute authority over the Devil and his demons. He has delegated that authority to the church.
"All authority was given to Me in Heaven and on earth." "Go into all the world ... in My Name cast out demons." (Matthew 28:18; Mark 16:17) These are the words of Jesus to the church right before he is seated at the right hand of the Father. He delegated authority over the Devil in this earth to us. This brings new light on the meaning of Ephesians 6 that says that we must stand against the Enemy. We do not have to defeat the Devil. Jesus has already done that for us. We do not have to try to get God to get the Devil off of us. We have authority over him in Jesus' Name. Jesus' Name is ours to use in our combat with the Enemy.
In order to stand against the Enemy we must first realize that we are seated with Christ. We cannot stand if we do not realize that we are seated with. We do not cry out to God for deliverance from the Devil. We must bind him and limit him and cast him out of our lives. Our dominion over the Devil is part of our redemption in Christ. We must realize our dominion and take advantage of it.
One more thing. It is also crucial that we walk in love. We do not wrestle with other people (flesh and blood) but against the Devil who is behind the evil that they try to inflict upon us. Failing to walk in love allows the Devil to defeat us. But if we walk in love, we walk in the light and darkness cannot overcome us.
If we want to walk in victory over the Devil we must sit, walk and stand.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
How Error Can Help Us
Anyone who has studied the Christian heresies in the early centuries of the church is aware that the many errors that arose in the church actually helped the church to define who Jesus is. In the long run, the church was actually helped by being forced to better interpret the Bible.
A recent error (I will not call it a heresy) is called Christian Reconstruction or Theonomy. It is the notion that the OT civil laws should be adopted wholesale by all nations today. They say that only the sacrifices and feasts have been fulfilled by Jesus and are the only part of the OT Law that has been abrogated. Hence, the civil aspect of the Law is still in force and God expects us to obey it.
Most Christians disagree with this, saying that only the moral aspect of the Law is still valid today. They say that the laws that God gave to Israel were only for them though we can learn principles of wise and just government from them. I agree with this latter approach.
It is a small minority, almost a fringe element, that holds that to Theonomy but many others use Theonomic principles when it suits them. Let's take, for instance, the issue of immigration in America. We have laws restricting immigration though there is controversy both about the laws themselves and the enforcement of those laws.
Many want firmer measures to enforce those laws; others have tried to use to the OT laws to support the opposite position. They want an open door policy on immigration. The OT does say to welcome aliens and strangers and take good care of them. There was definitely an 'open immigration' policy in Israel.
So, they say, the US should adopt the same policy and let multitudes to remain in this country who have not followed legal immigration procedures. You can make this argument based in OT law, but are you willing to be consistent? Will you apply all OT laws and punishments? Are you suggesting that Theonomy is the solution to immigration but not to anything else? Do you want to stone adulterers and homosexuals? I doubt it. When Uganda recently passed harsh laws forbidding homosexual activity, Christians said that this was wrong. Some of these same Christians are supporting open borders based on OT law.
When we say 'let's examine what the Bible says about X,Y or Z' should we not have a clear understanding about why certain OT laws existed? (And let's not condescendingly attribute a lack of mental and moral development to ancient peoples.) One of the main purposes that Israel existed was to bring the revelation of the true God to the world. They did not go out and evangelize. Rather they were to welcome all to come and learn about Him.
The call of the church is to make disciples of all nations, going out into the world to preach the gospel. It is the church that has to have an open door policy, not the nation in which it resides. The most proper application of the OT law regarding immigration is towards the church and not secular governments. The purpose of the law is to propagate the knowledge of God. That is now done by the church, not the nation of Israel.
Now some will say that the NT always leans on the side of compassion rather than justice and that our laws should be compassionate. But is that the purpose of law, any law? Laws are to establish justice, not compassion. Mercy ought to be shown sometimes in the administration of the law, but the laws themselves exist to give order to a society and to punish wrongdoing. When a person enters the country illegally then he has done wrong. Expulsion is not too harsh a punishment.
Governments administer justice; the church administers mercy. We need to remember this "separation" of church and state functions. There is no contradiction between the church feeding and clothing an illegal immigrant and the government arresting and deporting the same person. Both ought to be done. It is no different from prison ministries. We go to prisons to minister to those who are suffering, though some of that suffering is caused by the government enforcing the law in their case. We do not suggest that they be let out of prison because the Bible teaches 'compassion'.
So if we want to make a case for an open immigration policy we must make it on other grounds. We must be careful not to use the OT law in a inappropriate manner. Paul warned against those who would be "teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully." (1 Timothy 1:7-8) There is a proper use of the Law. Let us use it wisely and not for merely promoting our own politics.
A recent error (I will not call it a heresy) is called Christian Reconstruction or Theonomy. It is the notion that the OT civil laws should be adopted wholesale by all nations today. They say that only the sacrifices and feasts have been fulfilled by Jesus and are the only part of the OT Law that has been abrogated. Hence, the civil aspect of the Law is still in force and God expects us to obey it.
Most Christians disagree with this, saying that only the moral aspect of the Law is still valid today. They say that the laws that God gave to Israel were only for them though we can learn principles of wise and just government from them. I agree with this latter approach.
It is a small minority, almost a fringe element, that holds that to Theonomy but many others use Theonomic principles when it suits them. Let's take, for instance, the issue of immigration in America. We have laws restricting immigration though there is controversy both about the laws themselves and the enforcement of those laws.
Many want firmer measures to enforce those laws; others have tried to use to the OT laws to support the opposite position. They want an open door policy on immigration. The OT does say to welcome aliens and strangers and take good care of them. There was definitely an 'open immigration' policy in Israel.
So, they say, the US should adopt the same policy and let multitudes to remain in this country who have not followed legal immigration procedures. You can make this argument based in OT law, but are you willing to be consistent? Will you apply all OT laws and punishments? Are you suggesting that Theonomy is the solution to immigration but not to anything else? Do you want to stone adulterers and homosexuals? I doubt it. When Uganda recently passed harsh laws forbidding homosexual activity, Christians said that this was wrong. Some of these same Christians are supporting open borders based on OT law.
When we say 'let's examine what the Bible says about X,Y or Z' should we not have a clear understanding about why certain OT laws existed? (And let's not condescendingly attribute a lack of mental and moral development to ancient peoples.) One of the main purposes that Israel existed was to bring the revelation of the true God to the world. They did not go out and evangelize. Rather they were to welcome all to come and learn about Him.
The call of the church is to make disciples of all nations, going out into the world to preach the gospel. It is the church that has to have an open door policy, not the nation in which it resides. The most proper application of the OT law regarding immigration is towards the church and not secular governments. The purpose of the law is to propagate the knowledge of God. That is now done by the church, not the nation of Israel.
Now some will say that the NT always leans on the side of compassion rather than justice and that our laws should be compassionate. But is that the purpose of law, any law? Laws are to establish justice, not compassion. Mercy ought to be shown sometimes in the administration of the law, but the laws themselves exist to give order to a society and to punish wrongdoing. When a person enters the country illegally then he has done wrong. Expulsion is not too harsh a punishment.
Governments administer justice; the church administers mercy. We need to remember this "separation" of church and state functions. There is no contradiction between the church feeding and clothing an illegal immigrant and the government arresting and deporting the same person. Both ought to be done. It is no different from prison ministries. We go to prisons to minister to those who are suffering, though some of that suffering is caused by the government enforcing the law in their case. We do not suggest that they be let out of prison because the Bible teaches 'compassion'.
So if we want to make a case for an open immigration policy we must make it on other grounds. We must be careful not to use the OT law in a inappropriate manner. Paul warned against those who would be "teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully." (1 Timothy 1:7-8) There is a proper use of the Law. Let us use it wisely and not for merely promoting our own politics.
Monday, March 21, 2011
23 minutes with Rob Bell
Two books have recently become best-sellers in the Christian book trade, both on the subject of Hell. Most people have heard about Hell and have an opinion about it. Upon reading this post, I trust that you will have a good idea of my own view on Hell. but even more you should have an idea of how I think that we should approach the subject.
The first book written was by Bill Weise and it is called "23 Minutes in Hell". It is a disturbing tale in which Mr. Weise tells of experiencing Hell for 23 minutes. He depicts Hell as a real place where people consciously suffer unspeakable horrors. He uses this testimony to get people to think seriously about Hell in the hopes that all will repent and avoid it.
The second book (which I confess I have not read) is by a pastor named Rob Bell. It is called "Love Wins". According to the reviews of this book it is an attempt by the author to bring up some troubling issues about Hell. However, since I have not read the book I will only comment generally on some of these issues.
There are a couple of ways that we can, as Christians, approach the subject of Hell, or any other Bible subject. We can study what the Bible says about it and accept it regardless of whether or not it seems right or good to us.
Or we can hope that the Bible 'really' says what we think is good and just. We may want to believe what the Bible says, but we subject the Bible to our own moral sensibilities. Then we try to make the Bible fit our own idea of what is true. That way we can say that we believe the Bible without actually submitting ourselves to it. We interpret it accordingly.
This inevitably leads to self-deception. We need to renew our minds to what the Word actually says. Some seem to be saying that the fact that God is love means that whatever the Bible says it cannot mean that good people will go to Hell. Richard Mouw, a supporter of Bell's views, says that he knew a nice rabbi who prayed for him everyday. When the rabbi died he hoped that Jesus would accept that rabbi into Heaven. I, too, hope that he made it to Heaven, but it does not seem like the man believes in Jesus as Savior. It seems (only God knows his heart) that he ultimately rejected Jesus. That is worse than any other sin one can commit. That is worse than genocide or torture or anything else a person could do. Why do we Christians take it so lightly?
I read one commentator who said that Ghandi, the peaceful liberator of India, must certainly be in heaven today. Why? Because of his good works? Has this commentator read the epistles of Paul? Good works do not earn us heaven. Only faith in Christ saves us. Ghandi,a Hindu who understood the New Testament quite well, almost certainly never committed himself to Christ.
Now that does not mean that God did not use Ghandi to free India. But it does not make him eligible for Heaven. God also used Cyrus, the Persian king, to free the Jews after the Babylonian Captivity. That would not qualify him for salvation either. God does not save people because they have done good, or even great, things. All our righteousness is as filthy rags.
You might be agreeing with me on these points though you may be thinking, 'yes, but how do we present this to others - should we threaten everyone with fire and brimstone? Should we not make the gospel attractive to others?'.
I think the Bible answer here is very simple: speak the truth in love. We cannot leave out either part. We must always minister in love, but this does not preclude stern warnings about Hell. "On some have compassion ... and others save with fear." (Jude 22) A friend of mine in college was saved while he was in youth group. I asked him what convinced him to give his heart to the Lord. He said that he did not want to go to Hell. Some would say that this is not a good motive. Jude has no problem with it at all.
I actually find that having your sins washed away in the blood of the Lamb and escaping Hell to be a very attractive gospel. It's far better than wishy-washy notions of 'generous' orthodoxy.
Final point: I think that it is counterproductive, and even dangerous, to publicly say that we are not sure that all unbelievers are going to Hell. If we are not sure, then the world will think that they can reject the gospel without consequence because God is "generous". We should not equivocate on major doctrines like Hell and let the world think that God will let them into Heaven because they do not 'deserve' Hell.
The first book written was by Bill Weise and it is called "23 Minutes in Hell". It is a disturbing tale in which Mr. Weise tells of experiencing Hell for 23 minutes. He depicts Hell as a real place where people consciously suffer unspeakable horrors. He uses this testimony to get people to think seriously about Hell in the hopes that all will repent and avoid it.
The second book (which I confess I have not read) is by a pastor named Rob Bell. It is called "Love Wins". According to the reviews of this book it is an attempt by the author to bring up some troubling issues about Hell. However, since I have not read the book I will only comment generally on some of these issues.
There are a couple of ways that we can, as Christians, approach the subject of Hell, or any other Bible subject. We can study what the Bible says about it and accept it regardless of whether or not it seems right or good to us.
Or we can hope that the Bible 'really' says what we think is good and just. We may want to believe what the Bible says, but we subject the Bible to our own moral sensibilities. Then we try to make the Bible fit our own idea of what is true. That way we can say that we believe the Bible without actually submitting ourselves to it. We interpret it accordingly.
This inevitably leads to self-deception. We need to renew our minds to what the Word actually says. Some seem to be saying that the fact that God is love means that whatever the Bible says it cannot mean that good people will go to Hell. Richard Mouw, a supporter of Bell's views, says that he knew a nice rabbi who prayed for him everyday. When the rabbi died he hoped that Jesus would accept that rabbi into Heaven. I, too, hope that he made it to Heaven, but it does not seem like the man believes in Jesus as Savior. It seems (only God knows his heart) that he ultimately rejected Jesus. That is worse than any other sin one can commit. That is worse than genocide or torture or anything else a person could do. Why do we Christians take it so lightly?
I read one commentator who said that Ghandi, the peaceful liberator of India, must certainly be in heaven today. Why? Because of his good works? Has this commentator read the epistles of Paul? Good works do not earn us heaven. Only faith in Christ saves us. Ghandi,a Hindu who understood the New Testament quite well, almost certainly never committed himself to Christ.
Now that does not mean that God did not use Ghandi to free India. But it does not make him eligible for Heaven. God also used Cyrus, the Persian king, to free the Jews after the Babylonian Captivity. That would not qualify him for salvation either. God does not save people because they have done good, or even great, things. All our righteousness is as filthy rags.
You might be agreeing with me on these points though you may be thinking, 'yes, but how do we present this to others - should we threaten everyone with fire and brimstone? Should we not make the gospel attractive to others?'.
I think the Bible answer here is very simple: speak the truth in love. We cannot leave out either part. We must always minister in love, but this does not preclude stern warnings about Hell. "On some have compassion ... and others save with fear." (Jude 22) A friend of mine in college was saved while he was in youth group. I asked him what convinced him to give his heart to the Lord. He said that he did not want to go to Hell. Some would say that this is not a good motive. Jude has no problem with it at all.
I actually find that having your sins washed away in the blood of the Lamb and escaping Hell to be a very attractive gospel. It's far better than wishy-washy notions of 'generous' orthodoxy.
Final point: I think that it is counterproductive, and even dangerous, to publicly say that we are not sure that all unbelievers are going to Hell. If we are not sure, then the world will think that they can reject the gospel without consequence because God is "generous". We should not equivocate on major doctrines like Hell and let the world think that God will let them into Heaven because they do not 'deserve' Hell.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Evangelical Self-flagellation
Have you ever noticed, like I have, that evangelicals, when examining the church, seem to indulge in a bit of self-flagellation? Oh no, you say, self-flagellation is for some extreme ascetics in the Catholic Church or something, not for us who believe in salvation by faith alone! We do affirm sola gratia, all right, but we still see ourselves as sinners. I think this affects our view on the church.
Let me illustrate what I am saying. When a church grows very large and builds big buildings we have the tendency to assume that "they are all about numbers". We love to put down those who are very successful. It is assumed that the gospel is being watered down and the people are not being challenged.
Is it really right to draw this kind of a conclusion if we do not know the hearts of the leaders or the people of these congregations? Do we know for a fact that this is the case, or do we think that it must be this way for one reason or another?
It kind of reminds me of Hollywood's view of big business. A big corporation is often assumed to be successful because it is greedy, unscrupulous and even ruthless. But do these negative assumptions actually make sense? Why would others do business with those who are unscrupulous? I never did. When I ran my business I avoided the unscrupulous like the plague and so did other business people. You do business with others because of mutual benefit. Bald-faced greed will get you nowhere.
We have a prejudice against the big and successful. We Americans root for the little guy, the underdog.
Then again, we also have the opposite tendency, once again on the negative side. When we see declines in churches we assume the worst once again. It is because the ministry is not doing its job or the people do not want to commit to the truth. Once more, we should not jump to conclusions based on our general impressions. They are more often wrong than not.
I propose a measured approach to these things. First, let's not make unwarranted assumptions - either good or bad. Unless we have personal, and correct, knowledge of a situation, we should assume nothing. We need to realize that, in general, growth is a positive thing and decline is negative. But every case needs to be judged on its own merits. Churches go up and down for various reasons.
Some of those reasons are demographic. A church of largely old people is probably going to decline. A church where there is decreasing population will probably decline; a church where there is increasing population will probably increase. The Southern Baptist Convention (the largest denomination in the US) is declining. There has been speculation as to why this is the case. It might simply demographic. Southern Baptist churches are mostly in rural areas and older cities of declining population. Other churches may be growing rapidly because they are in places of growth.
I do not want anyone to think that I view the church with rose-colored glasses. I know that there are many problems in the church today. But let concentrate on helping and blessing the church we are in rather than unfairly criticize other churches we most likely know nothing about.
Let me illustrate what I am saying. When a church grows very large and builds big buildings we have the tendency to assume that "they are all about numbers". We love to put down those who are very successful. It is assumed that the gospel is being watered down and the people are not being challenged.
Is it really right to draw this kind of a conclusion if we do not know the hearts of the leaders or the people of these congregations? Do we know for a fact that this is the case, or do we think that it must be this way for one reason or another?
It kind of reminds me of Hollywood's view of big business. A big corporation is often assumed to be successful because it is greedy, unscrupulous and even ruthless. But do these negative assumptions actually make sense? Why would others do business with those who are unscrupulous? I never did. When I ran my business I avoided the unscrupulous like the plague and so did other business people. You do business with others because of mutual benefit. Bald-faced greed will get you nowhere.
We have a prejudice against the big and successful. We Americans root for the little guy, the underdog.
Then again, we also have the opposite tendency, once again on the negative side. When we see declines in churches we assume the worst once again. It is because the ministry is not doing its job or the people do not want to commit to the truth. Once more, we should not jump to conclusions based on our general impressions. They are more often wrong than not.
I propose a measured approach to these things. First, let's not make unwarranted assumptions - either good or bad. Unless we have personal, and correct, knowledge of a situation, we should assume nothing. We need to realize that, in general, growth is a positive thing and decline is negative. But every case needs to be judged on its own merits. Churches go up and down for various reasons.
Some of those reasons are demographic. A church of largely old people is probably going to decline. A church where there is decreasing population will probably decline; a church where there is increasing population will probably increase. The Southern Baptist Convention (the largest denomination in the US) is declining. There has been speculation as to why this is the case. It might simply demographic. Southern Baptist churches are mostly in rural areas and older cities of declining population. Other churches may be growing rapidly because they are in places of growth.
I do not want anyone to think that I view the church with rose-colored glasses. I know that there are many problems in the church today. But let concentrate on helping and blessing the church we are in rather than unfairly criticize other churches we most likely know nothing about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)