One of the reasons that we should study history is to explode the myths that so many of us have. We tend to think of myths as something believed by less educated and enlightened people, especially if they lived long ago. But I have found that although we do have better scientific and historical knowledge than people in earlier times had, we seem to acquire new myths - especially regarding the past.
I would say that the most persistent historical myth (actually found in many science textbooks) is the idea that people in Europe in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat and that if one went too far out into the Atlantic that he would fall off the edge of the world. I read it in textbooks in school, heard it from teachers and discussed it with friends. There is only one problem with this notion: it is not true.
You cannot find a half dozen authors in the Middle Ages who thought that the earth is flat. In fact, scholars in the Middle Ages followed the Greeks who believed that the earth was round. Now you might want to tell me that people opposed Columbus's trip across the Atlantic because they believed that he would fall off the edge of the earth. But the historical record is quite different. Columbus claimed that the earth was much smaller than others said. Those opponents of Columbus followed the calculations of Eratosthenes, the Greek who calculated the circumference of the earth within 2 percent. They said that Columbus and his men would die before they reached the Far East. And if there had not been two continents in between Europe and the Far East, he would have. (You can read up on this in Wikipedia's article on Columbus.) [Some of you have realized by now that this myth is actually about what myths that Medieval people were supposed to have had, but did not.]
There is another myth that I used to believe about old age. It came up in Sunday School recently. We were talking about how Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived a very long time. (They lived 175, 180 and 147 years, respectively) One of my students had a confused look on his face and asked 'didn't people die at about age 25 in this time?' The answer to this question is unequivocally, no!
The idea that people in past ages died much earlier than we do comes from what we call 'life expectancy'. Life expectancy means that a person born today on average lives 'x' number of years. We know that in the Middle Ages people had a life expectancy of 35 to 45 years. In fact, two hundred years ago, it was about 45. We have misunderstood, however, what life expectancy means. It does not mean that people die of old age at this time. It means that many people die well before they reach old age. They died of diseases that we can cure now. They died of infections obtained through wounds, accidents, poor environmental conditions, and illnesses. Once we had antibiotics and better sanitation we began to live much longer. Many more people reach old age today.
Historical records clearly indicate that in all times and places there were some who reached the same age we can expect to live. In early biblical times, they lived even longer. One of the reasons for this is probably a higher oxygen content in the atmosphere. Scientists have found ancient air bubbles trapped in hardened liquids that show that in dinosaur days there was a lot more oxygen in the atmosphere than there is today. The higher oxygen levels allowed dinosaurs to grow to great sizes. It would cause us to live much longer and to be able to do greater things. (Build pyramids?) Before Noah's flood, people lived for hundreds of years. After the flood, people began to die sooner and sooner. It may have been because the oxygen levels were dropping over the whole world after the Flood(evidence that it was a worldwide catastrophe). By the time we reach Moses' day, old age sets in earlier and life expectancy is 70 to 80 (except for the early deaths that I mentioned above - sickness and accidents).
People during the Middle Ages in Europe lived shorter lives than they did in antiquity because health conditions were so bad. We should be careful about extrapolating. What is extrapolating? It means to reason like this: If people today live about 75 years and if they lived about 45 years in previous centuries, then people who lived in ancient times lived even shorter lives. So, the reasoning would be that the longer ago you lived, the shorter the average life span was. That is extrapolation. It generally does not work well. It leads to a poor understanding of things in the past.
So do not believe everything you hear. It is a modern error to always think that we are smarter or better off than in any time in the past.
One thing is not a myth: I am thankful for my wife just like she is thankful for me as she wrote on her Facebook wall.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Truth in Labeling
I have a little proposal I would like to make. I want all those who minister or write in the name of Christ to be labeled properly. I mean that it would be nice to know where a person is coming from when he/she makes some statement regarding the Bible or the church.
I found out early in my Christian life that not everyone who claimed to be an authority on the Bible, for example, was approaching it the way that it should be approached. I learned that there were supposed experts on the Bible who denied the divine inspiration of the scriptures and the deity and substitutionary sacrifice and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. It would be nice if I knew that before I wasted a bunch of money on your book or listened to one of your sermons.
I used to go to Christian bookstores and skim through a book looking for clues as to what this author might believe. After a while, I got good at knowing not just certain authors' views, but what publishers I could or could not trust.
Now I have applied my principle to those who are orthodox and those who are heterodox, but it should apply to subgroups as well, because I not only want to know whether or not you actually believe the message of the Bible, but I want to know what Christian category you fall into. Are you orthodox or heretic, Calvinist or Arminian, Pentecostal or cessationist or something in between, dispensationalist or covenantal, inerrantist or not?
Right now when you pick up a Christian book and look at the back of it you see the author's bio. It might read:
Dr. I. M. Smarterthanyou, distinguished professor of all knowledge at the University of Whatever. Dr. Smarterthanyou has every degree in biblical studies know to humankind.
I have to say that this is not all that helpful. I do not need his curriculum vitae. I need to know what he believes about the Bible. How about something like this:
Dr. Smarterthanyou grew up in a fundamentalist home, but was ruined at an apostate seminary and now teaches that God does not really care what you do as long as you are tolerant and not a fundamentalist.
Okay, I am making a joke, but I am making a serious point. What I would actually suggest is something useful and informative. For example:
Dr. Hubris is a Calvinist and dispensationalist who believes in the inerrancy of scripture, but will have nothing to do with anything charismatic or Pentecostal.
Another example: Pastor Allthingstoallpeople is senior pastor of the largest church in the known universe. He's basically orthodox, but is not in-your-face about it. He is charismatic, but never preaches it in public lest he turn certain people off. He has some good things to say, but does not like to step on anyone's toes. He prefers secular language to biblical or religious language while remaining in historic Christian tradition.
I would find this much more useful. I want to know what he believes about the Bible and about Jesus and how he views the scripture. It does not mean that I will not read his book if I disagree with him, but it will help me to make a decision about it.
Are you catching my drift? I just want to know where you are coming from.
Another, less serious, but important suggestion - let ministers and people who minister in the name of Christ carry an authenticated Christian ID card. Now I know that I will hear it from the crowd who oppose ID cards because it is too "Big Brother" or too world governmentalish for them. But hear me out. I am limiting it to certain people.
I have long been aware that "false brethren have crept" into our churches who do not believe the Bible is the Word of God and who secretly "deny the Lord who bought them". In other words, there are even ordained ministers and bishops who say that they are Christian, but who are not even orthodox in their beliefs. Others commit evil and call it good. Just this past week, a practicing, admitted homosexual was ordained in a Presbyterian denomination.
I am just saying that it would be nice if we could have a brief rundown of what you believe (and practice) before you speak in church without my trying to discern it by listening carefully and reading between the lines or asking others who know you well.
Am I suggesting a new inquisition? No, just a little honesty. When you buy a product in the store, it has to include certain information on the label. We should not have to eat it to find out that it contains something we are allergic to.
All right, I know that this is not going to happen and I know there would be fraud and all that, but think about it.
I will start this whole thing off, hoping others will follow my example.
Regarding the Bible: Inerrantist, preferring a more literal reading than most scholars today. I like formal equivalence (word-for-word translations).
Fundamental Doctrines: Perfectly orthodox - Apostles' Creed and all that.
Tradition: Protestant - Pentecostal branch
Specifics: Full Gospel - belief in divine healing in the atonement and God's promises to meet our every need - spirit, soul, body, family, finances, etc. Salvation for the whole person (Shalom).
Eschatology: Pretribulational, premillennial, dispensationalist - but not gloomy (somewhere between classical and progressive).
Sacraments: Regarding the Lord's Supper - Anglican; regarding baptism - Baptist
Holiness: Wesleyan emphasis on grace and perfection; anti-legalistic.
I realize that this is too much information to start with. The first two or three categories should be enough to start. I reiterate that this information should be used with discretion. I read those who are orthodox but not inerrantist. I have benefited from their works and sermons. I have benefited from some Catholic works as well. But I like to know that they are Catholic before I read or listen. Yes, it will change the way I hear them, but it might help me to see something positive in Catholicism that I had not seen before.
Do not let my plea fall to the ground. Join today in this crusade. What would you put on your ID card?
I found out early in my Christian life that not everyone who claimed to be an authority on the Bible, for example, was approaching it the way that it should be approached. I learned that there were supposed experts on the Bible who denied the divine inspiration of the scriptures and the deity and substitutionary sacrifice and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. It would be nice if I knew that before I wasted a bunch of money on your book or listened to one of your sermons.
I used to go to Christian bookstores and skim through a book looking for clues as to what this author might believe. After a while, I got good at knowing not just certain authors' views, but what publishers I could or could not trust.
Now I have applied my principle to those who are orthodox and those who are heterodox, but it should apply to subgroups as well, because I not only want to know whether or not you actually believe the message of the Bible, but I want to know what Christian category you fall into. Are you orthodox or heretic, Calvinist or Arminian, Pentecostal or cessationist or something in between, dispensationalist or covenantal, inerrantist or not?
Right now when you pick up a Christian book and look at the back of it you see the author's bio. It might read:
Dr. I. M. Smarterthanyou, distinguished professor of all knowledge at the University of Whatever. Dr. Smarterthanyou has every degree in biblical studies know to humankind.
I have to say that this is not all that helpful. I do not need his curriculum vitae. I need to know what he believes about the Bible. How about something like this:
Dr. Smarterthanyou grew up in a fundamentalist home, but was ruined at an apostate seminary and now teaches that God does not really care what you do as long as you are tolerant and not a fundamentalist.
Okay, I am making a joke, but I am making a serious point. What I would actually suggest is something useful and informative. For example:
Dr. Hubris is a Calvinist and dispensationalist who believes in the inerrancy of scripture, but will have nothing to do with anything charismatic or Pentecostal.
Another example: Pastor Allthingstoallpeople is senior pastor of the largest church in the known universe. He's basically orthodox, but is not in-your-face about it. He is charismatic, but never preaches it in public lest he turn certain people off. He has some good things to say, but does not like to step on anyone's toes. He prefers secular language to biblical or religious language while remaining in historic Christian tradition.
I would find this much more useful. I want to know what he believes about the Bible and about Jesus and how he views the scripture. It does not mean that I will not read his book if I disagree with him, but it will help me to make a decision about it.
Are you catching my drift? I just want to know where you are coming from.
Another, less serious, but important suggestion - let ministers and people who minister in the name of Christ carry an authenticated Christian ID card. Now I know that I will hear it from the crowd who oppose ID cards because it is too "Big Brother" or too world governmentalish for them. But hear me out. I am limiting it to certain people.
I have long been aware that "false brethren have crept" into our churches who do not believe the Bible is the Word of God and who secretly "deny the Lord who bought them". In other words, there are even ordained ministers and bishops who say that they are Christian, but who are not even orthodox in their beliefs. Others commit evil and call it good. Just this past week, a practicing, admitted homosexual was ordained in a Presbyterian denomination.
I am just saying that it would be nice if we could have a brief rundown of what you believe (and practice) before you speak in church without my trying to discern it by listening carefully and reading between the lines or asking others who know you well.
Am I suggesting a new inquisition? No, just a little honesty. When you buy a product in the store, it has to include certain information on the label. We should not have to eat it to find out that it contains something we are allergic to.
All right, I know that this is not going to happen and I know there would be fraud and all that, but think about it.
I will start this whole thing off, hoping others will follow my example.
Regarding the Bible: Inerrantist, preferring a more literal reading than most scholars today. I like formal equivalence (word-for-word translations).
Fundamental Doctrines: Perfectly orthodox - Apostles' Creed and all that.
Tradition: Protestant - Pentecostal branch
Specifics: Full Gospel - belief in divine healing in the atonement and God's promises to meet our every need - spirit, soul, body, family, finances, etc. Salvation for the whole person (Shalom).
Eschatology: Pretribulational, premillennial, dispensationalist - but not gloomy (somewhere between classical and progressive).
Sacraments: Regarding the Lord's Supper - Anglican; regarding baptism - Baptist
Holiness: Wesleyan emphasis on grace and perfection; anti-legalistic.
I realize that this is too much information to start with. The first two or three categories should be enough to start. I reiterate that this information should be used with discretion. I read those who are orthodox but not inerrantist. I have benefited from their works and sermons. I have benefited from some Catholic works as well. But I like to know that they are Catholic before I read or listen. Yes, it will change the way I hear them, but it might help me to see something positive in Catholicism that I had not seen before.
Do not let my plea fall to the ground. Join today in this crusade. What would you put on your ID card?
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Does God have two wills?
I know that this may seem a strange question to some, but it actually is a very pertinent one. It may seem obvious to us that God can only have one will. He cannot will two different things at the same time. He cannot will to save and not will to save us at the same time. But that is what some actually teach as a doctrine and many others believe unwittingly.
Many Calvinists (those who believe that God alone determines who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell) hold the Doctrine of Two Wills. That is, that God has a stated will in His Word, but another will that He actually carries out. They say that God does say that He "desires for all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" and is "not willing that any perish, but that all come to repentance". That is His revealed will. However, they also believe that God has a secret will that determines what actually takes place. In this superior, secret will God decrees that only some will be saved and that others will perish. Now if this sounds contradictory, it is.
Now you might be thinking that you are smarter than that and are glad that these Calvinists are in a small minority. But, as usual, we must examine this issue more carefully. If you observe most Christians today, I think that you will find that many unknowingly hold to the same basic idea.
Christians often pit what the Bible promises us against what God "actually" does. All we have to do is look at some of the 10,000 promises of God in the Bible, especially those that are well known, and ask ourselves if this is the will of God for us. If the answer is no, then we hold to the doctrine of two wills. God's promises are God's stated will. If we say that God has another will for us, then we hold that He has two wills - same as the Calvinist idea.
We must see God's promises as His will for our lives. Now those promises often have conditions that must be fulfilled for them to come to pass for us, but they are God's will nonetheless. Otherwise, why would He have promised them.
For example, let's say we take the promise in Proverbs regarding the spiritual state of our children. "Train up a child in the way he should go, and he will not depart from it." There is a condition here. We must train our children in the way of the Lord to partake of this promise. On the other hand, if we do what this scripture says, then we should expect God to fulfill His promise. This is not presumption, but faith. (Presumption is expecting God to do what He has not promised or expecting Him to do what He has promised without fulfilling the conditions.) Faith expects God to do what He promised He would do.
Most of us, however, tend to drop any expectation when we do not see the promise manifested in our lives. We assume it must not be God's will. We think that God's will is different from what He told us. This cannot be. It would be duplicity on God's part. He is not double-minded. If He did not want us to have it, He would not have promised it to us. We must not judge what God's will is by what we see. We do not see all saved, so Calvinists say that it cannot be God's will for all to be saved; otherwise they all would be saved.
This is wrong thinking. Many of us who believe that it is God's will that all be saved, but leave room for human response (free will). Yet we become Calvinists when it comes to the other promises of God besides salvation.
Now some of us may realize that God does truly promise many things but are unsure that God will actually do it because we are unworthy. But you will notice that no promise of the scripture mentions 'worthiness' as a precondition to receiving His promises.
So, with confidence, let's base our petition on the promise of God, fulfill the conditions stated in the Word needed to receive the promise, and dare to expect God to do as He says He will do.
"Without faith it is impossible to please God." Let's please God by expecting Him to fulfill His will in our lives.
Many Calvinists (those who believe that God alone determines who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell) hold the Doctrine of Two Wills. That is, that God has a stated will in His Word, but another will that He actually carries out. They say that God does say that He "desires for all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" and is "not willing that any perish, but that all come to repentance". That is His revealed will. However, they also believe that God has a secret will that determines what actually takes place. In this superior, secret will God decrees that only some will be saved and that others will perish. Now if this sounds contradictory, it is.
Now you might be thinking that you are smarter than that and are glad that these Calvinists are in a small minority. But, as usual, we must examine this issue more carefully. If you observe most Christians today, I think that you will find that many unknowingly hold to the same basic idea.
Christians often pit what the Bible promises us against what God "actually" does. All we have to do is look at some of the 10,000 promises of God in the Bible, especially those that are well known, and ask ourselves if this is the will of God for us. If the answer is no, then we hold to the doctrine of two wills. God's promises are God's stated will. If we say that God has another will for us, then we hold that He has two wills - same as the Calvinist idea.
We must see God's promises as His will for our lives. Now those promises often have conditions that must be fulfilled for them to come to pass for us, but they are God's will nonetheless. Otherwise, why would He have promised them.
For example, let's say we take the promise in Proverbs regarding the spiritual state of our children. "Train up a child in the way he should go, and he will not depart from it." There is a condition here. We must train our children in the way of the Lord to partake of this promise. On the other hand, if we do what this scripture says, then we should expect God to fulfill His promise. This is not presumption, but faith. (Presumption is expecting God to do what He has not promised or expecting Him to do what He has promised without fulfilling the conditions.) Faith expects God to do what He promised He would do.
Most of us, however, tend to drop any expectation when we do not see the promise manifested in our lives. We assume it must not be God's will. We think that God's will is different from what He told us. This cannot be. It would be duplicity on God's part. He is not double-minded. If He did not want us to have it, He would not have promised it to us. We must not judge what God's will is by what we see. We do not see all saved, so Calvinists say that it cannot be God's will for all to be saved; otherwise they all would be saved.
This is wrong thinking. Many of us who believe that it is God's will that all be saved, but leave room for human response (free will). Yet we become Calvinists when it comes to the other promises of God besides salvation.
Now some of us may realize that God does truly promise many things but are unsure that God will actually do it because we are unworthy. But you will notice that no promise of the scripture mentions 'worthiness' as a precondition to receiving His promises.
So, with confidence, let's base our petition on the promise of God, fulfill the conditions stated in the Word needed to receive the promise, and dare to expect God to do as He says He will do.
"Without faith it is impossible to please God." Let's please God by expecting Him to fulfill His will in our lives.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
The New Penance
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)