Like many of my posts, this is about something in the church world that bothers me. What bothers me is the attempt by many to turn everything into a theology. Now I know that many of you probably do not like the term 'theology' because it seems like something done by academics who do not live on the same level as normal people. (I sometimes agree.)
I have to say, however, that we all make theologies (ideas about God and what He expects of us) all the time. As I mentioned in a previous blog, we often trot out our theology to explain why bad things happen. (They must have sinned, God is testing them, etc.) You know how much I dislike that.
However, someone near and dear to me, who also was a minister for over 60 years and had his doctorate in sacred theology, asked me a question several years ago. He asked me what my theology of helping the poor was. My initial response I did not verbalize. I thought, "I didn't know I needed one". It struck me as odd that any theology was required simply to do what God has told us to do.
That does not mean that we do not need to think about it or study the scriptures on it, but I hesitate to make a theology out of every subject. I like what James, the Lord's brother, had to say, 'be doers of the Word'. Isn't just doing the Word sufficient? Do we have to make some sort of theology out of it? When the Bible says, 'You shall not steal', is a theology necessary for us not to steal? When the Bible says 'visit the widows and orphans in their affliction', should we not simply do it? I know that God may lead us to do more, but why make a simple command more complicated than it is?
Does simple obedience fall short of what God asks of us? Think of how the Catholic Church has built a theology around the confession of one's sins. They want you to confess to a priest instead of going directly to God. Then the priest will give you some works that you must perform - Hail, Marys and all that - then you can receive absolution. More than that there is the difference between mortal and venial sins. It gets very complicated.
I am sure a faithful Catholic will tell you how it benefits them. But this is not "doing the Word" because the Word says just to confess you sins [to God] and He will forgive you. (1 John 1:9) How simple. And not just simple, but it works. He forgives us and cleanses us from all unrighteousness.
Somehow we do not feel that doing the Word is enough. God somehow wants more. But is this not like what the Pharisees did? They added requirement upon requirement until their requirements even prevented them from doing the Law they were trying to uphold! "You make void the Word of God through your tradition."
There are many today who are saying that helping the needy is part of the gospel. Others disagree, saying that though helping the poor is necessary, it is not part of the gospel. My response is this: it makes no difference how you view it. It only matters that you do what the Bible says.
So my theology of helping the poor is this: just do it.
(Note: Nike did not sponsor this post)
(Note: To my Catholic friends - please do not consider this post to be some sort of Catholic bashing. You know that I take the Protestant position on matters related to salvation, the sacraments, etc. My Protestant friends are as much a target of this post as my Catholic ones. They are probably worse at developing theologies at the expense of simply doing what the Bible says.)
Monday, November 28, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
Divine Inspiration and a TV show
You might be wondering what a television show has to do with divine inspiration. And I am not talking about some inspiration that you and I might receive, but I refer to the divine inspiration of the scriptures. The television that I refer to is the new show "Unforgettable". It is about a woman detective who has perfect memory. She remembers absolutely everything in her life. She goes to crime scenes and remembers even the most insignificant details that later turn out to be the key to solving the case.
The show is based on a piece done by Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes. She interviewed five people who are known by scientists to have this ability. They remember every detail of their lives and can recall in vivid detail everything they have experienced. Remarkably, Lesley Stahl had a friend who she said also was like this. They tested her friend and now there are six people known to possess this ability.
Now they admit that this ability is both a blessing and a curse. Not only do they remember all the good things that have happened, but the bad as well. This can be very painful. They are unable to forget terrible things that have happened to them. The rest of us bury these things deep within to protect ourselves. They cannot do this.
While reflecting on this, I thought about what it will be like in the resurrection and we have new, perfect bodies. Will we all have this ability? I think we will. Yet I think it will be much better since "the former things", the bad things in this life, will not be remembered. We will only remember the goodness of God in increasing measure throughout eternity.
Then again, I began to think about something that Jesus said to his disciples. "The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I have said. (John 14:26) So one of the reasons that God sent His Holy Spirit was to allow the disciples to recall exactly what Jesus had said. In the light of what we now know about the possibilities of human memory, we ought to realize that the disciples would remember perfectly what Jesus said. Certainly, the Spirit of God can give a person perfect recall to anyone as well as reveal information previously unknown to that person.
By means of divine inspiration, Jesus' words could be recorded with fullness and exactness. That is what we have in the four gospels. How different this is, though, with modern theories about what we have in the gospels.
The higher criticism, as it is called, claims that we do not always have Jesus' exact words, but we have altered versions of what actually took place. Supposedly, the gospel writers had traditions passed down and edited them according to the theological point they wanted to make. But in order to accept this, one must accept the notion that the gospel writers were neither the disciples of Jesus nor those who had done careful interviews of those same disciples.
The historical evidence passed down from the church fathers and accepted by biblical scholars until modern times is that two of the gospels writers were among the twelve disciples and that two were close followers of the Twelve. Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus, and Mark wrote based upon Peter's teaching. Luke explicitly says that he wrote what eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry told him. And since we know that Luke is considered by even secular historians as the most accurate of ancient historians, we have no reason to disbelieve him.
Now I want to say that I do believe that the gospel writers had a theological purpose in what they selected to include their respective gospels. John himself said, "There are also many other things that Jesus did; which, indeed, were written one by one, I supposed that not even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." (John 22:25) So instead on one really long gospel, we have four gospels that tell us all we need to know about Jesus' ministry and teaching.
A further note about who the gospel writers were: If we believe in divine inspiration (at least of some kind), it seems hard to believe that God would not use the Twelve or their immediate followers to write the New Testament. Why would God use someone who used oral traditions and secondary sources? Were the disciples theologically challenged or something? Could only later generations truly interpret Christ?
NO! When we read even the undisputed writings of the apostles, we see that they were quite able to interpret these things. Jesus told them that the Holy Spirit would lead them into ALL the truth. I think He did so. Later generations just followed the apostles the best that they could.
Absolutely, the Holy Spirit can bring to remembrance whatever Jesus has said to us. I believe this promise even in my own life.
The show is based on a piece done by Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes. She interviewed five people who are known by scientists to have this ability. They remember every detail of their lives and can recall in vivid detail everything they have experienced. Remarkably, Lesley Stahl had a friend who she said also was like this. They tested her friend and now there are six people known to possess this ability.
Now they admit that this ability is both a blessing and a curse. Not only do they remember all the good things that have happened, but the bad as well. This can be very painful. They are unable to forget terrible things that have happened to them. The rest of us bury these things deep within to protect ourselves. They cannot do this.
While reflecting on this, I thought about what it will be like in the resurrection and we have new, perfect bodies. Will we all have this ability? I think we will. Yet I think it will be much better since "the former things", the bad things in this life, will not be remembered. We will only remember the goodness of God in increasing measure throughout eternity.
Then again, I began to think about something that Jesus said to his disciples. "The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I have said. (John 14:26) So one of the reasons that God sent His Holy Spirit was to allow the disciples to recall exactly what Jesus had said. In the light of what we now know about the possibilities of human memory, we ought to realize that the disciples would remember perfectly what Jesus said. Certainly, the Spirit of God can give a person perfect recall to anyone as well as reveal information previously unknown to that person.
By means of divine inspiration, Jesus' words could be recorded with fullness and exactness. That is what we have in the four gospels. How different this is, though, with modern theories about what we have in the gospels.
The higher criticism, as it is called, claims that we do not always have Jesus' exact words, but we have altered versions of what actually took place. Supposedly, the gospel writers had traditions passed down and edited them according to the theological point they wanted to make. But in order to accept this, one must accept the notion that the gospel writers were neither the disciples of Jesus nor those who had done careful interviews of those same disciples.
The historical evidence passed down from the church fathers and accepted by biblical scholars until modern times is that two of the gospels writers were among the twelve disciples and that two were close followers of the Twelve. Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus, and Mark wrote based upon Peter's teaching. Luke explicitly says that he wrote what eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry told him. And since we know that Luke is considered by even secular historians as the most accurate of ancient historians, we have no reason to disbelieve him.
Now I want to say that I do believe that the gospel writers had a theological purpose in what they selected to include their respective gospels. John himself said, "There are also many other things that Jesus did; which, indeed, were written one by one, I supposed that not even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." (John 22:25) So instead on one really long gospel, we have four gospels that tell us all we need to know about Jesus' ministry and teaching.
A further note about who the gospel writers were: If we believe in divine inspiration (at least of some kind), it seems hard to believe that God would not use the Twelve or their immediate followers to write the New Testament. Why would God use someone who used oral traditions and secondary sources? Were the disciples theologically challenged or something? Could only later generations truly interpret Christ?
NO! When we read even the undisputed writings of the apostles, we see that they were quite able to interpret these things. Jesus told them that the Holy Spirit would lead them into ALL the truth. I think He did so. Later generations just followed the apostles the best that they could.
Absolutely, the Holy Spirit can bring to remembrance whatever Jesus has said to us. I believe this promise even in my own life.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Trials - how we should react to them
It is unusual for me to blog twice within a week, but I feel compelled to comment on something that has come up in two consecutive bible studies. And that is the subject of 'trials'. We all go through trials yet there seems to be little good Bible teaching about how to approach them.
What most of us have seemed to develop is sort of a 'blanket theology' that seeks to explain each and every situation, but leaves us no better off. Let me put forth two approaches that fall well short of what the Bible says concerning the trials of life.
The first originates in the book of Job where Job's "comforters" tell him that his afflictions must be the result of sin in his life. They reason that God is just and that He would not allow bad things to happen to the righteous. Bad things come about because of sin. This is nothing more than a 'blanket theology' that seeks an intellectually satisfying explanation for all bad things that happen.
What Job, and his friends, did not know is what we know from the first chapter: he has an Adversary, Satan, who is testing Job and trying to get Job to blaspheme God.
Aren't you glad that the church today has left this old theology behind? I wish. This past Friday I was speaking to someone who has recently gone through cancer treatments and told me about a fellow patient whose church told her that her cancer was the result of an unforgiven sin. (I would have found a new church.) Now most of us are appalled and disgusted by this, especially since Jesus clearly taught that not all sickness or infirmity is the result of a particular sin. (See John 9) However, some of our theology regarding trials is not much better.
Yesterday, I heard someone discuss an approach to trials which is common today. Once again, it is a blanket theology where one can lump all trials together and approach them all the same way. I am sure you have heard it before. It is "God will not put more on us than we can bear". Now I have heard this for a long time but I now realize that this is more than just a way of explaining all trials; it is a wholesale manner of dealing with trials. It is used to not in conjunction with other scriptures that deal with trials, but a substitute for anything else the Bible says about them.
For the record, the Bible does say something like this in 1 Corinthians 10:13 "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it." There are two things that we should notice here. First of all, it may not be talking about 'trials' at all, but about temptations to sin, although it is true that the Greek word for trials and temptations is the same. Second, we leave out the part about God 'making a way of escape'.
What we have done is taken a partial scripture, lifted it out of its context and made it say something it does not say. It does not say, as my friend suggested, that God does not put more on us than we are able to bear. First of all, God does not put this stuff on us in the first place. "Every good gift and every perfect gift comes down from the Father of lights above, with whom is no variation or shadow of turning." (James 1:17) God never varies from that which is good and perfect. James directly says that God tempts, or tries, nobody. (1:13) Jesus said, "The thief (Devil) comes not, but that he may steal, kill and destroy; I came that you may have Life, and that you may have it abundantly". (John 10:10) Also, "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the Devil." (Acts 10:38)
In Sunday School, we are studying the book of James. It contains general principles about how to handle any kind of trial. James tells us what to do when faced with any kind of difficulty. "Count it all joy, my brethren, when you fall into various trials." (1:2) This means all kinds of trials. The main key to our approach to trials of any kind is in verse 5. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally." (1:5)
Wisdom! That is what we need in the trials of life. We do not approach them all the same. If we could, then we would not need this advice. We would simply apply some blanket theology or formula given to us. But there is not a single approach or 'good explanation' of the trials we face.
Wisdom can mean two things. First, it means the 'big picture' or overall understanding of what is happening to us. Since we know that Satan, and not God, is the source of our problem, we know that God will make a 'way of escape' for us. Then we need to know what to do in the midst of the trial. Sometimes we think we know what to do when we don't. We need to humble ourselves and seek his wisdom. If we are overwhelmed by the situation, then we should seek the aid of others who can pray with us.
Another thing: you might have to go through a trial without an adequate explanation or understanding of what is going on. After God rebuked Job and Job repented for blaming God, God still did not explain to him what had happened to him. We will not always know in this life why certain things have taken place. There is, however, some wisdom from God that we can use that might shorten, lessen the effects of, or deliver us from the trial.
God is not the source of your trial, but He is the solution.
What most of us have seemed to develop is sort of a 'blanket theology' that seeks to explain each and every situation, but leaves us no better off. Let me put forth two approaches that fall well short of what the Bible says concerning the trials of life.
The first originates in the book of Job where Job's "comforters" tell him that his afflictions must be the result of sin in his life. They reason that God is just and that He would not allow bad things to happen to the righteous. Bad things come about because of sin. This is nothing more than a 'blanket theology' that seeks an intellectually satisfying explanation for all bad things that happen.
What Job, and his friends, did not know is what we know from the first chapter: he has an Adversary, Satan, who is testing Job and trying to get Job to blaspheme God.
Aren't you glad that the church today has left this old theology behind? I wish. This past Friday I was speaking to someone who has recently gone through cancer treatments and told me about a fellow patient whose church told her that her cancer was the result of an unforgiven sin. (I would have found a new church.) Now most of us are appalled and disgusted by this, especially since Jesus clearly taught that not all sickness or infirmity is the result of a particular sin. (See John 9) However, some of our theology regarding trials is not much better.
Yesterday, I heard someone discuss an approach to trials which is common today. Once again, it is a blanket theology where one can lump all trials together and approach them all the same way. I am sure you have heard it before. It is "God will not put more on us than we can bear". Now I have heard this for a long time but I now realize that this is more than just a way of explaining all trials; it is a wholesale manner of dealing with trials. It is used to not in conjunction with other scriptures that deal with trials, but a substitute for anything else the Bible says about them.
For the record, the Bible does say something like this in 1 Corinthians 10:13 "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it." There are two things that we should notice here. First of all, it may not be talking about 'trials' at all, but about temptations to sin, although it is true that the Greek word for trials and temptations is the same. Second, we leave out the part about God 'making a way of escape'.
What we have done is taken a partial scripture, lifted it out of its context and made it say something it does not say. It does not say, as my friend suggested, that God does not put more on us than we are able to bear. First of all, God does not put this stuff on us in the first place. "Every good gift and every perfect gift comes down from the Father of lights above, with whom is no variation or shadow of turning." (James 1:17) God never varies from that which is good and perfect. James directly says that God tempts, or tries, nobody. (1:13) Jesus said, "The thief (Devil) comes not, but that he may steal, kill and destroy; I came that you may have Life, and that you may have it abundantly". (John 10:10) Also, "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the Devil." (Acts 10:38)
In Sunday School, we are studying the book of James. It contains general principles about how to handle any kind of trial. James tells us what to do when faced with any kind of difficulty. "Count it all joy, my brethren, when you fall into various trials." (1:2) This means all kinds of trials. The main key to our approach to trials of any kind is in verse 5. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally." (1:5)
Wisdom! That is what we need in the trials of life. We do not approach them all the same. If we could, then we would not need this advice. We would simply apply some blanket theology or formula given to us. But there is not a single approach or 'good explanation' of the trials we face.
Wisdom can mean two things. First, it means the 'big picture' or overall understanding of what is happening to us. Since we know that Satan, and not God, is the source of our problem, we know that God will make a 'way of escape' for us. Then we need to know what to do in the midst of the trial. Sometimes we think we know what to do when we don't. We need to humble ourselves and seek his wisdom. If we are overwhelmed by the situation, then we should seek the aid of others who can pray with us.
Another thing: you might have to go through a trial without an adequate explanation or understanding of what is going on. After God rebuked Job and Job repented for blaming God, God still did not explain to him what had happened to him. We will not always know in this life why certain things have taken place. There is, however, some wisdom from God that we can use that might shorten, lessen the effects of, or deliver us from the trial.
God is not the source of your trial, but He is the solution.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Myths That I Used To Believe
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)