Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Mike Bickle (IHOP) Reviewed on Fighting for the Faith

Chris Rosebrough, on his podcast Fighting for the Faith, examines a sermon by Mike Bickle of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC). It begins after the break midway through at the one-hour, six-minute mark. Chris reviews Bickle's abuse of scripture and general strange teachings. The link to the individual podcast is below:

Fighting for the Faith: Bill Johnson Mangles God's Word Even More

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

The "You're a Man" Fallacy

In abortion argumentation, a common attack against critics who are male is, "You're a man, you can't get pregnant, so you don't have a right to talk about it." Let's take a moment just to review why this argument simply doesn't work.

1) It's an ad hominem, plain and simple.

An ad hominem is often believed to just be an insult (like "You're stupid!"), but actually the Latin phrase itself means against the man. It refers to an argument that attacks a personal trait of someone giving the argument, rather than the argument itself. In this case, the response is not to the argument the man is making, merely the fact he is a man. It is therefore, at its very nature, a fallacious argument.

Let me put it this way: suppose I had a physical, and the female doctor inspecting me told me that it seemed I had testicular cancer, and that I should get treated or I might lose them. Would it make any sense to tell her, "Don't tell me what to do! You're a woman, you don't know what it's like to have testicles!" Of course not. I'm not responding to her arguments or any of her points - I'm just stating that she's a woman, as if that ends all discussion or completely negates what she just said.

2) It's inconsistent with other argumentation.

If a white person said, "I think the Jim Crow laws were wrong," would anyone stand up and say, "You can't comment! You're white!" Probably not. Likewise, one has to wonder if in a scenario a man supported abortion, how many pro-abortion people would jump up and say, "You can't say you support abortion! You're a man!" Probably none. Yet if you're going to make a kind of argumentation about one subject, you have to be consistent across the board.

The presents a good reason why this form of ad hominem is so fallacious: a moral or ethical question is not bound by the personal traits of the person giving it. A person does not have to be Jewish to say the Holocaust was wrong. A person does not have to be black to say the Jim Crow laws were wrong. A person does not have to have to be a kid to know child abuse is wrong. A person does not have to have lived under a dictator to know tyranny is wrong. Likewise, a person does not have to be a woman to say abortion is wrong.

3) It's not carried to its logical conclusion.

Let's say, for the sake of argumentation, that a man can't comment on abortion because he's a man and can never be pregnant. Who, then, can? If we say those who can get pregnant (ie., women), let's take that a step further. A woman who has never been pregnant could not comment, because she has not shared in all the emotional and physical experiences that come with that, therefore women who have never been pregnant cannot comment. Furthermore, a woman who was pregnant and had an abortion did not experience childbirth and all the positives and negatives that went with it, therefore she cannot give a valid opinion based on experiences. Even then, one would have to go through child rearing, raising a child through infancy, the teenage years, and through college to see if any one can go through that. Therefore, the only people who can ever comment on abortion are women who have had actual pregnancies, given birth to children and then raised those children through adulthood. That would not only take out a good chunk of pro-life advocates, but a good number of pro-abortion advocates as well. Sadly, I don't think many pro-abortion advocates would follow this logic quite this far.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

The Day After

A good Lord's Day to all my readers. As you may well be aware, today is May 22, and clearly the rapture expected by Harold Camping and his followers did not happen on May 21.

One thing that shocked me was just how prolific the knowledge of this became. Obviously it was covered by local and national news, and when something goes viral on the internet it can't be stopped. Perhaps what surprised me the most was how often I saw it on Facebook, and from friends I never even considered all that religious. Every other status or post was about the May 21 prediction and the end of the world. Most of it - nay, the vast majority of it - was done in jest. Even Christian friends of mine were making cracks at it. People joked about being raptured, others joked about meeting God, others just made general statements about how nothing had happened.

I've been thinking on this for some time, and I've begun to realize that this is a lot more serious than many of us realize. While I have been making jokes about it myself, in the past week I've tried to make an effort not to post anything publicly that would be mocking it or treating it as a joke. Because let's face it...it's not a joke. I don't mean by this that it's true or has any merit, but rather that this is not from a TV show or movie, but a real belief held by real people. Harold Camping is a real false teacher who has real followers who sincerely believe that they were to be raptured up on May 21. His followers have made radical life decisions (sold cars, quit jobs, etc.) over this. Many even considered suicide for fear that they wouldn't escape the judgment that would occur. This is hardly something to truly laugh about.

I am certainly not implying nothing should be said of Harold Camping ever again. I am not implying we take the attitude of "no harm, no foul." If anything, true believers should go on the attack in the weeks to follow, making sure that Camping cannot get out of this like he did the 1994 prediction. We should expose his teachings in the hopes of preventing anyone else being deceived. We need to also be on the lookout for movements or beliefs that may come from this folly, or may try to imitate this in order to receive money or followers.

However, the joking and humor directed at the false prediction cannot help but be noticed to have been general mockery now of future judgment. The biggest fear I have is that this will be used by the devil to make people laugh at the very notion of future judgment, and thus never seek their only Savior. Why look for He who can rescue you if you don't need rescuing?

Christ never spoke of what  time He would return - but He always spoke in such language that we should expect it to be now. "Be on the alert then," He told the disciples, "for you do not know the day nor the hour" (Matt 25:13). Therefore we "must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will" (Matt 24:44). Our Lord likewise said: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock" (Rev 3:20). This can all come in either one of two ways: 1) by Christ's literal return, upon which all men will be judged; 2) by our death, in which the Lord, for His purpose, cuts off our life and we wait for judgment. All men will be judged for what they do in their life, in which they reap what will be sown. Judas had every chance to repent up to the moment he placed the noose around his neck. Herod had every chance to repent right up to the minute he declared to all that he was like a god. Yet they did nothing of the sort, and now they are awaiting judgment when the Lamb of God will, for them, become the Lion of Judah.

If you were a victim of Harold Camping's false teachings, let me assure you that this was not what Christ truly taught. Camping was a false teacher, and the false nature of his prophesy has proven true. However, I assure you that this is not the end all. We are not saved by the teachings of Camping - we are saved by Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and is our Mediator to the Father. Through faith in Him we are reconciled to God by His cross, and the wall of hostility is torn down. Christ has never gone back on His word, He never abandons His people, and what He says are true words. I invite you to take this chance to come to know the true Christ, who will not endow you with a secret knowledge of when He will come back, but will endow you with life eternal, so that you may become sons through adoption.

If you weren't a victim of Harold Camping, but have yet to confess Christ, I likewise invite you to come to know the truth. Harold Camping was not a Christian, and his teachings were far removed from anything that could resemble orthodox Christianity. That Christ did not come on May 21 does not mean He will never return. Error does not imply the lack of truth. Christ could come at any moment, and when He does, there will be a reckoning. Everyone will be held accountable for their sins. Anyone whose sins have not been blotted over by the blood of the Lamb will be judged righteously for their deeds. All men are guilty of their sins, and all are without excuse. However, what we could not do God did, by sending His Son to live the perfect life and offer Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the atonement of our sins. In Him we have life, and He gives it abundantly. I invite you to ponder this in your hearts, and I pray that the Spirit will drive you to do further research, and to seek after He who does not lie, but is the very incarnation of Truth.

God bless.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Meditations on Edwards

It's always humbling to see that someone who lived nearly 260 years before you was writing on the same things you were meditating on. That's how I felt after spending sometime on a post regarding postmodern religious thinking, and at the same time started studying Jonathan Edwards's discourse Men Naturally Are God's Enemies (source). It's amazing how things never really change over time in regards to the hearts of men and the fallen concept of God.

Regarding the worship of idols other than God:
Man will necessarily have something that he respects as his god. If man do not give his highest respect to the God that made him, there will be something else that has the possession of it. Men will either worship the true God, or some idol: it is impossible it should be otherwise: something will have the heart of man. And that which a man gives his heart to, may be called his god: and therefore when man by the fall extinguished all love to the true God, he set up the creature in his room. For having lost his esteem and love of the true God, and set up other gods in his room, and in opposition to him; and God still demanding their worship, and opposing them; enmity necessarily follows.
Regarding man's hatred of God's Law:
The strictness of God’s law is a principal cause of man’s enmity against God. If God were one that did not so much hate sin; if he would allow them in the gratification of their lusts in some degree, and his threatenings were not so awful against all criminal indulgence; if his threatenings were not so absolute; if his displeasure could be appeased by a few tears, a little reformation, or the like; they would not be so great enemies, nor hate him so much as they do. But God shows himself to be an implacable enemy to their idols, and has threatened everlasting wrath, infinite calamity, for all that they do in the service of their lusts; and this makes them irreconcilable enemies to him.
Regarding unbelievers who do not see themselves as literal enemies of God:
Natural men do not generally conceive themselves to be so bad; they have not this notion of themselves, that they are enemies to God. And therefore when they hear such doctrine as this taught them, they stand ready to make objections. Some may be ready to say, “I do not know, I am not sensible, that I hate God, and have a mortal enmity against him. I feel no such thing in myself, and if I have such enmity, why do not I feel it? If I am a mortal enemy, why should not I know it better than any body else? How can others see what is in my heart better than I myself? If I hate one of my fellow-creatures, I can feel it inwardly working.” To such an objection I would answer,

If you do but observe yourself, and search your own heart, unless you are strangely blinded, you may be sensible of those things, wherein enmity does fundamentally consist. Particularly, you may be sensible that you have at least had a low and contemptible estimation of God; and that, in your esteem, you set the trifles and vanities of this world far above him; so as to regard the enjoyment of these things far before the enjoyment of God, and to value these things better than his love.—And you may be sensible that you despise the authority of God, and value his commands and his honour but very little. Or if by some means you have blinded yourself, so as to think you do regard them now, doubtless you can look back and see that you have not regarded them.
Regarding the supposedly "religious" who believe they are not God's enemies.
That much of that seeming respect which natural men show to God, is owing to their education. They have been taught from their infancy that they ought to show great respect to God. They have been taught to use respectful language, when speaking about God, and to behave with solemnity, when attending on those exercises of religion, wherein they have to do with him. From their childhood, they have seen that this is the manner of others, when they pray to God, to use reverential expressions, and a reverential behaviour before him.

Those who are brought up in places where they have, commonly from their infancy, heard men take the name of God in vain, and swear and curse, and blaspheme; they learn to do the same; and it becomes habitual to them. And it is the same way, and no other, that you have learned to behave respectfully towards God: not that you have any more respect to God than they; but they have been brought up one way, and you another. In some parts of the world, men are brought up in the worship of idols of silver, and gold, and wood, and stone, made in the shape of men and beast. “They say of them, Let the men that sacrifice, kiss the calf.” Hos. xiii. 2. In some parts of the world, they are brought up to worship serpents, and are taught from their infancy to show great respect to them. And in some places, they are brought up in worshipping the devil, who appears to them in a bodily shape; and to behave with a show of great reverence and honour towards him. And what respect you show to God has no better foundation; it comes the same way, and is worth no more.

That show of respect which you make is forced. You come to God, and make a great show of respect to him, and use very respectful terms, with a reverential tone and manner of speaking; and your countenance is grave and solemn: you put on an humble aspect; and use humble, respectful postures, out of fear. You are afraid that God will execute his wrath upon you, and so you feign a great deal of respect, that he may not be angry with you. “Through the greatness of thy power shall thine enemies submit themselves unto thee.” Psal. lxvi. 3. In the original it is, shall thine enemies lie to thee. It is rendered therefore in the margin, shall yield feigned obedience to thee. All that you do in religion is forced and feigned. Through the greatness of God’s power, you yield feigned obedience. You are in God’s power, and he is able to destroy you; and so you feign a great deal of respect to him, that he might not destroy you. As one might do towards an enemy that had taken him captive, though he at the same time would gladly make his escape, if he could, by taking away the life of him who had taken him captive.
And again:
The affections of natural men often arise from wrong notions they have of God. They conceive of God after the manner they do of men, as though he were a being liable to be wrought upon in his affections. They conceive of him as one whose heart could be drawn, whose affections can be overcome, by what he sees in them. They conceive of him as being taken with them, and their performances; and this works on their affections; and thus one tear draws another, and their affections increase by reflection. And oftentimes they conceive of God as one” that loves them, and is a friend to them: and such a mistake may work much on their affections. But such affections that arise towards God, as they conceit him to be, is no argument that they have not the same implacable hatred towards God, considered as he really is. There is no concluding that men are not enemies, because they are affected and shed tears in their prayers, and the like. Saul was very much affected when David expostulated with him about pursuing after him, and seeking to kill him. David’s words wrought exceedingly upon Saul’s affections. “And it came to pass when David had made an end of speaking these words unto Saul, that Saul said, Is this thy voice, my son David? and Saul lift up his voice and wept.” 1 Sam. xxiv. 16. chap. xxvi. 1,. &c. He was so affected that he wept aloud, and called David his son, though he was but just before seeking his life. But this affection of Saul was no argument that he did not still continue in his enmity against David. He was David’s mortal enemy before, and sought his life; and so he did afterwards, it was but a pang: his enmity was not mortified or done away. The next news we hear of Saul is, that he was pursuing David, and seeking his life again.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Todd Friel, Evangelism and Lady Gaga

Todd Friel presents an interesting scenario:
"Let's say you're doing open air preaching...and up comes Lady Gaga!"


I wanted to bang my head on a hard surface over the way the street preacher was speaking to Lady Gaga. Referring to her as "darling," going on about her "pervert ways" and "homo stuff," his general sarcasm...I'm sure the video edited out a lot of what he said, but just that little bit was embarrassing enough. As I said in another post about this kind of open air evangelism, how careful we have to be lest we invent the scenario where "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom 2:24).

As Todd Friel says in the video, context is everything. Judgment with no Law is simply empty Judgment. This is why so many universalists such as Rob Bell get away with their theology: they attack concepts of Judgment because there is an absence of Law. In proper self examination, Law presents to us the knowledge of our sin - as Paul wrote: "I would not have come to know sin except through the Law" (Rom 7:7). From this knowledge of sin from Law comes out acknowledgement of the righteousness of God's Judgment on mankind - as David wrote: "Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are justified when you speak and blameless when you judge" (Psalm 51:4). It is then that the mercy of God's Grace is realized upon us - as Paul again wrote: "Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies" (Rom 8:33).

Our goal should be sharing the mercy of Christ upon the sinner. Yes, that does mean identifying a person as a sinner, but that should not be the end of our efforts. If it is, then we are no better than the Pharisees.

Monday, May 16, 2011

Some of the worst arguments against the Bible

The following is just a meditation on things I've heard in the past few months. I'd been joking over them with some friends, and thought it worth sharing.

"It's an old book!"

Yes, people have actually used this argument. It's fallacious for a few reasons:

For one, the Bible itself is not necessarily an old book, but a collection of old books, some older than others.

For another, the very idea that the accuracy of a book is negated by its age is quite obviously fallacious. Should an astronomer be banned from ever quoting the works of Isaac Newton because they're old books? Should a literature major be banned from quoting the works of Chekhov because they are all old books?

Furthermore, if what a book teaches is negated for being old, then how old would a book have to be in order to be considered irrelevant? Fifty years? A hundred years? A thousand years? A million years? At what point can we consistently say a book is no longer relevant based solely on the fact it's "old"? Is this something which can truly be measured by age? Again, this argumentation is clearly fallacious.

"It's written by dead men!"

Yes, sadly, I have also had this thrown at me as a reason to reject the teachings of the Bible.

Let's ponder on just how fallacious this thinking is: does the state of death of an author negate everything he has ever written? Should we throw out the teachings of Galileo, Isaac Newton, or Albert Einstein solely on the fact that the men themselves are dead? Let me put it this way: if a local meteorologist reports that Monday's high was in the 70's, then the next day he passes away...does that make it untrue that Monday's high was in the 70's? Does a fact automatically become untrue simply because the person who stated it has died? Of course not. Again, obviously fallacious.

"It was written by fallible men!"

This is actually a common argument by some against the Bible: either that it was written by men, or that it was written by fallible men. Unfortunately for them, most Christians are already aware of this. Read the book of Jeremiah and see why Jeremiah was known as the "weeping prophet." Read the psalms and tell me the psalmist wasn't like any other person who's ever lived.

The fact is, it is not the men themselves that make the words of scripture infallible - it is the source of their words and teachings, which is the Lord our God. 


"It's been translated so many times! It has to have error!"

I think these people need to study the difference between translation and manuscript history. A translation is merely taking a text and rewriting it into another language, whereas transcription is the copying of a text for use.

Let me put it this way: John 1:1 reads in the original language:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
It has been translated in various ways in the English, but in all ways (save for the Jehovah's Witness's NWT) it means the same thing. It has likewise been translated every which way in every which language, but still maintains the same meaning. Even if it were mistranslated or the original context had to be explained to someone, the original language would be the same. To put it another way, if I wrote the sentence "I went shopping," the original context and wording of that sentence would remain the same no matter how many times it was translated.

If someone wishes to argue manuscript history and how the various books of the Bible have been copied by scribes down throughout history, that is one thing. If they want to say we shouldn't believe the Bible because of so many translations...well, that thinking is fallacious to begin with.

Friday, May 13, 2011

A Simple Review of "The Cross and the Switchblade" (Film)

Some time ago, David Wilkerson died in a car accident in Texas. A movie about his early efforts to begin a ministry aimed towards inner-city youth is the 1970 film The Cross and the Switchblade, with Pat Boone playing the role of Wilkerson. It is based off the famous 1963 book by the same name and written by Wilkerson himself, recounting his trips to New York City and his efforts to reach the youth there. The film doesn't give much back story to Wilkerson's own life, and leaves out some details in the book that build up to his being there. Aside from the fact that his character states that he's a pastor from a small church in Pennsylvania and has a pregnant wife, you don't know much outside of what you see of him. The only motive provided for his being in New York City is explained as a sense that God was calling Him there.

This is perhaps one of the only major flaws of the film that I wish had been more greatly fleshed out. The book goes into great detail on the many reasons Wilkerson decided to leave Pennsylvania and go to New York, as well as his background in a long line of Pentecostal preachers. It's almost worth reading the book simply to have all this background information handy before watching the film. In fact, if the book is used at all in regards to Wilkerson's life and ministry, it might be best used as an introduction (especially since only half of the book is covered in the movie).

The opening of the film has the producer saying that, although the events may seem unreal, they did indeed happen. You realize how important this message might have been as you see Wilkerson go to work. Almost ten minutes into the movie this white man in a nice suit is taken to a New York City slum where he looks the leaders of two rival gangs (one Hispanic, one black) and says, "God loves you." It's surreal. To explain this further, imagine if a character from The Office walked right onto the set of West Side Story and started telling the Jets and Sharks about God. Although this isn't exactly how it happened (the first thirty minutes of the movie, which takes place within 48 hours, are a conglomeration of events that happened over the span of a few weeks in the book), it does capture how soon Wilkerson went to work, and how readily he was able to meet with gang members and leaders alike.

Let me take a brief moment to be honest about something here: I am not a huge fan of "Christian movies." By "Christian movies" I don't necessarily mean any movie about anything Christian (ie., Peter and Paul or Passion of the Christ). What I mean is a movie geared entirely towards a Christian audience. When this happens (as it did with the "blaxpoitation" films of the 1970's) the filmmakers often tend to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and as a result cliches and tired stories abound. One noticeable example is the "born again moment": a series of montages in which a character thinks about their life, showing angst and confusion in their face with slow Christian music playing in the background.

The Cross and the Switchblade avoids much of this because, instead of following a list of cliches, it instead moves to be a character drama. Part of what makes this work is the script, which focuses most of its attention on the individual members of the Mau Mau gang, in particular Nicky Cruz. Part of this is also the acting talent of the individual actors.

Nicky is played by Erik Estrada, and I have to say that his performance completely surprised me. It's not that I've ever thought Estrada was necessarily a bad actor, I just never realized he could be a great actor. Yet the way he performs the resentful nature of Nicky's sinful state towards the love shown by Wilkerson left no doubt in me that behind the cult status actor was some serious talent.

It might be safe to say that, next to Wilkerson himself, Nicky is the main character of the film. Unlike most "Christian movies" with the climactic born-again moment, Nicky's born-again moment is the entire film itself. The start of these happenings is in one of the earliest moments in the film, with the supposedly word-for-word recreation of the second encounter between Wilkerson and Nicky. When Wilkerson offers Nicky his hand, Nicky spits into it and threatens to kill Wilkerson if he ever sees him again. The Pennsylvanian pastor coolly replies:
"Yeah, you can do that. You can cut me up into a thousand pieces and lay 'em on the street...and every piece will still love you."
After watching the film, I went and watched a brief documentary on the real life Nicky Cruz. His back story is one of growing up in Puerto Rico with abusive parents who dabbled in the occult and regularly beat him without mercy. He knew nothing but hate and violence his entire life (Wilkerson records in the book that he would laugh at the sight of blood). When Wilkerson said the previously quoted words to Nicky, it was the first encounter with selfless love that he had ever experienced. God used those words to eat away at the hate and violence that had built up over the years. Estrada captures this well in the scenes afterward, as the gang leader who can kill without blinking an eye suddenly finds an inner torment growing within him.

One of the most appealing and strongest aspects of Richard Burton's character in The Robe is that he spends much of the movie resisting that strange grace given to him by God, until finally, in the end, he realizes there is no way to run away from such grace. Indeed, Wilkerson himself tells Nicky at one point in the film, "Someday you're gonna stop running, Nicky - and when you do, I'll be there waiting." While there is a point at the end of the film where Nicky "gets it," it is not a long, drawn-out moment but rather a "clicking" where Nicky finally realizes that the love of Christ is what will help heal his life of hurt.

Another fine performance is Jackie Giroux as Rosa, a heroine addict who prostitutes herself for money. I was a bit disappointed to find out (courtesy IMDB) that after this film she fell into obscurity with a chain of Z-grade movies. Her performance here reminded me a bit of Ellen Greene's performance as the distraught Audrey in the 1986 Little Shop of Horrors. Except, of course, whereas that was played for laughs, this is entirely drama. Next to Nicky's story, a good part of the film focuses on Rosa's desperation for heroine, as well as her struggles to overcome it under the watch of Wilkerson's friends, her eventual recovery and near relapse. The character of Rosa herself is actually based off the person of Maria in the original book, who really did walk to where Wilkerson was staying and threaten to kill herself.

If you're wondering about a gospel presentation, you shouldn't let the notable absence of any detailed exposition early on worry you. I was personally worried when it seemed like all we were hearing was "God loves you" ad nauseum. Even Wilkerson himself seems to be a somewhat passive character; if you're expecting him to be an urban John Wesley for much of the film, you might be disappointed. As I said, much of the film focuses on the  gang, and Wilkerson becomes something of an enigma. You don't see what Wilkerson is doing so much as you hear what kind of affect he's having on the other characters - whether this was intentional or not, I'm not sure.

Where things really come through is in the last 16-minutes of the film, at the climactic youth rally. With both the black and Hispanic gangs in his presence and no police protection, Wilkerson stands up on the stage and, Bible in hand, presents the love and sacrifice of Christ, and offers forgiveness of sins through faith. "I don't preach religion," he says, "I preach about a Man." The gangs are to never trust in their own flesh again, but "in the flesh sacrificed for you by Jesus." He gets heckled during the sermon, asking how he can expect the gang members to love their enemies when they've been defaced by or even lost family to them. Wilkerson returns to the cross - in all things, he returns to the cross. This was the climax of the film, and for certain it does not disappoint.

Let me give a warning: I would probably suggest Christian parents and pastors review the film before showing it to their children or congregation. There are some swear words throughout the movie (not incessantly, but they're there, and are mostly the "h-word" and "d-word"). There are at least one or two uses of the "n-word". There is also some drug use: you see Rosa purchase heroine and then (though from behind) stick the needle in her arm; a character in one scene smokes a marijuana joint; in another scene, Rosa shows Wilkerson the needle marks in the veins of her arms; there's also the withdrawal scenes with Rosa (they're not too bad, but I know some parents may not want their children to see such behavior). There's also some violence (mostly involving two scenes of rumbling between the gangs) that, although it gets no more violent than people fallen over and getting hit on the head by sticks, does involve the sight of blood and gashing wounds afterward. It's tame by today's standards, but again, I thought I would give parents and pastors alike a fair warning.

There are, of course, some plot elements they added in for suspense and tension which never happened in real life (Rosa being told to kill Wilkerson for heroine; the supposed rumble to take place at the rally, etc.). However, this does not detract from what is a surprisingly strong film about a strong, faithful man of God. In the end, I was pleasantly surprised by The Cross and the Switchblade, and felt it inspiring me the rest of the day. I would definitely say it is worth at least a one time viewing.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Of God and Government

The separation of church and state is a perpetual discussion in modern western democracy that can often lead to heated arguments. On the one hand, someone always drops the Spanish Inquisition card, while, on the other hand, many will point to the persecution of various religions by communist and socialist governments.

In regards to religion itself, there can be a fine weakness in seeking government support in toto for your faith: your are at the whim and mercy of the government itself. The emperors of Rome throughout the fourth century meddled in the affairs of the church, both for good and bad. This might lead to an interesting the Arians sought their power from governmental support, and so when the empire eventually came to side completely with the Nicene faith, the Arians completely lost power. By contrast, the Nicene faith based itself on the grounds of scripture disregarding the opinion of the government, and so it could survive the tides of emperors who were oppositional, neutral, or supportive. God's word is eternal; political powers are not. Yet even ignoring the actions of individual Christians in regards to government involvement, I think a deeper question here is one that is not often addressed: God's involvement within the actions of a government system.

First, it should be established that God has, in the past, plainly stated that He was the one truly in control of the affairs of state. When the Assyrian king was looking at his massive, expansive empire and saying, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this" (Isa 10:13), God replied:
Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it? Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it? That would be like a club wielding those who lift it, or like a rod lifting him who is not wood. [Isa 10:15]
When Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem and was boasting to the Jews of what he had done with his empire, and all the successes he had won against nations bigger than Judah, God replied through the prophet Isaiah:
"'Have you not heard? Long ago I did it; from ancient times I planned it. Now I have brought it to pass, that you should turn fortified cities into ruinous heaps.'" [2 Kings 19:25]
God's point in both these passages is clear: though the leaders boasted that it was they who had done these great things, it was actually God who was in control the entire time. On the one hand, the king was simply the axe which God wielded to exercise His judgment; on the other hand, the king only had so much success during his reign because God had long ago planned that it should occur. In neither scenario was God merely reacting to what the kings had done, nor was God utilizing earthly means outside of His control to His own personal ends.

An even greater example is found in Paul's epistle to the Romans, where he speaks of Pharaoh being raised up by God:
For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." [Rom 9:17; ref. Exo 9:16]
Let me expel a common straw man right off the bat: this does not mean that God controls political leaders like puppets or robots that He controls with a remote control. Pharaoh, the kings, etc., had as much control as they believed they had. However, God's will and purpose was sovereign over their individual wills and purposes. The kings of Assyria, for certain, all believed that they were really the ones in charge of their own destinies and empires, but in actuality God had complete, sovereign control over their fate. Their growth in power was merely part of God's purpose for His will.

This leads us to discuss how God interacts with governments in our modern day and age. Over the past few days, I've heard some rather peculiar things in regards to this, and, living in a democracy, they are very relevant: 1) God only involves himself within a democracy if people pray for the results; 2) God did not bring any president to power because the previously mentioned passages in the Bible are referring to hereditary kings and not elected officials.

Responding to the latter first, this is a blatant example of begging the question. Nowhere does God say that He only has power over a government if there is a hereditary monarchy in place. The only reason hereditary monarchies are focused on in the Old Testament and partially in the New is because no real democracies were interacting with the land and people at that time. Likewise, it was never emphasized that the kings were used solely because they belonged to a hereditary form of government - God emphasized that it was their power He was raising and utilizing, not their monarchical structure.

Might I propose that this, logically speaking, also means man found a way to usurp God's will and purpose? Since representative democracies, republics, etc., are all man-made forms of government, reason follows that we are now arguing that man found a form of government which God's will and purpose cannot touch. Man, in essence, found a loophole in the system, in which governments can act contrary to God's final purpose.

Moving to the first part second, nowhere is it shown that God is limited by the collective decisions of individuals. To understand this, let's review one of the biggest "elections" in the New Testament:
Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said, "Crucify Him!" [Matt 27:22]
Pilate held one of the biggest referendums in history: should Jesus be crucified? The resounding answer from the population: yes. Was this something God could not control? On the contrary - God had already predestined this to occur.
For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. [Acts 4:27-28]
Even in the willful decision of the Jewish population, Christ was in control. The election, in fact, was part of God's purpose. The Jews did not pray before "electing" to crucify Christ, yet their decision still fulfilled His purpose (the crucifixion, resurrection, etc.). To the disciples and many others, things were not going the way they had hoped. Everything seemed lost. Yet, to put it colloquially, it was, for God, "all part of the plan." Even in the lowest moment of man's treatment of God, God was nowhere near thwarted, and the will of those who crucified Christ was still subservient to the ultimate will of God. Even in the case of elections, referendums, or general public decisions, God is as much in control as He is in the general decisions of hereditary monarchies.

The point of all this is to present that, regardless of governmental decisions, God is still in control. Whether the president whom we want to be elected is elected or not, God is not thwarted. This also means, whether we like the president or not, he is there by God's will and purpose. We will not know how he fits there until perhaps decades after his terms are over, but nonetheless this is a theological truth we cannot deny.

In all things - whether we discover the truth sooner or later - soli Deo gloria.

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Scriptural Examinations of Inclusivist Proof Texts

Before we begin, it might be best to present some definitions of what we're talking about. Inclusivism might be differentiated from universalism in the sense that whereas universalism teaches that everyone will be saved outside of faith in Christ, inclusivism teaches that at least some might be saved outside of faith in Christ. Admittedly, I have, in the past, been confused over the difference between the two, but recently have come to a better clarification between them (with a special H/T to Kevin over at Wesleyan Arminian).

All the same, I cannot say that I could ever consider myself an inclusivist because of the testimony of scripture in this regard. However, I thought, for the sake of discussion, it would be worth touching on some of the passages popularly used to support inclusivism.

"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more." [Luke 12:47-48]

This is a popular one to be cited by inclusivists. The argument is that while the slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready (the inference being unrighteous Christians) will get many lashings, the slave who did not know his master's will and was not ready (the inference being righteous non-Christians) will receive but a few.

I personally cannot comprehend why this is used to support inclusivism. Those who argue that the second servant received fewer lashes than the first seem to forget one important thing: both servants still got lashes. They were both punished. To say that one received a few lashes doesn't had the fact he was still lashed. Christ even says that he "committed deeds worthy of a flogging." To say that because one servant received less lashings means there is no eternal punishment for some people is like Rob Bell's argument regarding Capernaum and Sodom.

"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him." [John 3:17]

The belief here is that this passage is saying that the Son is not here to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. However, those who might say this opens the door for inclusivism forget what follows:
He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [John 3:18]
When Christ says "God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world," that does not mean there isn't any kind of judgment taking place. The Son does not have to judge - we are all already under condemnation. No one goes to hell because they don't believe in Jesus - they go to hell for the righteous judgment of their sins. It is Christ who saves us from that hell.

Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, "Are we also blind?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains." [John 9:40-41]

The idea of using these verses is that Jesus says "If you were blind, you would have no guilt" - hence it is perceived by some that those who are spiritually blind are excused.

The problem is that this is placing the emphasis on the wrong syllable. These verses come on the tail end of the story of the man born blind, who was healed by Christ, interrogated by the Pharisees, and eventually kicked out. Christ had just stated: "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind" (v. 39). The Pharisees, who had condemned the man born blind, hear this and ask if they are also blind. Christ states, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt" - meaning the specific guilt of rejecting him as they were - but "now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains." That last part is important - the Pharisees claimed that they were the true followers of their day, and therefore they claimed that they had spiritual sight. On the contrary, they were spiritually blind, and so their claims of sight made them guilty. Their guilt was in claiming to know God and yet rejecting Christ as Messiah and Lord (as unbelieving Jews today do), hence proving that they were, in fact, blind. Note too that, in Christ's own words, this blindness is a sign of judgment: the Pharisees claimed to be able to see, and yet were made blind by God; the man born blind was believed by the Pharisees to be blind (both literally and spiritually), and yet Christ made him see (both literally and spiritually), showing he had the mercy and favor of God.

The verses are not saying that a person is exempt simply for being spiritually blind. The apostle Paul makes it clear that everyone has some inner feeling of the truth about God, and hence are left inexcusable for idolatry, false worship, or sin (cf. Rom 1:18-23).

"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." [John 12:32]

I've already touched on this passage in greater detail on my post regarding John 6:44, but will touch on it briefly here. There are, logically, three ways to interpret this passage:

1) The literal evangelical approach: Christ refers to "draw" as in drawing all men to be Christians in this lifetime. Many atheists and non-Christians interpret it this way in an attempt to show a contradiction in the New Testament. Their argument is that Christ is a failed savior since it's obvious that not all men have been drawn to Him, and millions upon millions have died in unbelief.

2) The universalist approach: Christ means He will literally draw all men to Him in salvation, so that all men literally will be saved on the day of judgment.

3) The ethnic approach: Christ refers to "all men" in regards to both Jews and Gentiles. This was (as I mentioned in my John 6:44 post) the opinion even of many past synergistic theologians (John Wesley, Adam Clarke) as well as Eastern Fathers (John Chrysostom, Theophylact). More importantly, it comes from the original scripture reading, where Christ is approached by a group of Gentiles desiring to see Christ (v. 20-21) - in the end, Christ never sees them (v. 36). This was because the time of the Gentiles had not yet come. It would be after the resurrection that the gospel would be preached to all nations (Matt 28:19), and then would Christ truly draw all men - not just Jews, but Gentiles as well - to Himself.

Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him." [Acts 10:34-35]

This is another popular passive for inclusivists. However, saying this teaches inclusivism is problematic with what is said:

...God is not one to show partiality... - The immediate context is in regards to Jews and Gentiles, not personal faith. Peter is saying that God shows no partiality between ethnic groups. Keep in mind this is said in the context of Paul learning of the faith given to Cornelius (v. 3-5), and the vision Peter had regarding the "unclean" animals (v. 9-16). At the time of Christ, many Jews of that time held such a poor opinion of Gentiles that many refused to even pass through their towns or neighborhoods, let alone interact with them. Peter's realization here is that God shows no partiality between a Jew or a Gentile.

...the man who fears Him... - What is the true context of "fearing God"? Is it fearing a vague concept known as "God"? On the contrary, it means - within the context scripture defines it - fearing the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The ancient Israelites were told, "You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him, and you shall swear by His name" (Deut 10:20), and again, "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him..." (Deut 13:4). It was Him and Him alone that they should fear; they were explicitly told "you shall not fear other gods...but the LORD your God you shall fear" (2 Ki 17:37, 39). As religious as a devout Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Shintoist may be, they are not fearing the God whom Peter is referring to here.

...and does what is right... - Many will leap to those part and declare: "Aha! 'Does what is right'! This means a good non-believer will probably be saved!" The problem, however, is that this is said alongside with "the man who fears Him." It is not merely "doing what is right" that will win salvation - that is a drum beat many times throughout scripture. It is faith in God which saves, and the works stem from that faith and show its sincerity.

In fact, the inclusivist use of this passage is contradicted by the fact that immediately after this, Peter peaches the gospel to the Gentiles present. Speaking of Christ, Peter says: "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins" (v. 43). Salvation is of those who fear the one true God and believe in His Son.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. [Romans 1:20]

Let's look at the full context:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [Romans 1:18-21]
Paul is beginning his attack against the pagan mindset of the world, which will lead into his condemnation of the hypocrisy of devout Jews in chapter two, and eventually the condemnation of everyone in the opening of the third chapter. Paul is not saying, "People see God in everything, so they'll be saved," he's saying, "It's obvious creation has a creator, yet they choose to worship creation instead." This is a statement of condemnation, not inclusivism.

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law [Romans 2:12]

The implication to many here is that this passage is teaching two different standards for how a person will be judged in the afterlife: those who have "sinned without the Law" will be judged without the Law (again, the ignorance clause of inclusivism), whereas those who "have sinned under the Law" will be "judged by the Law."

We have already established that Romans 1 dealt mainly with the pagan mindset of the world. Romans 2 deals with the Jewish believers who assumed that, because they had the Law, they were superior over the Gentiles. Hence Pauls stern warning: "Do you suppose, O man - you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself - that you will escape the judgment of God?" (Rom 2:3; ESV) This eventually leads to the passage involving the verse in question:
There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. [Rom 2:9-13]
Paul's point is not that unbelievers will be held to a different standard - Paul's point here (and in the verses that follow) is that those who live by the Law will be judged by the Law, and those who are outside the Law will perish (note that they are not saved - they perish) without the Law. No one will have an excuse. The Gentile unbelievers from Romans 1 will not be able to say, "Well we didn't know the Law!", and the Jewish hypocrites of Romans 2 will not be able to say, "But we're the Jews! The Law belongs to us, so we should get a free pass!"

This is not about inclusivism, but making it clear that all will be held accountable for their deeds. This will lead to Paul's famous conclusion that "both Jews and Greeks are all under sin" (Rom 3:9).
[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [1 Timothy 2:4]
This is yet another popular passage to cite for many inclusivists. I'd already touched on this in my review of Rob Bell's book Love Wins (where it was used to support universalism), but I'll touch on it again here.
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. [1 Tim 2:1-8]
Paul urges that Timothy lead his congregation in "entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings" on behalf of all men (v. 1), specifying "kings and all who are in authority" (v. 2). This, Paul says, is "good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior" (v. 3), who "desires all men to be saved" and "come to a knowledge of the truth" (v. 4). That is, all kinds of men, even those who are kings and those in authority. Christians at that time were living under pagan and unbelieving authorities (as most still do today), and the temptation might be not to pray for them in thanksgiving or petition. Paul's contention is that God desires even such men as these to be saved.

Paul likewise says that there is "one God, and one mediator" between God and men, "the man Christ Jesus," (v. 5), who "gave Himself as a ransom for all," this being "the testimony given at the proper time" (v. 6). "For this," Paul says, he was "appointed a teacher to the Gentiles in faith and truth" (v. 7). When Paul says "ransom for all," does this mean unbelievers as well? No - for this, Paul says, he was appointed to preach to the Gentiles. As was seen in John 12:32, "all" refers here to both Jews and Gentiles of any profession. 

In summary, this passage is inclusivist in the sense that any person - prince or pauper, Jew or Gentile - can be saved by God...but it doesn't mean that those who die in unbelief will not perish in their unbelief.

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. [1 John 2:2]

Ignoring any arguments for particular or general atonement, what is the scriptural basis for the receiving the forgiveness of sins? As we saw with John 3:17, it is saving faith in Christ. It is through this alone that a person is saved. "To the one who does not work," the apostle Paul wrote, "but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Rom 4:5).

John Owen once gave this dilemma: if Christ died for all sins of everyone, why aren't all men forgiven; if because of unbelief, are not those sins covered by the cross as well? Many have responded to this by saying that it is scripturally taught that saving faith in Christ is what forgives us our sins, hence our sins are only forgiven at the coming to faith. However, if we open the door for inclusivism, and say that a person is justified despite unbelief, then that is thrown out the window, and John Owen's point still stands. If God can forgive unbelief for subjective reasons (ignorance, being a "righteous heathen", etc.) because He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then, following this to its logical conclusion, why aren't all people saved? This kind of argumentation makes inclusivism the camel's nose for universalism.

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands [Revelation 7:9]

Let's review the wording in this passage as we did with the passage from Acts.

...a great multitude which no one could count... - This is merely in reference to the large number of believers. We don't know the number or how many there will be, though God surely knows. This does not mean they believed to other faiths which denied Christ's divinity.

...from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues... - This is inclusive language, though not towards faith. Rather, it is to ethnic heritage, racial distinction and nationality. There will be all kinds of people before the throne of God: Europeans, Africans, Asians, Indians, Arabs, etc. There is nothing here to suggest religious or spiritual inclusivism.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Martin Luther and Rob Bell

One of the most infamous quotations by Rob Bell, in his book Love Wins, is from Martin Luther regarding his supposed teaching of an after-death repentance.
And then there are others who can live with two destinations, two realities after death, but insist that there must be some kind of "second chance" for those who don't believe in Jesus in this lifetime. In a letter Martin Luther, one of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation, wrote to Hans von Rechenberg in 1522 about the possibility that people could turn to God after death, asking: "Who would doubt God's ability to do that?"

Again, a good question. [pg. 106]
As Bell does throughout the book, he doesn't cite the exact source to the quote, so that people can cross reference for themselves. However, many people familiar with Luther's works did some research into the exact quote and what it was actually saying. What is the full context of the quote from the letter?
It would be quite a different question whether God can impart faith to some in the hour of death or after death so that these people could be saved through faith. Who would doubt God's ability to do that? No one, however, can prove that He does do this. It is impossible for anyone to be saved without faith. [emphasis mine]
Again and again I am further convinced that Rob Bell is not deceived - he is actively deceiving. As I showed in my review of his book, Rob Bell cannot possibly be "accidentally" taking things out of context. How can he "accidentally" have thought that Luther taught universalism when Luther clearly taught otherwise as shown by the following sentence! This isn't just being stubborn in your opinion...this is willingly distorting facts and just flat-out lying to prove your point.

Below is a video featuring Todd Friel discussing the quote and Rob Bell's use of it in greater detail (H/T to Hell's Bell).

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Athanasius versus the Arians

This is an excerpt from Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church Vol. III, and deals with the differences between Athanasius and those who supported him with the Arians.
Arianism was a religious political war against the spirit of the Christian revelation by the spirit of the world, which, after having persecuted the church three hundred years from without, sought under the Christian name to reduce her by degrading Christ to the category of the temporal and the created, and Christianity to the level of natural religion. It substituted for a truly divine Redeemer, a created demigod, an elevated Hercules. Arianism proceeded from human reason, Athanasianism from divine revelation; and each used the other source of knowledge as a subordinate and tributary factor. The former was deistic and rationalistic, the latter theistic and supernaturalistic, in spirit and effect. The one made reasonableness, the other agreement with Scripture, the criterion of truth...

In close connection with this stood another distinction. Arianism associated itself with the secular political power and the court party; it represented the imperio-papal principle, and the time of its prevalence under Constantius was an uninterrupted season of the most arbitrary and violent encroachments of the state upon the rights of the church. Athanasius, on the contrary, who was so often deposed by the emperor, and who uttered himself so boldly respecting Constantius, is the personal representative not only of orthodoxy, but also of the independence of the church with reference to the secular power...

While Arianism bent to the changing politics of the court party, and fell into diverse schools and sects the moment it lost the imperial support, the Nicene faith, like its great champion Athanasius, remained under all outward changes of fortune true to itself, and made its mighty advance only by legitimate growth outward from within. Athanasius makes no distinction at all between the various shades of Arians and Semi-Arians, but throws them all into the same category of enemies of the catholic faith. [source]