It was recently brought to my attention that the cult run by Fred Phelps, which goes under the misnomer "Westboro Baptist Church," apparently declares itself to be a Calvinistic church. For those who don't know, Phelps and his family (literally, most of the church are his family) are a group of people infamous for going to the funerals of soldiers killed in war - or even famous individuals who pass away - and hold up signs that say "God hates f--" (the censored word being the slur for a homosexual) among other things. In another corner of the interweb, someone asked the curious question: "Does God hate sinners? If you say yes how can you say that Westboro Baptist is wrong?" This was directed towards Calvinists, and I offered him a reply, which I will rewrite (with some cleanup) now.
Got hates sin, just as it is written that God's wrath is against all unrighteousness of men (Rom 1:18), and it is for our sins which we are all guilty. There has been no "righteous" person who has ever lived (save Christ), and there is no "righteous" person in existence (Rom 3:9-11).
Here are the errors that the Westboro people commit:
1) They hone in on one kind of sin - that is, homosexuality. They make it their pet peeve sin and, like the prohibitionists attacked alcoholism, launch their personal crusade against it. God's Law extends far beyond homosexual acts.
2) It is not that homosexual activity is not a sin (it is), but under the eyes of God and under God's perfect Law, you and I are just as guilty as a practicing homosexual. For example, Christ outlined that anyone who looks at a woman with lust is guilty of committing adultery (Matt 5:27-28), and I don't know any straight man alive who isn't guilty of that. Likewise, the apostle James stated that he who violates one commandment of God is guilty of violating them all (Jam 2:10).
3) In their presentation of their beliefs regarding God and sin, the Westboro cult leaves out one important factor: grace. You see, the difference between how a Calvinist like George Whitefield would present the gospel and how Fred Phelps & Co. present the gospel is that any knowledgeable Christian (Calvinist or otherwise) recognizes that you establish Law to glorify Grace. That is, even while we were enemies to God, we were reconciled to Him by His Son (Rom 5:10), and we were reconciled to Him by the blood of the cross (Col 1:19-20). None of this is presented by the Westboro cult. Instead, they harp on the sin of homosexuality and condemn everyone of it. Nowhere is Christ's glory preached, nowhere is Christ's love preached, nowhere is the great Triune work of the crucifixion and resurrection talked about. They are like the Pharisees in the sense that they're great at condemning everyone but short on explaining how to do it better.
4) Finally...they're just tactless. I don't recall, in all the combats Christ had with the Pharisees, of Christ going to the funeral of a Pharisee's son and picketing it with His disciples. When the centurion came to ask Jesus to heal his servant, Christ didn't say, "I hope your servant dies you dirty pagan sodomite! God hates you!" Going to funerals and showcasing your hate is not only disrespectful to the grieving families, but shows that you basically wear your beliefs on your sleeve. It is not a very Christian way to act.
The Westboro group are not Calvinists, nor are they Christians. They are simply an example of man's depraved nature masquerading as a religious entity.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The Sheep of John 10
Perhaps about a month or so ago, I came across this argument against Calvinism and John 10:
Christ begins His sermon, as He often does in the gospels, with a double affirmation ("truly truly" or Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν) of what He is about to say. Our Lord then starts first with the antithesis of the Good Shepherd, saying: "he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber" (10:1). There is only one entrance into the sheep pen: the doorway, through which the Good Shepherd enters. This Christ affirms in the next passage with: "he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep" (10:2). A shepherd enters because his flock inside belongs to him, and he only intends good; any one who tries to sneak in has nothing but ill intent. In that instance, it would be illogical to say that the use of "the sheep" here refers to a large group of sheep that includes more than simply the shepherd's sheep - he is identified as "shepherd of the sheep," not "shepherd of some of the sheep."
Now, in the following verse, Christ illustrates something very important to our topic:
According to the arguments given at the beginning of this post, we are expected to believe two things: (1) the Good Shepherd essentially walks into the pen, gives a whistle, looks at some sheep coming to him, and concludes, "Ah, those must be my sheep!"; (2) upon walking towards the door, some of the sheep are able to say, "Bugger this!" and run off, with the shepherd unable to do anything. However, the text plainly teaches that we do not become Christ's sheep by following Him out the door - we are already Christ's sheep, for He knows who are His own.
Before we continue, it might be worthy to note how much credit some synergists seem to give sheep. Sheep are not known for being intelligent animals - in fact, out of most barnyard animals, they're considered one of the dumbest. They are not able to reason, let alone resist the shepherd, and will do as the shepherd commands. They know who their shepherd is - that is the only thing good that can be said regarding their intelligence. A shepherd, likewise, knows his flock, and we cannot believe that the Good Shepherd is "sheep-napping" from other flocks. Not only would that contradict the ancient idea behind shepherds and their flocks, but that is not what is told in scripture.
Explaining what He meant more clearly, Christ tells the people:
Those who propose the arguments presented at the start of this post have tried leaping to 10:9 and saying, "Christ says 'if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved,' and therefore it is our entering the doorway that saves us." Let's not, however, forget the identification of how one enters through the door: the shepherd calls them and leads them out (10:3). Again, sheep are not known for being clever enough to pick and choose shepherds, and Christ has already identified that these sheep follow no one else but their own shepherd.
Now comes the most revealing aspect of the sermon:
Some now cling to the following verse: "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd" (10: 16). It seems to prove that there do exist other sheep besides the one in the pen. This verse, however, speaks of the Gentiles whom God will bring into the fold, so that both Jew and Gentile believer will become "one flock with one shepherd" - the one shepherd being, of course, Christ.
Let's review again what was discussed at the beginning:
EDIT - JULY 30, 2011: This is a follow up responding to some objections I encountered shortly after the original post was made.
Contention: The sheep in John 10 are merely God-fearing Jews whom the Father has given to Christ because of their loyalty to His word. They are here being handed over to the Son by the Father because they have followed the Father's will. This is shown in verse 29, when Christ says: "My Father, who has given them to Me..." The "them" are the sheep.
Response: The immediate problem is that this argumentation is an example of eisegesis, where an assumption is inserted into a passage of scripture. That the sheep are given to the Son by the Father is, of course, plainly there, and would coincide with the earlier statement by Christ in the gospel: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me..." (John 6:37). However, nowhere in scripture is it demonstrated that the Father essentially "screens" believers to bring them to the Son. This is an assumption that has been read into the text.
One reason we know this is an assumption read into the text is the fact that there is no evidence in scripture that all the disciples were devout Jews before following Christ. One big example is found in Matthew, who was a tax collector when Christ called Him. Was Matthew, at the time of his calling, following the Father's will in a profession known for lying, stealing and cheating fellow Jews? It was in this state he was "handed over" to the Son, when Christ called him from his toll booth. Is the job of a Jewish tax collector under the employment of the Romans an example of being "God-fearing"?
An even bigger example is the apostle Paul, who, when Christ called Him, was a member of the Pharisees, was persecuting the church and seeking to kill every Christian he found. Is this pleasing to the Father? Does it please the Father when a man persecutes His church? When Christ found Paul on the road to Damascus, headed to cut off the growing church, was the future apostle worthy to be handed over to the Son? Did the Father "hand over" Paul to the Son in the midst of Paul being the Reinhard Heydrich of the apostolic Church?
Some bringing this contention forward have cited John 17:6, which reads: "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word." The problem with citing this verse is two-fold:
1) The desired order is wrong. It says the disciples: first) belonged to the Father; second) were given to the Son; and third) kept the Father's word. In order for this citation to fit with the contention, it would have to be: first) they kept the Father's word; second) they thus belonged to the Father; and third) they were given to the Son. As it stands, the obeying of the Father comes after being given to the Son.
2) Some have said that the obeying of the Father's word in John 17:6 is past tense. However, the word translated as "they have kept" is τετήρηκαν, the Perfect Active Indicative form of τηρέω. What this means is that the disciples are not being commended for something they did in the past, but something they have done completely in the present. In other words, during their time with Christ. Again, their obeying the Father's word has happened after being given to the Son. Even ignoring grammatical rules, this is further illustrated in the following verses:
Contention: The Gentiles, mentioned in verse 16, are God-fearing Gentiles, such as Cornelius in Acts 10, or the God-fearing Gentiles of Athens in Acts 17.
Response: Actually, not all the Gentiles who come to believe in Christ are said to be "God-fearing" beforehand. For example, the "prominent Greek women and men" in Berea (Acts 17:12) are not said to be God-fearing, and neither are the Gentiles who converted after Paul's sermon in Athens (Acts 17:34). In fact, none of the Gentiles in Acts 14 are said to be God-fearing. Some are even found polytheists, which is shown by their initially thinking Barnabas and Paul are Zeus and Hermes respectfully (Acts 14:11-12).
We can find a lack of a "God-fearing" state previous to conversion among many of the Gentiles within Paul's epistles. Most prominent among these is Paul's epistle to the Ephesian church, in which he says that they "formerly walked according to the course of this world" (Eph 2:2), and "were by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2:3). Does this sound like the state of God-fearing Gentiles? It was while they were in this rebellious state that they were "saved through faith" as a "gift of God" (Eph 2:8). Paul likewise tells the Colossian Christians that God "rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son" (Col 1:13). Again, it does not say that God the Father rescued us while we were God-fearing, but rather that we were rescued from "the domain of darkness," then handed over to the son.
The problem with this contention lies in linguistic context. The word that many translate as "God-fearing" (as it is in the NASB) is likewise translated as "religious" or "devout" (as it is in the ESV), and stems from the Greek word σέβομαι, which means "to be religious" or "to worship." When it is used in reference to Gentiles in the New Testament, it is referring to those Gentiles who either pander to or are converts to the Jewish faith. They are, to use modern terminology, religious Jews who are still divided from their ethnic Jewish brethren because of their Gentile lineage. At the Temple in Jerusalem, there was even a "Court of the Gentiles" which was so-called because that was as far as Gentile men could go. Cornelius, often cited as an example of a "God-fearing Gentile," was recorded to have given "many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually" (Acts 10:2). In other words, he was almost an "official" Jew. Remember that the New Testament writers were not living in our day and age, where a person could simply convert to a religion and immediately be labeled a member of the faith.
A note from the NET bible on the subject:
Contention: Nowhere does it say in John 10 that Christ died for His sheep and no one else.
Response: Christ does not make the plain statement "I'm dying for the sheep and no one else," but He wouldn't have to given the context and wording. He clearly says "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep" (v. 11), repeated later on with "I lay down My life for the sheep" (v. 15). For whom else does a shepherd lay down his life? A shepherd does not lay down his life for another flock, nor for sheep that are not part of his flock. Rather, he lays down his life for his flock and his flock alone.
This is where the person who argues the previous contentions runs into great trouble: by their own logic, they are still proving Limited Atonement. Their argument is that the Son's flock are made up of faithful believers given to them by the Father...yet Christ plainly states that it is for this flock that He dies. This is why a person has to argue that the context of "the sheep" is different than the context of "My sheep," as was discussed in the original post.
Only the elect are in view because Calvinism requires that reading of the text. Thus anyone cannot mean anyone but must be redefined to mean, in this case due to your contextual requirement to conform to Calvinism, something other than anyone, it must mean My sheep. Logically, no one is part of "My Sheep" until they enter the door. [source]A similar argument:
Folks, lets look at John 10:2 and following to see if "the sheep" equates with "his sheep"What we are told is:
Now of course, "the sheep" which are His sheep are part of "the sheep" but are not all of "the sheep.
First we have the shepherd entering by the door, thus the doorkeeper knows that the shepherd is the shepherd of at least some of "the sheep." Now "the sheep" hear his voice, so this could refer to all of the sheep or just the sheep that are his sheep. But He calls his own sheep by name, so the others of "the sheep" are not called by name. He leads only His sheep out. Thus this first illustration clearly teaches that "the sheep" include His sheep, but in no way suggests other sheep do not exist. [source]
- No one becomes Christ's sheep until they follow Him through the door (in other words, a synergistic approach to salvation).
- Christ only refers to His sheep when He says "My sheep," and therefore His call to the sheep is a general call to all the sheep in the pen. Again, they only become "My sheep" and receive the salvation thereof by following Christ's voice out the door.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."The first part of the sermon (10:1-5) is a summary of what Christ will later elucidate in the longer version (10:7-18), having had to explain because no one understood the figure of speech (10:6). Some theologians, such as Adam Clarke, have made the case that 10:1-5 are examples of lesser shepherds (in other words, Christian ministers), however I believe the clarification our Lord makes in the following verses shows this is merely the shortened version of His identification as the Good Shepherd.
This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them. So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again This commandment I received from My Father." [John 10:1-18; NASB]
Christ begins His sermon, as He often does in the gospels, with a double affirmation ("truly truly" or Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν) of what He is about to say. Our Lord then starts first with the antithesis of the Good Shepherd, saying: "he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber" (10:1). There is only one entrance into the sheep pen: the doorway, through which the Good Shepherd enters. This Christ affirms in the next passage with: "he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep" (10:2). A shepherd enters because his flock inside belongs to him, and he only intends good; any one who tries to sneak in has nothing but ill intent. In that instance, it would be illogical to say that the use of "the sheep" here refers to a large group of sheep that includes more than simply the shepherd's sheep - he is identified as "shepherd of the sheep," not "shepherd of some of the sheep."
Now, in the following verse, Christ illustrates something very important to our topic:
To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. (10:3)The doorkeeper (θυρωρὸς, coming from the Greek words for "gateway" and "guardian") opens for no one else except the shepherd - that is, the one who owns the sheep inside. The sheep inside hear his voice, and then the shepherd "calls his own sheep by name and leads them out." In other words, before the sheep even move, the shepherd knows which ones are his sheep. To clarify, the sheep are identified as the shepherd's sheep: (1) before they follow him, and (2) before they leave the gate. This is further illustrated in the following verse: "he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice" (10:4). The shepherd puts forth his own, and goes ahead of them. Christ emphasizes the possessive identity of the sheep to the shepherd with: "a stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers" (10:5). They follow only the shepherd (that is, Christ), and anyone else (that is, a false teacher, prophet or messiah) they will seek to avoid.
According to the arguments given at the beginning of this post, we are expected to believe two things: (1) the Good Shepherd essentially walks into the pen, gives a whistle, looks at some sheep coming to him, and concludes, "Ah, those must be my sheep!"; (2) upon walking towards the door, some of the sheep are able to say, "Bugger this!" and run off, with the shepherd unable to do anything. However, the text plainly teaches that we do not become Christ's sheep by following Him out the door - we are already Christ's sheep, for He knows who are His own.
Before we continue, it might be worthy to note how much credit some synergists seem to give sheep. Sheep are not known for being intelligent animals - in fact, out of most barnyard animals, they're considered one of the dumbest. They are not able to reason, let alone resist the shepherd, and will do as the shepherd commands. They know who their shepherd is - that is the only thing good that can be said regarding their intelligence. A shepherd, likewise, knows his flock, and we cannot believe that the Good Shepherd is "sheep-napping" from other flocks. Not only would that contradict the ancient idea behind shepherds and their flocks, but that is not what is told in scripture.
Explaining what He meant more clearly, Christ tells the people:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture." (10:7-9)Our Lord begins His sermon anew (once again starting with His "Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν") and immediately identifies Himself as "the door of the sheep" - in other words, He is the gateway for salvation, and the sole source of salvation (for only one door is mentioned). All who came before Christ (that is, false messiahs, who are spoken of by Gamaliel in Acts 5) were the thieves and robbers spoken of in 10:1, being those who sought to enter another way. "The sheep," however, "did not hear them" - in other words, the sheep of the shepherd did not follow them, for it is clarified that the "my sheep" do not follow the voice of strangers (10:5) - therefore, there is no difference between the "my sheep" and "the sheep" of John 10, for they are identified as being one and the same.
Those who propose the arguments presented at the start of this post have tried leaping to 10:9 and saying, "Christ says 'if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved,' and therefore it is our entering the doorway that saves us." Let's not, however, forget the identification of how one enters through the door: the shepherd calls them and leads them out (10:3). Again, sheep are not known for being clever enough to pick and choose shepherds, and Christ has already identified that these sheep follow no one else but their own shepherd.
Now comes the most revealing aspect of the sermon:
I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. (10:11-15)Christ reveals the shepherd as Himself and states, "the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep" (10:11). Those in the opening argument say that this is speaking generally - that Christ says He, as the good shepherd, lays down His life for "the sheep" in a general sense, but only "His sheep" will be saved. However, that would break the train of thought that has been perpetuated for this entire chapter. The shepherd is never identified with any flock other than his own, and it would be nonsensical to suddenly assume that Christ is speaking of a larger flock that does not include the shepherd's own. Shepherds do not die for other flocks, but rather take care of their own and preserve them like children. The sheep in this sermon are those that belong to the shepherd. Our Lord emphasizes this with "I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father," followed by the reiteration, "I lay down My life for the sheep" (10:14-15). "The sheep" are His own who know Him, just as sheep know their shepherd and just as the Father and the Son know one another.
Some now cling to the following verse: "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd" (10: 16). It seems to prove that there do exist other sheep besides the one in the pen. This verse, however, speaks of the Gentiles whom God will bring into the fold, so that both Jew and Gentile believer will become "one flock with one shepherd" - the one shepherd being, of course, Christ.
Let's review again what was discussed at the beginning:
- "Logically, no one is part of 'My Sheep' until they enter the door." - On the contrary, it is stated at the very beginning that the shepherd calls his sheep by name and leads them out, emphasized later with "I know My own and My own know Me." Ironically, it was admitted by the opening argument that Christ calls "His sheep" and "by name" from among the general group of sheep, but it would appear that there was some confusion as to how this argumentation would not only contradict the first argument, but still lead one into Calvinism.
- "Thus this first illustration clearly teaches that 'the sheep' include His sheep, but in no way suggests other sheep do not exist." - As we have shown, nowhere does the context of "my sheep" change with "the sheep." We are expected to believe that Christ's train of thought amounted to: "My sheep. My sheep. My sheep. Other sheep! My sheep. My sheep..." No human mind works this way, save in the criminally insane.
--------
EDIT - JULY 30, 2011: This is a follow up responding to some objections I encountered shortly after the original post was made.
Contention: The sheep in John 10 are merely God-fearing Jews whom the Father has given to Christ because of their loyalty to His word. They are here being handed over to the Son by the Father because they have followed the Father's will. This is shown in verse 29, when Christ says: "My Father, who has given them to Me..." The "them" are the sheep.
Response: The immediate problem is that this argumentation is an example of eisegesis, where an assumption is inserted into a passage of scripture. That the sheep are given to the Son by the Father is, of course, plainly there, and would coincide with the earlier statement by Christ in the gospel: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me..." (John 6:37). However, nowhere in scripture is it demonstrated that the Father essentially "screens" believers to bring them to the Son. This is an assumption that has been read into the text.
One reason we know this is an assumption read into the text is the fact that there is no evidence in scripture that all the disciples were devout Jews before following Christ. One big example is found in Matthew, who was a tax collector when Christ called Him. Was Matthew, at the time of his calling, following the Father's will in a profession known for lying, stealing and cheating fellow Jews? It was in this state he was "handed over" to the Son, when Christ called him from his toll booth. Is the job of a Jewish tax collector under the employment of the Romans an example of being "God-fearing"?
An even bigger example is the apostle Paul, who, when Christ called Him, was a member of the Pharisees, was persecuting the church and seeking to kill every Christian he found. Is this pleasing to the Father? Does it please the Father when a man persecutes His church? When Christ found Paul on the road to Damascus, headed to cut off the growing church, was the future apostle worthy to be handed over to the Son? Did the Father "hand over" Paul to the Son in the midst of Paul being the Reinhard Heydrich of the apostolic Church?
Some bringing this contention forward have cited John 17:6, which reads: "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word." The problem with citing this verse is two-fold:
1) The desired order is wrong. It says the disciples: first) belonged to the Father; second) were given to the Son; and third) kept the Father's word. In order for this citation to fit with the contention, it would have to be: first) they kept the Father's word; second) they thus belonged to the Father; and third) they were given to the Son. As it stands, the obeying of the Father comes after being given to the Son.
2) Some have said that the obeying of the Father's word in John 17:6 is past tense. However, the word translated as "they have kept" is τετήρηκαν, the Perfect Active Indicative form of τηρέω. What this means is that the disciples are not being commended for something they did in the past, but something they have done completely in the present. In other words, during their time with Christ. Again, their obeying the Father's word has happened after being given to the Son. Even ignoring grammatical rules, this is further illustrated in the following verses:
Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. [John 17:7-8]When Christ says "they have kept Your word," He is referring to that which the Father gave to Him, which He then gave to the disciples. Therefore, Christ's use of "they have kept" is speaking of after they were handed over by the Father, both grammatically and contextually. The Father gave Christ instructions, which He then gave to the disciples, and it is these words, given to them by Christ, which they have kept.
Contention: The Gentiles, mentioned in verse 16, are God-fearing Gentiles, such as Cornelius in Acts 10, or the God-fearing Gentiles of Athens in Acts 17.
Response: Actually, not all the Gentiles who come to believe in Christ are said to be "God-fearing" beforehand. For example, the "prominent Greek women and men" in Berea (Acts 17:12) are not said to be God-fearing, and neither are the Gentiles who converted after Paul's sermon in Athens (Acts 17:34). In fact, none of the Gentiles in Acts 14 are said to be God-fearing. Some are even found polytheists, which is shown by their initially thinking Barnabas and Paul are Zeus and Hermes respectfully (Acts 14:11-12).
We can find a lack of a "God-fearing" state previous to conversion among many of the Gentiles within Paul's epistles. Most prominent among these is Paul's epistle to the Ephesian church, in which he says that they "formerly walked according to the course of this world" (Eph 2:2), and "were by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2:3). Does this sound like the state of God-fearing Gentiles? It was while they were in this rebellious state that they were "saved through faith" as a "gift of God" (Eph 2:8). Paul likewise tells the Colossian Christians that God "rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son" (Col 1:13). Again, it does not say that God the Father rescued us while we were God-fearing, but rather that we were rescued from "the domain of darkness," then handed over to the son.
The problem with this contention lies in linguistic context. The word that many translate as "God-fearing" (as it is in the NASB) is likewise translated as "religious" or "devout" (as it is in the ESV), and stems from the Greek word σέβομαι, which means "to be religious" or "to worship." When it is used in reference to Gentiles in the New Testament, it is referring to those Gentiles who either pander to or are converts to the Jewish faith. They are, to use modern terminology, religious Jews who are still divided from their ethnic Jewish brethren because of their Gentile lineage. At the Temple in Jerusalem, there was even a "Court of the Gentiles" which was so-called because that was as far as Gentile men could go. Cornelius, often cited as an example of a "God-fearing Gentile," was recorded to have given "many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually" (Acts 10:2). In other words, he was almost an "official" Jew. Remember that the New Testament writers were not living in our day and age, where a person could simply convert to a religion and immediately be labeled a member of the faith.
A note from the NET bible on the subject:
The description of Cornelius as a devout, God-fearing man probably means that he belonged to the category called “God-fearers,” Gentiles who worshiped the God of Israel and in many cases kept the Mosaic law, but did not take the final step of circumcision necessary to become a proselyte to Judaism. [from the NET notes for Acts 10:2]An interesting dilemma comes from this contention: anyone who argues this way is actually siding with the Judaizers who opposed Paul. Why do I say this? Because they are (inadvertently) saying that, in order to become one of God's sheep, a Gentile must first become a Jew! Keeping within the context of New Testament terminology, they are saying that only "God-fearing Gentiles" can fit into the sheep spoken of in verse 16, and yet these "God-fearing Gentiles" in the New Testament are nothing more than Gentile members of the Jewish faith.
Contention: Nowhere does it say in John 10 that Christ died for His sheep and no one else.
Response: Christ does not make the plain statement "I'm dying for the sheep and no one else," but He wouldn't have to given the context and wording. He clearly says "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep" (v. 11), repeated later on with "I lay down My life for the sheep" (v. 15). For whom else does a shepherd lay down his life? A shepherd does not lay down his life for another flock, nor for sheep that are not part of his flock. Rather, he lays down his life for his flock and his flock alone.
This is where the person who argues the previous contentions runs into great trouble: by their own logic, they are still proving Limited Atonement. Their argument is that the Son's flock are made up of faithful believers given to them by the Father...yet Christ plainly states that it is for this flock that He dies. This is why a person has to argue that the context of "the sheep" is different than the context of "My sheep," as was discussed in the original post.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Christians and Conspiracy Theories
A conspiracy theory is defined:
First, they lead a person into a cult-like atmosphere
It should be noted beforehand that the vast majority of people enjoy at least entertaining various conspiracy theories. There is nothing wrong with humorously pondering on various conspiracies. There is likewise nothing wrong with looking into the conspiracies, or asking questions about certain ideas that might be construed as conspiracy theories.
However, those who uphold conspiracy theories as an absolute truth often act as if they are part of a special sect. Everyone outside their group are "misled" or guilty of deep "ignorance," whereas they are the bearers of some great knowledge. This extreme thinking is often found in fringe groups or cults, where an "us" and "them" mentality grows, where those outside the group are "unsaved" because they do not yet possess this great knowledge. It also becomes dangerously close to a kind of Gnosticism, in the sense that some secret knowledge or truth is hidden, but can free a person upon acceptance of it and join the group.
Loyalty to a conspiracy, in fact, may usurp a Christian's priorities in other areas. For example, a Christian may become more passionate about a conspiracy than about the word of God, prayer, or worship life. They may even look down on or insult other Christians who do not share their viewpoint, especially if their brother or sister in Christ attempts to rebuke them or show them the error of their thinking. I have seen (and experienced) self-professing Christians who believe in conspiracy theories insult, belittle, or condemn their Christian brothers and sisters solely because they either do not believe in the conspiracy.
Such adoration of a conspiracy therefore leads to an idolatry, where the conspiracy itself is an idol distracting a person from the worship and commands of God.
Second, the vast majority of conspiracy theories are based in some part on falsehoods or distortions of the truth
One nature of conspiracy theories is that, in order to survive contradictory evidence, circular and dishonest reasoning has to be employed. An assumption might be made that a political, religious or commercial entity planted the contradictory evidence to lure people away. Sometimes the evidence may simply be dismissed outright, either without reason or for a very shallow reason. For example, a 9/11 "truther" encountered a New York City policeman who had been present when one of the World Trade Center buildings went down. When the policeman told the "truther" that he had been there, and it wasn't explosives that brought the building down, the "truther" simply replied, "You're wrong!" Another "truther," interviewed on Penn and Teller's television program, responded to the question on where the 3,000 casualties of September 11 are by saying that they're in hiding because they're in cahoots with the government. The response was so disconnected from the harsh reality that Penn said in a voice-over: "I hope this guy runs into one of the victims' families. I'm sure they'd love to hear, 'Daddy's not coming back because he works for the government.'"
It can't help but be noticed that the supposed legitimacy of conspiracies centers around not facts or evidence, but doubt. For example, a Holocaust-denier may point out that, after World War II, the initial total numbers of Jews killed differed from various reports. There is nothing wrong with bringing this up, but the answer is not honestly sought. Instead, it is assumed that these numbers must be changing because the entire thing was made up, and thus this is provided as "evidence" for the Holocaust being false.
All of this is an example of the begging the question fallacy, in which a person's concluding premise is either subtly or obviously inserted into the argument to lead to the desired conclusion. It is immediately assumed that a conspiracy must be present, and therefore all conclusions are drawn from the presupposition that a conspiracy has taken place. Many of us have even heard people try to justify conspiracies with "I'm just saying this sounds kind of strange," or, "I'm just saying it's possible." Again, none of these prove anything. In order for a conspiracy theory to be valid, there has to be some connection between the event that has taken place and the conclusion drawn by the person.
Many proponents of conspiracies often brag that they have a kind of "ultimate truth" when it comes to these events, however when pressed for real evidence their case often comes up lacking. Many conspiracies are centered around not evidence but speculations on motives or special interests that prove nothing concrete. For example, a conspiracy theorist may have much to say about motives for the CIA to have wanted to kill John F. Kennedy, but they will never be able to pinpoint any direct evidence that would give probable cause that they were behind the shooting. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with entertaining various possibilities, but in order for the possibility to be considered valid there has to be some evidence in favor of the accusation made. Despite this, conspiracy theorists will defend to the death against all criticism, declaring that they know the truth. This is despite the fact that their supposed "evidence" would not even be enough to grant an arrest warrant, let alone indict the person or group they are accusing of murder. In fact, in most conspiracy theories the crux of the argument seems to rely on one or two pieces of "evidence" supporting the conspiracy idea, even if there is a mountain of evidence supporting the conspiracy theory's refutation.
A Christian engaging in this kind of activity, either knowingly or unknowingly, is therefore engaging in lies and purposeful deception. Like Muslims who are forced to use double standards in regards to their own faith and Christianity, Christians who engage in this activity are forced to hold double standards and inconsistencies. For those who are called to follow Divine Truth, it is a terrible and offensive thing to engage in man-made lies.
Third, for these reasons, conspiracy theories are an insult to the rationale given to us by the Lord
Galileo once famously said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." The apostle Paul instructed Christians to "examine everything carefully" (1 Thess 5:21). The author of Proverbs likewise wrote: "How blessed is the man who finds wisdom and the man who gains understanding" (Prov 3:13). To think, to reason, to use logic and to use our rationale - all of these were gifts from God. They are not the primary source of all knowledge, nor the sole basis of all knowledge (this was the error of the Enlightenment and later humanists), but they were nevertheless gifts given to us by God for our use. They were first and foremost given by God in order that we may be capable to know of Him, and secondarily to understand all that is around us.
With conspiracy theories, all of that is thrown out. We are instead called to engage in emotions, to engage in pride, and to follow fallacious logic for the sake of an idea separate from God. Indeed, this thinking follows the course of human logic separate from the discernment given by God, leading a person instead to appear insane. It is childish naivety on parade as grownup knowledge. As the apostle Paul wrote, "Professing to be wise, they became fools" (Rom 1:22).
Conspiracy theorists, of course, will demand that they are using rationale, logic and other elements of the mind, and that they are merely asking questions to get to the heart of the truth. However, we have already established that the very nature of the vast majority of conspiracy theories is grounded on fallacy and paper-thin evidence. Even when a conspiracy theorist admits this, they will still turn around and declare their belief to be the absolute truth, and will still attack, insult, belittle, or criticize anyone who disagrees with their point of view. They are forced to change behavior, even against fellow Christians, in order to defend this idol they have begun to worship. They have done so by forsaking the very intelligence and rationale given to them as a gift by God.
Again, I am not writing this to condemn anyone or declare that any Christian who believes in a conspiracy theory is going to hell. I reiterate that this is merely a call for discernment, even for those who may not believe they follow conspiracy theories. God bless.
...any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning. [source; by the way, this is the only time I will quote Wikipedia]Conspiracy theories include a wide range of beliefs, some examples being:
- Jews were behind World War II
- The government covered up alien landings in Roswell, NM
- The moon landing was faked
- The American government was behind the September 11 attacks
First, they lead a person into a cult-like atmosphere
It should be noted beforehand that the vast majority of people enjoy at least entertaining various conspiracy theories. There is nothing wrong with humorously pondering on various conspiracies. There is likewise nothing wrong with looking into the conspiracies, or asking questions about certain ideas that might be construed as conspiracy theories.
However, those who uphold conspiracy theories as an absolute truth often act as if they are part of a special sect. Everyone outside their group are "misled" or guilty of deep "ignorance," whereas they are the bearers of some great knowledge. This extreme thinking is often found in fringe groups or cults, where an "us" and "them" mentality grows, where those outside the group are "unsaved" because they do not yet possess this great knowledge. It also becomes dangerously close to a kind of Gnosticism, in the sense that some secret knowledge or truth is hidden, but can free a person upon acceptance of it and join the group.
Loyalty to a conspiracy, in fact, may usurp a Christian's priorities in other areas. For example, a Christian may become more passionate about a conspiracy than about the word of God, prayer, or worship life. They may even look down on or insult other Christians who do not share their viewpoint, especially if their brother or sister in Christ attempts to rebuke them or show them the error of their thinking. I have seen (and experienced) self-professing Christians who believe in conspiracy theories insult, belittle, or condemn their Christian brothers and sisters solely because they either do not believe in the conspiracy.
Such adoration of a conspiracy therefore leads to an idolatry, where the conspiracy itself is an idol distracting a person from the worship and commands of God.
Second, the vast majority of conspiracy theories are based in some part on falsehoods or distortions of the truth
One nature of conspiracy theories is that, in order to survive contradictory evidence, circular and dishonest reasoning has to be employed. An assumption might be made that a political, religious or commercial entity planted the contradictory evidence to lure people away. Sometimes the evidence may simply be dismissed outright, either without reason or for a very shallow reason. For example, a 9/11 "truther" encountered a New York City policeman who had been present when one of the World Trade Center buildings went down. When the policeman told the "truther" that he had been there, and it wasn't explosives that brought the building down, the "truther" simply replied, "You're wrong!" Another "truther," interviewed on Penn and Teller's television program, responded to the question on where the 3,000 casualties of September 11 are by saying that they're in hiding because they're in cahoots with the government. The response was so disconnected from the harsh reality that Penn said in a voice-over: "I hope this guy runs into one of the victims' families. I'm sure they'd love to hear, 'Daddy's not coming back because he works for the government.'"
It can't help but be noticed that the supposed legitimacy of conspiracies centers around not facts or evidence, but doubt. For example, a Holocaust-denier may point out that, after World War II, the initial total numbers of Jews killed differed from various reports. There is nothing wrong with bringing this up, but the answer is not honestly sought. Instead, it is assumed that these numbers must be changing because the entire thing was made up, and thus this is provided as "evidence" for the Holocaust being false.
All of this is an example of the begging the question fallacy, in which a person's concluding premise is either subtly or obviously inserted into the argument to lead to the desired conclusion. It is immediately assumed that a conspiracy must be present, and therefore all conclusions are drawn from the presupposition that a conspiracy has taken place. Many of us have even heard people try to justify conspiracies with "I'm just saying this sounds kind of strange," or, "I'm just saying it's possible." Again, none of these prove anything. In order for a conspiracy theory to be valid, there has to be some connection between the event that has taken place and the conclusion drawn by the person.
Many proponents of conspiracies often brag that they have a kind of "ultimate truth" when it comes to these events, however when pressed for real evidence their case often comes up lacking. Many conspiracies are centered around not evidence but speculations on motives or special interests that prove nothing concrete. For example, a conspiracy theorist may have much to say about motives for the CIA to have wanted to kill John F. Kennedy, but they will never be able to pinpoint any direct evidence that would give probable cause that they were behind the shooting. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with entertaining various possibilities, but in order for the possibility to be considered valid there has to be some evidence in favor of the accusation made. Despite this, conspiracy theorists will defend to the death against all criticism, declaring that they know the truth. This is despite the fact that their supposed "evidence" would not even be enough to grant an arrest warrant, let alone indict the person or group they are accusing of murder. In fact, in most conspiracy theories the crux of the argument seems to rely on one or two pieces of "evidence" supporting the conspiracy idea, even if there is a mountain of evidence supporting the conspiracy theory's refutation.
A Christian engaging in this kind of activity, either knowingly or unknowingly, is therefore engaging in lies and purposeful deception. Like Muslims who are forced to use double standards in regards to their own faith and Christianity, Christians who engage in this activity are forced to hold double standards and inconsistencies. For those who are called to follow Divine Truth, it is a terrible and offensive thing to engage in man-made lies.
Third, for these reasons, conspiracy theories are an insult to the rationale given to us by the Lord
Galileo once famously said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." The apostle Paul instructed Christians to "examine everything carefully" (1 Thess 5:21). The author of Proverbs likewise wrote: "How blessed is the man who finds wisdom and the man who gains understanding" (Prov 3:13). To think, to reason, to use logic and to use our rationale - all of these were gifts from God. They are not the primary source of all knowledge, nor the sole basis of all knowledge (this was the error of the Enlightenment and later humanists), but they were nevertheless gifts given to us by God for our use. They were first and foremost given by God in order that we may be capable to know of Him, and secondarily to understand all that is around us.
With conspiracy theories, all of that is thrown out. We are instead called to engage in emotions, to engage in pride, and to follow fallacious logic for the sake of an idea separate from God. Indeed, this thinking follows the course of human logic separate from the discernment given by God, leading a person instead to appear insane. It is childish naivety on parade as grownup knowledge. As the apostle Paul wrote, "Professing to be wise, they became fools" (Rom 1:22).
Conspiracy theorists, of course, will demand that they are using rationale, logic and other elements of the mind, and that they are merely asking questions to get to the heart of the truth. However, we have already established that the very nature of the vast majority of conspiracy theories is grounded on fallacy and paper-thin evidence. Even when a conspiracy theorist admits this, they will still turn around and declare their belief to be the absolute truth, and will still attack, insult, belittle, or criticize anyone who disagrees with their point of view. They are forced to change behavior, even against fellow Christians, in order to defend this idol they have begun to worship. They have done so by forsaking the very intelligence and rationale given to them as a gift by God.
Again, I am not writing this to condemn anyone or declare that any Christian who believes in a conspiracy theory is going to hell. I reiterate that this is merely a call for discernment, even for those who may not believe they follow conspiracy theories. God bless.
Friday, February 18, 2011
"The Nature of the Water"
The following is from the Jonathan Edwards work Religious Affections.
As from true divine love flow all Christian affections, so from a counterfeit love in like manner naturally flow other false affections. In both cases, love is the fountain, and the other affections are the streams. The various faculties, principles, and affections of the human nature, are as it were many channels from one fountain: if there be sweet water in the fountain, sweet water will from thence flow out into those various channels; but if the water in the fountain be poisonous, then poisonous streams will also flow out into all those channels. So that the channels and streams will be alike, corresponding one with another; but the great difference will lie in the nature of the water. Or, man's nature may be compared to a tree, with many branches, coming from one root: if the sap in the root be good, there will also be good sap distributed throughout the branches, and the fruit that is brought forth will be good and wholesome; but if the sap in the root and stock be poisonous, so it will be in many branches (as in the other case), and the fruit will be deadly. The tree in both cases may be alike; there may be an exact resemblance in shape; but the difference is found only in eating the fruit. It is thus (in some measure at least) oftentimes between saints and hypocrites. There is sometimes a very great similitude between true and false experiences, in their appearance, and in what is expressed and related by the subjects of them: and the difference between them is much like the difference between the dreams of Pharaoh's chief butler and baker; they seemed to be much alike, insomuch that when Joseph interpreted the chief butler's dream, that he should be delivered from his imprisonment, and restored to the king's favor, and his honorable office in the palace, the chief baker had raised hopes and expectations, and told his dream also; but he was woefully disappointed; and though his dream was so much like the happy and well boding dream of his companion, yet it was quite contrary in its issue.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
White Horse Inn: Abrahamic Faiths
The gentlemen at White Horse Inn discuss the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and how they relate to God's plan of salvation according to scripture.
WHI-1036 | Abrahamic Faiths - White Horse Inn Blog
WHI-1036 | Abrahamic Faiths - White Horse Inn Blog
Monday, February 14, 2011
Some personal reflections
I've been studying the Gospel of Matthew using with various commentaries, among them Matthew Henry's exhaustive work. While going through the temptations of Christ in the desert, in particular the second one atop the Temple, I read Matthew Henry's words: "God casts down, that he may raise up; the Devil raises up, that he may cast down..."
This gave me some time to contemplate on my experiences in the past two years, as well as my experiences recently, and how much it's changed dramatically. At the beginning of 2009 I had a full-time job, benefits, my own apartment, able to take care of myself, etc. Now, at the beginning of 2011, I have a part-time job, relying on benefits provided by my parents, renting a room, and surviving bit by bit. For a person in his mid-20's, that can be a great shock, and I'd be lying if I said it didn't lead to a few "quarter-life crisis" moments every now and then.
However, I have to put things in perspective: what, exactly, did I lose? When I graduated college I practically had comfortable living handed over to me, and almost overnight I had enough to live by along with a decent amount of disposable income. In truth, I wasted much of it while wallowing in the more comfortable aspects of my lifestyle. Coming to know Christ did not fully destroy that. Although I had experienced my intellectual conversion, it took a spiritual beating to get my heart in order.
A great deal of pride, self-reliance, and perhaps some self-love came with my journey through my first church. All that changed throughout the year of 2009 when I lost my job, lost my apartment, left the city I had lived in for three years, lost my car, and eventually lost my connection with those I knew in Eastern Orthodoxy. I lost everything that I had clung onto in my early years as a Christian. Indeed, they were everything that had fueled that pride and self-reliance. Life had changed so dramatically for me that it became a serious test of faith - just where was that God who was supposed to be there for me? Christ had rebuked the storm in the Sea of Galilee, yet here I was, in the midst of my own storm, and it seemed to have increased into a hurricane. I prayed and yet situations grew worse. Was I praying to empty air? Was there really any truth for me to believe in? Why did I continue to suffer?
Yet I have now, by God's grace, been able to see much of the providence given to me by the Lord. No, I'm not in my own apartment, but I have a roof over my head which I help pay for, and in these Kansas City winters I cry out to God in thanks for that. No, I don't have a full-time job with benefits like I did before, but I have an income, and I make enough to survive, and for that I am grateful. Yes, I don't have the 2004 Dodge Neon, but I now drive a cute little 2010 Kia Rio5 that serves my needs. The first church I went to had a congregation in the hundreds, whereas my current church has membership that barely reaches forty...yet they are godly people, and they have welcomed me with open arms. I got all I could have ever wanted literally two days after graduation, and it was all taken from me just as quickly as it was given - yet now, gradually, over the past two years, things are starting to be rebuilt. None of the credit goes to myself, but rather I pass all glory and honor and praise to the Almighty God who has provided it for me. I still have a long way to go, and I know that God will have much more maturing in store. God has knocked me down, but He is building me back up, bit by bit, remodeling me into the person He desires.
What have I learned the most about my current situation? That it took me two years to learn to be a child of God...and now I am learning to be a man of God. Soli Deo gloria!
This gave me some time to contemplate on my experiences in the past two years, as well as my experiences recently, and how much it's changed dramatically. At the beginning of 2009 I had a full-time job, benefits, my own apartment, able to take care of myself, etc. Now, at the beginning of 2011, I have a part-time job, relying on benefits provided by my parents, renting a room, and surviving bit by bit. For a person in his mid-20's, that can be a great shock, and I'd be lying if I said it didn't lead to a few "quarter-life crisis" moments every now and then.
However, I have to put things in perspective: what, exactly, did I lose? When I graduated college I practically had comfortable living handed over to me, and almost overnight I had enough to live by along with a decent amount of disposable income. In truth, I wasted much of it while wallowing in the more comfortable aspects of my lifestyle. Coming to know Christ did not fully destroy that. Although I had experienced my intellectual conversion, it took a spiritual beating to get my heart in order.
A great deal of pride, self-reliance, and perhaps some self-love came with my journey through my first church. All that changed throughout the year of 2009 when I lost my job, lost my apartment, left the city I had lived in for three years, lost my car, and eventually lost my connection with those I knew in Eastern Orthodoxy. I lost everything that I had clung onto in my early years as a Christian. Indeed, they were everything that had fueled that pride and self-reliance. Life had changed so dramatically for me that it became a serious test of faith - just where was that God who was supposed to be there for me? Christ had rebuked the storm in the Sea of Galilee, yet here I was, in the midst of my own storm, and it seemed to have increased into a hurricane. I prayed and yet situations grew worse. Was I praying to empty air? Was there really any truth for me to believe in? Why did I continue to suffer?
Yet I have now, by God's grace, been able to see much of the providence given to me by the Lord. No, I'm not in my own apartment, but I have a roof over my head which I help pay for, and in these Kansas City winters I cry out to God in thanks for that. No, I don't have a full-time job with benefits like I did before, but I have an income, and I make enough to survive, and for that I am grateful. Yes, I don't have the 2004 Dodge Neon, but I now drive a cute little 2010 Kia Rio5 that serves my needs. The first church I went to had a congregation in the hundreds, whereas my current church has membership that barely reaches forty...yet they are godly people, and they have welcomed me with open arms. I got all I could have ever wanted literally two days after graduation, and it was all taken from me just as quickly as it was given - yet now, gradually, over the past two years, things are starting to be rebuilt. None of the credit goes to myself, but rather I pass all glory and honor and praise to the Almighty God who has provided it for me. I still have a long way to go, and I know that God will have much more maturing in store. God has knocked me down, but He is building me back up, bit by bit, remodeling me into the person He desires.
What have I learned the most about my current situation? That it took me two years to learn to be a child of God...and now I am learning to be a man of God. Soli Deo gloria!
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Two Easy Ways to Make Someone Mad
Over time, I have found there are two easy ways to make someone mad:
1) Ask someone to demonstrate their argument.
People these days love to make bold claims. "You're wrong! It's this way!" or, "I believe this and that's the way it is!" Many times, this is because we are taught simply to repeat what we are told rather than being able to defend what we are told.
Recently I went into a conversation with someone who, wanting to disprove my argument, accused me of mishandling scripture. I asked him to show how I had done so. He refused to answer, so I pressed him again. He again refused to answer, saying that wasn't the topic (even though that was what he was using to say I was wrong). I pressed him again, and he simply ended the conversation then and there.
I heard a story recently of a Jehovah's Witness woman who gave a biblical scholar a long, memorized speech regarding John 1:1 and why they translate it as "the Word was a god" because of the lack of a definite article. The scholar then handed her a Greek New Testament and asked her to show him what a Greek definite article looked like. The woman didn't even know how to hold the book up straight. She had a memorized argument, but when asked to demonstrate the argument, she fell on her face.
2) Ask someone to back up their argument with sources.
If you ask a person this, they might do one of a few things.
1) Ask someone to demonstrate their argument.
People these days love to make bold claims. "You're wrong! It's this way!" or, "I believe this and that's the way it is!" Many times, this is because we are taught simply to repeat what we are told rather than being able to defend what we are told.
Recently I went into a conversation with someone who, wanting to disprove my argument, accused me of mishandling scripture. I asked him to show how I had done so. He refused to answer, so I pressed him again. He again refused to answer, saying that wasn't the topic (even though that was what he was using to say I was wrong). I pressed him again, and he simply ended the conversation then and there.
I heard a story recently of a Jehovah's Witness woman who gave a biblical scholar a long, memorized speech regarding John 1:1 and why they translate it as "the Word was a god" because of the lack of a definite article. The scholar then handed her a Greek New Testament and asked her to show him what a Greek definite article looked like. The woman didn't even know how to hold the book up straight. She had a memorized argument, but when asked to demonstrate the argument, she fell on her face.
2) Ask someone to back up their argument with sources.
If you ask a person this, they might do one of a few things.
- Throw the weight of the evidence upon you. That is, say something like, "Well, you can figure it out," or, "Well, you can do research for yourself." The weight of the evidence falls on the person making the claim. There is a good reason why, in the United States, a charged person is "innocent until proven guilty" - the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.
- Demand you prove a negative. Example: someone claims that their horn scares away burglars, and when asked how they know it does, they reply, "Well, can you prove it doesn't scare away burglars?" This is a cop out because they are: 1) not giving a response; 2) forgetting that by nature you cannot prove a negative.
- Get very, very irate with you. I had one person tell me literally: "I DON'T HAVE TO GIVE YOU ANYTHING!" If a person gets emotional, it's a good sign that their argument has no substance.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
The Humanness of John Calvin
The following is quoted from a lecture in the Reformation and Modern Church History series at Covenant Theological Seminary (source).
One story that illustrates the humanness of Calvin deals with his friend, Pierre Viret, who was from Lausanne, where Calvin went to school. Viret was a Reformer in Lausanne. One day Calvin wanted to send a message to Viret, and the way to do that was to ask a couple of students from the Academy in Geneva to take it. Calvin did that. He wrote the message, sealed it up, and then gave it to one of the students to take to Lausanne. Then he had another thought, so he held up the students, wrote another message, and gave it to the other student. When Viret received the two letters, he read the first one, which had to do with the business that Calvin wanted to transact. The second letter said, "Dear Pierre, I do not have anything to add to the first letter. But when I saw that this other student was disappointed that he did not have a letter to carry to Lausanne, I thought I would write another one. Please act very surprised when you read this."
Sunday, February 6, 2011
More Arguments Muslims Should Not Use
This is a continuation of my Top Five Arguments Muslims Need to Stop Using Against Christians (link). It is, like that post, written for the benefit (and not insult) of Muslim readers, and with the hopes of improving dialogue between the two religious groups.
For some odd reason this is a popular argument, used by apologists such as Yusuf Estes and even lay Muslims defending the authenticity of the Quran. Basically, the argument is that while there are dozens of translations of the Bible, there is only one Arabic Quran, and because of the countless translations you can't trust what the Bible says, as it must have been tarnished over time.
I say "odd" not out of intent to insult, but because...well...it's just so fallacious. Translations have nothing to do with the original language of a document, and generally we have the original document to go back to in order to know what it originally said. In fact, there are many translations of the Quran itself, and therefore by the Muslim's own logic the Quran itself cannot be trusted.
This is another popular argument, and one that I've seen float around the internet in various Muslim circles. In the past few months I've seen it used maybe around three times.
The main fallacy here is that it is based off a presupposition: the prophets were always giving signs correlating to the golden ages of their times. Quite simply put, that's nowhere to be found in scripture. This argumentation did not come about until Islamic apologists began to seriously deal with the contradictions between their religion and the revelations given before it, and had to deal with them. In an attempt to show how the only great "miracle" of Mohammad's prophethood (the Quran) could still be valid with what came before, this argument had to be invented.
Stating that Moses was given signs of wonder to counteract the sorcery of Pharaoh's magicians is simply false. It is not found in God's words to Moses concerning the first few miracles:
1) If Christ was supposed to have come at a time of great medical advancements, He came at the wrong time and in the wrong place. Medical studies had advanced thanks to Hippocrates at the turn of the fourth century BC (some 400 years before Christ's birth), but afterward stalled, and the study would not advance again until the middle to late second century (more than 100 years after Christ's ministry) with the Roman physician Galen. Likewise, it was mostly appreciated among the Greeks and Gentiles, not first century Palestinian Jews...who, incidentally, are the only people Muslims claim Christ came to address. Therefore, Christ came during a period of medical stagnation, not growth, and He came to the people who would have appreciated medicinal advancements the least.
Some might argue, "But still, there was a lot better medicine during Christ's time than before Hippocrates's time." However, it was hardly the time of "great" medicine, and if we're going by the standards of how great medicinal practices were, then why didn't Christ appear today? After all, isn't medicine much better now than it was 2000 years ago? Especially with the fact that so much of it is done with technological methods - just imagine how much awe would come from a man who could heal simply by human touch. You see, when you take this argument and really analyze it, you discover just how incredibly subjective it truly is.
2) In regards to Christ and His miracles, it must first be noted that His healing miracles were not solely for healing, but to prove who He was. When confronted by the Pharisees over His forgiving of the paralytic's sins, Christ replied that it was done "so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt 9:6). When Christ performed miracles in John's gospel, it was written that these were done to manifest His glory (cf. John 2:11). No where does Christ say, "I'm healing people because a lot of good doctors live around here."
Also, Christ's miracles were not isolated to physical healing. Many of His miracles, such as with the loaves and the fish, involved food. In fact, in the gospel of John it is one of the seven major signs that Christ performs to show His power - are we to say that Christ was a prophet sent at a time of great feasting? Or that Christ gave signs with food because He lived in a time of great culinary arts? Or that Christ had come to a people who would appreciate a good dinner?
Again, this argument is inventing a new standard which is completely foreign to the revelations that came before the Quran, and is entirely subjective to the person making it.
While this argument will immediately sound strange to Christians, the root of this thinking may be in the Muslim understanding of what an angel is. Whereas in Christianity a demon is a fallen angel that rebelled against God, in Islam there are angels and jinn, with the jinn having been created separately from the angels. Unlike in Christianity, where some of the angels rebelled against God and thus became demons, in Islamic theology the jinn were created by Allah from fire separately from the angels, who were created from light. Some verses regarding this:
Yet even with this distinction, the mere fact that we are simply supposed to accept the word of an angel is deeply erroneous and incredibly fallacious. According to this, Muslims should become Mormon because Joseph Smith received special instructions and revelation from an angel. Also, any Word of Faith preacher who claims to have met an angel who taught them heretical doctrine must, by the Muslim's logic, be telling the truth. In fact, any cult leader or founder of a false religion who claimed to have received revelation from an angel must be telling the truth. Any Muslim, therefore, who wishes to make this argument must then explain to us why they are not Mormon or a member of any Word of Faith or pseudo-Christian cult. That is, if they wish to remain consistent with this logic.
Christians, of course, have very important standards when it comes to supposed revelations from angels:
6. You can't trust the Bible because of all the translations.
For some odd reason this is a popular argument, used by apologists such as Yusuf Estes and even lay Muslims defending the authenticity of the Quran. Basically, the argument is that while there are dozens of translations of the Bible, there is only one Arabic Quran, and because of the countless translations you can't trust what the Bible says, as it must have been tarnished over time.
I say "odd" not out of intent to insult, but because...well...it's just so fallacious. Translations have nothing to do with the original language of a document, and generally we have the original document to go back to in order to know what it originally said. In fact, there are many translations of the Quran itself, and therefore by the Muslim's own logic the Quran itself cannot be trusted.
7. Every prophet has a sign related to the people: Moses did signs against Pharaoh's sorcery; Jesus did healing miracles during a time of great medicine; so of course, Mohammad gave a well written book during a time of great literacy.
This is another popular argument, and one that I've seen float around the internet in various Muslim circles. In the past few months I've seen it used maybe around three times.
The main fallacy here is that it is based off a presupposition: the prophets were always giving signs correlating to the golden ages of their times. Quite simply put, that's nowhere to be found in scripture. This argumentation did not come about until Islamic apologists began to seriously deal with the contradictions between their religion and the revelations given before it, and had to deal with them. In an attempt to show how the only great "miracle" of Mohammad's prophethood (the Quran) could still be valid with what came before, this argument had to be invented.
Stating that Moses was given signs of wonder to counteract the sorcery of Pharaoh's magicians is simply false. It is not found in God's words to Moses concerning the first few miracles:
Then Moses said, "What if they will not believe me or listen to what I say? For they may say, 'The LORD has not appeared to you.'" The LORD said to him, "What is that in your hand?" And he said, "A staff."The signs were given not to confront Pharaoh's sorcerers, but to prove to the people who Moses was sent by. This is seen later on in the same chapter:
Then He said, "Throw it on the ground." So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it. But the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand and grasp it by its tail"--so he stretched out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand--"that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you."
The LORD furthermore said to him, "Now put your hand into your bosom." So he put his hand into his bosom, and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous like snow. Then He said, "Put your hand into your bosom again." So he put his hand into his bosom again, and when he took it out of his bosom, behold, it was restored like the rest of his flesh.
"If they will not believe you or heed the witness of the first sign, they may believe the witness of the last sign. But if they will not believe even these two signs or heed what you say, then you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground; and the water which you take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground." [Exodus 4:1-9]
Then Moses and Aaron went and assembled all the elders of the sons of Israel; and Aaron spoke all the words which the LORD had spoken to Moses He then performed the signs in the sight of the people. So the people believed; and when they heard that the LORD was concerned about the sons of Israel and that He had seen their affliction, then they bowed low and worshiped. [Exodus 4:29-31]Now, the argument that Jesus did healing miracles because He lived in a time of great medicine is likewise fallacious, and for two reasons:
1) If Christ was supposed to have come at a time of great medical advancements, He came at the wrong time and in the wrong place. Medical studies had advanced thanks to Hippocrates at the turn of the fourth century BC (some 400 years before Christ's birth), but afterward stalled, and the study would not advance again until the middle to late second century (more than 100 years after Christ's ministry) with the Roman physician Galen. Likewise, it was mostly appreciated among the Greeks and Gentiles, not first century Palestinian Jews...who, incidentally, are the only people Muslims claim Christ came to address. Therefore, Christ came during a period of medical stagnation, not growth, and He came to the people who would have appreciated medicinal advancements the least.
Some might argue, "But still, there was a lot better medicine during Christ's time than before Hippocrates's time." However, it was hardly the time of "great" medicine, and if we're going by the standards of how great medicinal practices were, then why didn't Christ appear today? After all, isn't medicine much better now than it was 2000 years ago? Especially with the fact that so much of it is done with technological methods - just imagine how much awe would come from a man who could heal simply by human touch. You see, when you take this argument and really analyze it, you discover just how incredibly subjective it truly is.
2) In regards to Christ and His miracles, it must first be noted that His healing miracles were not solely for healing, but to prove who He was. When confronted by the Pharisees over His forgiving of the paralytic's sins, Christ replied that it was done "so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt 9:6). When Christ performed miracles in John's gospel, it was written that these were done to manifest His glory (cf. John 2:11). No where does Christ say, "I'm healing people because a lot of good doctors live around here."
Also, Christ's miracles were not isolated to physical healing. Many of His miracles, such as with the loaves and the fish, involved food. In fact, in the gospel of John it is one of the seven major signs that Christ performs to show His power - are we to say that Christ was a prophet sent at a time of great feasting? Or that Christ gave signs with food because He lived in a time of great culinary arts? Or that Christ had come to a people who would appreciate a good dinner?
Again, this argument is inventing a new standard which is completely foreign to the revelations that came before the Quran, and is entirely subjective to the person making it.
8. You can't say Mohammad met a false angel because angels are loyal messengers of God and follow him faithfully.
While this argument will immediately sound strange to Christians, the root of this thinking may be in the Muslim understanding of what an angel is. Whereas in Christianity a demon is a fallen angel that rebelled against God, in Islam there are angels and jinn, with the jinn having been created separately from the angels. Unlike in Christianity, where some of the angels rebelled against God and thus became demons, in Islamic theology the jinn were created by Allah from fire separately from the angels, who were created from light. Some verses regarding this:
He [Allah] said: What hindered you so that you did not prostrate when I commanded you? He [Iblis/Satan] said: I am better than he: Thou hast created me of fire, while him Thou didst create of dust. [S. 7:12; M. Shakir]And to quote a hadith:
And the jinn We created before, of intensely hot fire. [S. 15:27]
And He created the jinn of a flame of fire. [S. 55:15]
According to one prophetic narration that was narrated by 'Aa'ishah may Allaah be pleased with her the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam (may Allaah exalt his mention) said: "The angels were created from light, the jinn were created from fire, and Aadam was created from that which has been described to you (soil)." [Muslim] [source]To a Muslim, an angel cannot fall and cannot disobey God, and therefore the idea that the demons (or jinn) are fallen angels is foreign to them.
Yet even with this distinction, the mere fact that we are simply supposed to accept the word of an angel is deeply erroneous and incredibly fallacious. According to this, Muslims should become Mormon because Joseph Smith received special instructions and revelation from an angel. Also, any Word of Faith preacher who claims to have met an angel who taught them heretical doctrine must, by the Muslim's logic, be telling the truth. In fact, any cult leader or founder of a false religion who claimed to have received revelation from an angel must be telling the truth. Any Muslim, therefore, who wishes to make this argument must then explain to us why they are not Mormon or a member of any Word of Faith or pseudo-Christian cult. That is, if they wish to remain consistent with this logic.
Christians, of course, have very important standards when it comes to supposed revelations from angels:
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! [Galatians 1:8]
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. [2 Corinthians 11:13-14]
Friday, February 4, 2011
The Faith of the President
Recently I had heard that President Barack Obama made a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast regarding his personal faith. While searching online for the transcript of the speech, I came across an article which said the following:
Now, I am not going to debate whether or not the president is a Muslim, but what I do want to review is whether or not he has truly accepted Christ. The author of the previously quoted article stated that the president must be Christian, as he attended Trinity United Church of Christ and had an ongoing relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Of course, herein lies a problem: simply attending a building with the word "church" in the title, or simply known someone in the position of "pastor," does not make you a Christian.
Trinity United Church of Christ is itself a member of the wider United Church of Christ. This church ordains openly gay pastors and supports homosexual marriage (they even boast about it on their website), all of which directly contradicts scriptural teachings. Christ Himself identified marriage as being between a man and a woman (Matt 19:4-5) and homosexual activity is condemned in various parts of scripture (Lev 18:22; Rom 1:26-27). The United Church of Christ likewise said in an interfaith document (source) that Christians and Muslims share "worship of the same God," as well as "a common tradition of revelation through God's prophets as told in sacred scripture," both of which are clearly and undeniably false (I touched on the subject in greater detail here). All in all, the United Church of Christ does not seem to adhere to the words of scripture or the commands of God - in fact, it seems to abandon both for the name of being relative and appealing to the world rather than to the Lord. It therefore cannot be considered an orthodox Christian church.
As for Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his language and demeanor were seen ad nauseum during the 2008 elections, so I don't think I need to talk about that too much. There are passages of scripture which speak of the error in using the Lord's name alongside profane language (James 3:10), as well as passages which identify the deeds of the flesh (Gal 5:19-21) in contrast to the fruit of the spirit (Gal 5:22-23), the former list being more in line with what Wright preaches behind the pulpit. Whatever is driving Mr. Wright to preach, it is not the Spirit of God, and therefore one cannot say that someone is a Christian because they are a follower of Wright.
Of course, most of this is in the president's past, and it's possible for man to have changed. In regards to the president's testimony at the National Prayer Breakfast, as I read I noticed that there didn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary. Indeed, the president declares that shortly after college: "I came to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace Him as my lord and savior." He also states: "My Christian faith then has been a sustaining force for me over these last few years." Near the end he even says:
One comment that perhaps stood out for me the most:
At the risk of sounding judgmental, this does not sound like the president learned anything from his fellowship with Jeremiah Wright. The apostle John warned us:
Despite this, the speech might overall sound innocent to the average person. Yet I couldn't help but feel there was something under the surface. It is not that I especially dislike Barack Obama personally, but I recognize that politicians, by and large, often give us much rhetoric and little substance. I couldn't help but think: isn't this president calling himself "Christian" the same president who is supporting homosexual activity and abortion? Sometimes, there is something deeper to a person's theology that is more caught than taught.
What I found was that, in an earlier interview, Obama had downplayed his faith...and, in essence taught universalism:
In the same interview, when asked if he believed that those who do not accept Christ will go to hell, Obama replied:
When asked if he believed in heaven, Obama replied:
This brings us to the most important part. Obama was then asked if he believed in sin, and he said yes. Remember that earlier I had mentioned the complete lack of mention in sin within the president's testimony. What is Obama's definition of sin?
I am, again and again, always reminded of King David who lusted after a married woman and had her husband killed off so that he could marry her. Yet when David repented, what did he say? That he was untrue to his values? No, he said: "Against You, You only, I have sinned, and done what is evil in Your sight..." (Psalm 51:4). A sin is a transgression against God and His commands, not our personal values and opinions. Sinning is not being untrue to ourselves, but our Lord God. To hold our personal values higher than God's values (or to make the two equal) is to put ourselves higher or equal with God.
When asked what happens if you sin, Obama replied:
When asked when it is that he feels "the most aligned spiritually," Obama replied:
I know that some reading this might immediately label me a Tea Partier, a Republican, a right-wing nut, etc. Personally, I do not care. Those who know me personally know that I'm fairly apathetic in regards to political parties and personalities, and that I have just as much to say about those on the right as those on the left. However, in times like these, when public figures begin to put on the hat of religion - especially when they are claiming to be followers of Christ - we have to be discerning. It is too common that, when someone makes a proclamation of faith, that those on both sides of the spectrum declare, "Hurrah, he's one of us!" or "That's so sweet, I appreciate that!" We are commanded to "examine everything carefully" (1 Thess 5:21), and if someone makes a claim to have come to know Christ they should bear some sign that they have done so. "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness," the apostle John wrote, "we lie and do not practice the truth" (1 John 1:6).
It is so common these days to treat our faith the same way we treat our political ideologies, and this is where many stumble. They assume that faith is simply a matter of personal opinion, and that to be saved is to live by their personal values. That, however, is not the case - for everyone, by their own personal opinion, is justified. As the apostle Paul wrote: "if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged" (1 Cor 11:31). Yet Christ is "judge the living and the dead" (2 Tim 4:1), and "God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus" (Rom 2:16). If we have saving faith in Christ as the judge of our souls and the master of our being, then we "have died" and our life "is hidden with Christ in God," and "when Christ, who is our life, is revealed," then we will also "be revealed with Him in glory" (Col 3:3-4).
We are not justified by ourselves; we are justified as a gift from God through faith in Christ. I pray that all men - from the president to the janitor - have a chance to seriously ponder this, and, by God's will, be saved. The last word shall go to the apostle Paul:
It’s been more than two years since President Barack Obama took office and yet there are widespread misconceptions about him. Chief among these: Despite his clear identification as a Christian (as evidenced by his membership to Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and his tumultuous relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright), many believe that our president is a Muslim. [source; emphasis in original]A transcript of the entire speech itself can be found here, from CNN's website.
Now, I am not going to debate whether or not the president is a Muslim, but what I do want to review is whether or not he has truly accepted Christ. The author of the previously quoted article stated that the president must be Christian, as he attended Trinity United Church of Christ and had an ongoing relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Of course, herein lies a problem: simply attending a building with the word "church" in the title, or simply known someone in the position of "pastor," does not make you a Christian.
Trinity United Church of Christ is itself a member of the wider United Church of Christ. This church ordains openly gay pastors and supports homosexual marriage (they even boast about it on their website), all of which directly contradicts scriptural teachings. Christ Himself identified marriage as being between a man and a woman (Matt 19:4-5) and homosexual activity is condemned in various parts of scripture (Lev 18:22; Rom 1:26-27). The United Church of Christ likewise said in an interfaith document (source) that Christians and Muslims share "worship of the same God," as well as "a common tradition of revelation through God's prophets as told in sacred scripture," both of which are clearly and undeniably false (I touched on the subject in greater detail here). All in all, the United Church of Christ does not seem to adhere to the words of scripture or the commands of God - in fact, it seems to abandon both for the name of being relative and appealing to the world rather than to the Lord. It therefore cannot be considered an orthodox Christian church.
As for Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his language and demeanor were seen ad nauseum during the 2008 elections, so I don't think I need to talk about that too much. There are passages of scripture which speak of the error in using the Lord's name alongside profane language (James 3:10), as well as passages which identify the deeds of the flesh (Gal 5:19-21) in contrast to the fruit of the spirit (Gal 5:22-23), the former list being more in line with what Wright preaches behind the pulpit. Whatever is driving Mr. Wright to preach, it is not the Spirit of God, and therefore one cannot say that someone is a Christian because they are a follower of Wright.
Of course, most of this is in the president's past, and it's possible for man to have changed. In regards to the president's testimony at the National Prayer Breakfast, as I read I noticed that there didn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary. Indeed, the president declares that shortly after college: "I came to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace Him as my lord and savior." He also states: "My Christian faith then has been a sustaining force for me over these last few years." Near the end he even says:
When I wake in the morning, I wait on the Lord, and I ask Him to give me the strength to do right by our country and its people. And when I go to bed at night I wait on the Lord, and I ask Him to forgive me my sins, and look after my family and the American people, and make me an instrument of His will.The phrase "I ask Him to forgive me my sins" interested me, and one thing I couldn't help but notice overall in the speech is that sin seemed to play a relaxed part. Yes, the president talked of his complete reliance upon God and spoke of how his faith is important, all of which are certainly vital. Yet what merit is there of a savior if we do not emphasize the very thing from which we needed saving? The truth is that the president's definition of "sin" needs to be analyzed, and later on in this post we will find out just what it is.
One comment that perhaps stood out for me the most:
Fortunately, I'm not alone in my prayers. Pastor friends like Joel Hunter and T.D. Jakes come over to the Oval Office every once in a while to pray with me and pray for the nation. [emphasis mine]T.D. Jakes? Of the Word of Faith, Health and Wealth, Trinity Broadcasting Network T.D. Jakes? The T.D. Jakes who associates with other Word of Faith preachers such as Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Paula White and Creflo Dollar? You mean the heretical T.D. Jakes? He's a "pastor friend" of the president that comes over to pray with him "every once in a while"?
At the risk of sounding judgmental, this does not sound like the president learned anything from his fellowship with Jeremiah Wright. The apostle John warned us:
Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds. [2 John 1:9-11; NASB]The president not only allows a false teacher into his house, and not only gives him a greeting, but prays with him. He engages in spiritual fellowship with a false teacher, something scripture warns us not to do. We are even told that if we do so, we are considered equals with the person's evil deeds.
Despite this, the speech might overall sound innocent to the average person. Yet I couldn't help but feel there was something under the surface. It is not that I especially dislike Barack Obama personally, but I recognize that politicians, by and large, often give us much rhetoric and little substance. I couldn't help but think: isn't this president calling himself "Christian" the same president who is supporting homosexual activity and abortion? Sometimes, there is something deeper to a person's theology that is more caught than taught.
What I found was that, in an earlier interview, Obama had downplayed his faith...and, in essence taught universalism:
I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. [source]Many paths to the same place? Is that why Christ said, "No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6)? That those who deny Him before men will be denied before the Father (Matt 10:33)? The apostle Peter outlined: "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Many paths to the same place? Scripture clearly teaches us otherwise!
In the same interview, when asked if he believed that those who do not accept Christ will go to hell, Obama replied:
I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell."Not part of my religious makeup"...since when do our personal beliefs trump the teachings of scripture? "My God"? One can only ask the blunt question, "Just who is your God, Mr. Obama?" If it is not the God of scripture, then it is not the one true God, and we are clearly instructed that "you shall not follow other gods" (Deut 6:14). This is idolatry - perhaps idolatry without statues and incense, but idolatry nonetheless, for it is such idolatry in which we worship a god of our own mind.
I can't imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.
That's just not part of my religious makeup. [ibid]
When asked if he believed in heaven, Obama replied:
What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing. [ibid]One can only imagine how the president intends to live his life as well as he can. For we are told "whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (James 2:10). We are also told "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight" (Rom 3:20) and "no one is justified by the Law before God" (Gal 3:11). This idea of "I do this, then I'll be rewarded" is a very works-based minded opinion of heaven and eternal reward, something very foreign from the gospel of scripture. Where can one fit room for grace and Christ if I just need to "live my life as well as I can"?
This brings us to the most important part. Obama was then asked if he believed in sin, and he said yes. Remember that earlier I had mentioned the complete lack of mention in sin within the president's testimony. What is Obama's definition of sin?
Being out of alignment with my values. [ibid]My head spun at this comment. Sin is "being out of alignment with my values"? Is it our values that we are told to live up to? Is this what sin is? The people of the old covenant had been told: "You should diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and His testimonies and His statutes which He has commanded you" (Deut 6:17). The Psalmist wrote to God: "How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word" (Psalm 119:9), and likewise, "Your word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against You" (Psalm 119:11). We are sinning when we act against God's word; we are not sinning when we are in accordance with God's word.
I am, again and again, always reminded of King David who lusted after a married woman and had her husband killed off so that he could marry her. Yet when David repented, what did he say? That he was untrue to his values? No, he said: "Against You, You only, I have sinned, and done what is evil in Your sight..." (Psalm 51:4). A sin is a transgression against God and His commands, not our personal values and opinions. Sinning is not being untrue to ourselves, but our Lord God. To hold our personal values higher than God's values (or to make the two equal) is to put ourselves higher or equal with God.
When asked what happens if you sin, Obama replied:
I think it's the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I'm true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I'm not true to it, it's its own punishment. [ibid]This sounds remarkably like the Emergent Church crowd, who believe that "hell" and "heaven" refer to how we make the earth in the here and now - in other words, if we help society we make it (figuratively) heaven, if we don't help society we make it (figuratively) hell. Note again the emphasis on ourselves: hell only comes about if we're not true to ourselves - again, is that the emphasis found in scripture?
When asked when it is that he feels "the most aligned spiritually," Obama replied:
I think I already described it. It's when I'm being true to myself. And that can happen in me making a speech or it can happen in me playing with my kids, or it can happen in a small interaction with a security guard in a building when I'm recognizing them and exchanging a good word. [ibid; emphasis mine]The closest he feels most aligned spiritually is when he's being true to himself? And this involves things he personally does? One can't help but notice that in the president's explanation of his spirituality, there is a constant direction towards himself. In a testimony before faith leaders there is a half-hearted attempt to show his reliance on God, but in a previous interview Obama makes it clear that his spirituality is much more vague and is entirely man-centered, with sprinklings of Christian terminology mixed in. In responding to critics of his faith, Obama made the remark, "Folks haven't been reading their bibles" (source). Unfortunately, I think it's clear that the only person who hasn't seriously read their bible is Mr. Obama himself.
I know that some reading this might immediately label me a Tea Partier, a Republican, a right-wing nut, etc. Personally, I do not care. Those who know me personally know that I'm fairly apathetic in regards to political parties and personalities, and that I have just as much to say about those on the right as those on the left. However, in times like these, when public figures begin to put on the hat of religion - especially when they are claiming to be followers of Christ - we have to be discerning. It is too common that, when someone makes a proclamation of faith, that those on both sides of the spectrum declare, "Hurrah, he's one of us!" or "That's so sweet, I appreciate that!" We are commanded to "examine everything carefully" (1 Thess 5:21), and if someone makes a claim to have come to know Christ they should bear some sign that they have done so. "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness," the apostle John wrote, "we lie and do not practice the truth" (1 John 1:6).
It is so common these days to treat our faith the same way we treat our political ideologies, and this is where many stumble. They assume that faith is simply a matter of personal opinion, and that to be saved is to live by their personal values. That, however, is not the case - for everyone, by their own personal opinion, is justified. As the apostle Paul wrote: "if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged" (1 Cor 11:31). Yet Christ is "judge the living and the dead" (2 Tim 4:1), and "God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus" (Rom 2:16). If we have saving faith in Christ as the judge of our souls and the master of our being, then we "have died" and our life "is hidden with Christ in God," and "when Christ, who is our life, is revealed," then we will also "be revealed with Him in glory" (Col 3:3-4).
We are not justified by ourselves; we are justified as a gift from God through faith in Christ. I pray that all men - from the president to the janitor - have a chance to seriously ponder this, and, by God's will, be saved. The last word shall go to the apostle Paul:
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe... [Rom 3:21-22]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)