Often Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox will attempt to assert the equality of church authority with scripture by using the argument that in the early church not everyone had all of what we know today as the Bible. That is, when Paul wrote to the Romans, the Romans did not have a leather-bound Bible like most Christians attending church today do. While this is somewhat true, the inferred rationale here is that scripture cannot be the final authority since not everyone within the early church had all of scripture yet, and therefore had to have another authority. I recognize this is only one such argument made, but nonetheless many make it.
And yet, often in my dialogue with both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, whenever a scriptural topic comes up, one of the most common tactics is to commit scriptural acrobatics and jump to another verse, disregarding the original passage entirely (one example: jumping to James 2:24 in response to Romans 4:1-5 when talking about justification). When I ask them why they are doing so, the most common answer is something along the lines of: "The Bible has to be understood in its entirety."
Wait a minute - isn't that precisely how some Protestants argue?
I might ask, for the sake of consistency, which is it? For if you argue that the Bible must be understood in its entirety, then you inadvertently argue that the original readers of scripture would have been able to read scripture in its entirety. To refer back to the previous example, you argue, by jumping from Romans to James, that the original readers of Romans would have been able to jump to James and do a cross-reference study. And yet, your apologetics regarding scripture and church authority is also based on the assumption that they would not have been able to do so.
The simple reason as to why many Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox commit such scriptural acrobatics is the same reason many Protestants commit scriptural acrobatics: they can't deal with the text given them. They have to jump from the text put before them, jump to something else that they believe will help their case, disregarding how irrelevant the other passage might be. It's no different than synergist Protestants who jump from John 6:44 to John 12:32 (as I touched on here).
The problem is, of course, while a Protestant can commit this error and at least pretend consistency under the guise of scriptural authority, a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox committing this error is simply falling into an inconsistency. It is also a double standard. When scriptural authority undermines the authority of an individual church, we must demand that scripture was, at one point, incomplete, and logically scriptural acrobatics would be impossible. However, if scripture can be twisted to suit an individual church's theology, then scriptural acrobatics may be employed.
Of course, neither Protestants nor non-Protestants should be using scriptural acrobatics. When a text of scripture is reviewed, it should be reviewed within its immediate context and with regards to its author, audience and purpose. While it's true that the original readers of Romans would not have been able to jump to many other books of the New Testament, we stay in Romans for the same reason we stay in John 6 when explaining what Jesus meant rather than jumping nearly a year in the narrative to John 12, leaping out of the immediate context. If you have to jump context and try to grab onto something else, completely abandoning what you were given, then you are not being honest with the text, the other person, nor yourself.
I might ask any Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox reader who comes across this post not to immediately give a knee-jerk reaction and simply accuse me of being wrong. Rather, review your own method of responding to verses of scripture - are you guilty of this? If so, why is this? Or perhaps you yourself are not, but you know others - maybe even those whom you respect - of doing this. If so, are they truly being honest? If they are not, why is that? Again, this is all simply a call both for honesty in discussion and a call for discernment.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
What Would Jesus Preach?
An excellent episode of the White Horse Inn from last week that I thought would be worth sharing. The link to the episode is below:
WHI-1054 | What Would Jesus Preach? - White Horse Inn Blog
WHI-1054 | What Would Jesus Preach? - White Horse Inn Blog
Monday, June 20, 2011
Of Cats and Providence
These past few weeks have seen me experience some severe disappointments, and Kitty's death was the worst of them all. Even though he was approaching 12 years of age, he still seemed as strong and chipper as ever. He seemed so invincible: he fought off foxes, chased raccoons up trees, hunted down chipmunks, and got the two dogs that lived in our house to do whatever he bid them to do. What's more, he was always one of the family, and though he often put on a tough guy persona, he was still a sweetheart. He enjoyed company, and if you started talking to him, he would begin to purr. I still remember one time stumbling on the stairs and hurting my foot; suddenly I heard a "mwrr" sound and saw Kitty running around the corner, as if to make sure I was OK.
In truth, though, there was a time before when I almost thought we had lost him. Some years ago Kitty went missing for fourteen days, but came back safe and sound, if not seemingly hurt and malnourished. He quickly healed up and continued living with us for many more years. During those fourteen days, I had prayed that God would bring him back, and spare him, and I had prayed it during these last few weeks of Kitty's life. However, it was not to be. This time, God would take Kitty from us. As it was with Winston, it would be Kitty's time to go.
Yet God gave Kitty to us as much as He took him from us. We got Kitty from a litter of strays when he was as tiny as the palm of your hand and still very much a baby kitten. He provided us over a decade of happiness and provided Winston with a furry companion during our many moves and life experiences. He was a gift, but when we recognize that God giveth, we have to likewise acknowledge that He taketh away (cf. Job 1:20).
It's easy for us to attribute the good in life to God and ignore the bad. When a person hears Joseph say to his brothers "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20), everyone leaps and embraces the "God meant it for good" part. No one wants to tackle the "you meant evil" part, because in doing so they have to recognize that the brothers' plot to sell Joseph into slavery, kill an animal, bathe Joseph's coat in its blood, and then lie to their father, causing years of grief and misery for an old man...that all of that happened by God's ordained purpose. When Joseph says God meant it for good, the it is in reference to all the evil his brothers committed against him and their father.
It's likewise easy for us to think of the crucifixion, think about how noble it was, and how grand the resurrection was for God and the church, and forget the words of Acts 4:27-28: "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." All that happened during the passion of our Lord, God had predestined to occur. This means that God personally arranged it, set it up, and controlled it through to the end. There was no chance for, at zero hour, Pilate to say, "Forget it, release him." There was no chance for angels to sweep in and rescue Jesus a la a kind of divine Entebbe raid. All that was to occur...the betrayal of a disciple, the rejection of the Messiah by His fellow Jews, the abuse of the Messiah at the hand of foreign soldiers, the horrifying and embarrassing execution, the sight of all this before family and friends...was predestined by God to occur. Yet it was all done by His providence for the good of His people.
When Paul writes "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God" (Rom 8:28), we forget that "all things" doesn't just mean the good. However, we often expect only good from God, and forget that oftentimes we are disciplined and chastised for our benefit (cf. Rev 3:19). We expect the "work together for good" to come before the "all things," but forget that this is not how the apostle ordered the events in his epistle.
Some might wonder if such tragedies lead me towards the temptation of atheism. The truth is, while the temptation has come and gone, it has never set foot. I credit this not to any intellectual skill or personal effort, but entirely on the grace of our Lord. God has planted within me a knowledge that He does exist, and if I know there is a Divine Being, I must reason with evil and divine responsibility as C.S. Lewis and many before him did. When dealing with tragedy, pain and God's responsibility, I often lead people through this dilemma:
When evil happens, God either: 1) did not know about it ahead of time, and therefore is neither omniscient nor omnipotent; 2) knew about it ahead of time and simply did nothing, in which case He is guilty of gross negligence; 3) knew about it ahead of time, permitted it to happen, and had no reason for it, in which case He is wicked; 4) knew about it ahead of time, permitted it to happen, and let it happen for a reason.
The reason, of course, that "good" it was meant for that Joseph spoke about, may not become apparent - it didn't become apparent for Joseph until several years later. It may not be until decades that I learn what good comes from this, but I do believe that God permits all things for good. I am not an open theist, I do not believe in process theology and I am not a hyper-synergist who believes God only intercedes in the affairs of man when it might be a decent time to do so. I believe all things serve a purpose, and I believe God knows all events and is sovereign over all. Most of all, I know that in the end, no matter what happens, I will be like the wise thief on the cross: a justified sinner in paradise with our Lord, who was crucified for me that I might be there to glorify the bounteous nature of His grace.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Friday, June 17, 2011
When I Was a Lad
The following is based off "When I Was a Lad," from the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta HMS Pinafore.
When I was a lad I did a job search
And got hired in a megachurch.
I'd greet the guests and collect the plates,
And I painted up the outside of our big estate
(He painted up the outside of their big estate!)
I painted those walls to such a nice facade
So now I am an elder in the house of God
(He painted those walls to such a nice facade
So now he is an elder in the house of God!)
As usher boy I became master
So they gave me the job of a youth pastor.
I taught the kids with pre-written scripts,
And I scissored up my hair with insane random clips
(He scissored up his hair with insane random clips!)
All the parents in the church found my hair so odd
That now I am an elder in the house of God.
(All the parents in the church found his hair so odd
That now he is an elder in the house of God!)
In teaching kids I made such a name
That worship leader I soon became;
I played a guitar and wore tight blue jeans
And could hit all the high notes that would make girls scream
(Could hit all the high notes that would make girls scream!)
And the congregation was so impressed with my bod
That now I am an elder in the house of God.
(And the congregation was so impressed with his bod
That now he is an elder in the house of God!)
With carnal music I became such a scoop
That they signed me up with a Christian group.
I dotted the I's, and I crossed the T's -
T'was the only cross that I ever did see!
(T'was the only cross that he ever did see!)
But that kind of cross served as the prod
So now I am an elder in the house of God
(But that kind of cross served as the prod
So now he is an elder in the house of God!)
And then it was suggested me
That I go to study for a Th.D.
I always repeated what teachers said,
And I let them do the thinking for me in my stead.
(He let them do the thinking for him in his stead!)
I thought so little, they gave me a nod
By making me an elder in the house of God.
(He thought so little, they gave him a nod
By making him an elder in the house of God!)
Now laymen all, whoever you may be,
If you want your name on a church marquee,
If you aren't yet labeled by the kids as cool,
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule.
(Be careful to be guided by this golden rule!)
Don't read your Bibles, and scripture just misquote,
And you all may be wolves in a house of goats!
(Don't read your Bibles, and scripture just misquote,
And you all may be wolves in a house of goats!)
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
The Slippery Slope of Works Salvation
One of the most difficult topics in terms of daily Christian life is the place of works. Are we supposed to do works? Are we to exclude works? Most of all, how does God respond to our works? A common conception these days is that man must do something to please God, lest they lose God's favor. In this mindset, works are what we do to maintain our salvation and receive blessings from God.
The main issue with this mindset is that it becomes a bargaining with God: because we did A, God will do B. Asides from the fact that this turns salvation and worship into tit-for-tat, it almost makes it seem as if God owes us something. In fact, I recall watching Trinity Broadcasting Network and hearing as a host came very close to outright saying, "When we pray for something, we put God on the spot." Rick Warren, during his lecture at the Desiring God conference earlier this year, continually worded his advice to young pastors along the lines of, "If you do this, God will do this for you." Maybe about a year ago, I spoke to a woman who believed that because she tithed a full 10% every Sunday, God was faithful to her and had blessed her, and seemed to hint that if she stopped doing so then God would not be as faithful as He had been before.
Judging from these various examples, works salvation can be summed up in this manner: we do, so God must do as well. Some have even suggested that if we don't do (that is, fail even a little in our obligations), we lose our salvation.
This line of thinking is, in fact, very unscriptural.
Within scripture, a very different scheme is found, one which involves two key grammatical concepts: indicatives and imperatives. An indicative is precisely what it sounds to mean: it indicates something is or something has happened. An imperative often denotes a command; it means something that must happen. Many who remember my review of The Shack may recall that I pointed out that Christ's command to repent in Matthew 4:17 was an imperative in the original Greek. It was not an indicative, where a person could freely decide if they want to repent or not with no consequences - rather, it was a command that demanded a response with consequences for the wrong decision.
In scripture, especially in the epistles where the plan of salvation has already been carried out and is now being seen in practice, a familiar pattern arises with these terms: indicative first, imperative second. To give one example, from Colossians 3:1:
To again turn to Colossians 3, this time verses 12 and 13:
Earlier we stated that works salvation is "we do, so God must do as well." However, we can now see that the biblical definition of our relationship with God can best be summed up in this manner: God did, so we must do. This scriptural theology is very God-centered, not man-centered. It is not dependent upon us and what we do, but on God from whom all our faith and love is given.
The main issue with this mindset is that it becomes a bargaining with God: because we did A, God will do B. Asides from the fact that this turns salvation and worship into tit-for-tat, it almost makes it seem as if God owes us something. In fact, I recall watching Trinity Broadcasting Network and hearing as a host came very close to outright saying, "When we pray for something, we put God on the spot." Rick Warren, during his lecture at the Desiring God conference earlier this year, continually worded his advice to young pastors along the lines of, "If you do this, God will do this for you." Maybe about a year ago, I spoke to a woman who believed that because she tithed a full 10% every Sunday, God was faithful to her and had blessed her, and seemed to hint that if she stopped doing so then God would not be as faithful as He had been before.
Judging from these various examples, works salvation can be summed up in this manner: we do, so God must do as well. Some have even suggested that if we don't do (that is, fail even a little in our obligations), we lose our salvation.
This line of thinking is, in fact, very unscriptural.
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness [Romans 4:1-5; NASB]Our justification before God is not because of something we do, as Paul emphasizes here. The one who does work does not receive a reward but what is simply due to them. That is, when we go to our job and do what our employers expect of us, our paycheck is not a gift but what we're expecting to get for it. Our employers do not give us our paycheck because they love us unconditionally, but because we have offered our services and so they, by legal binding, must comply with the paycheck for which we worked. Unfortunately, this is how many Christians perceive their works to be: we go to church, we pray, we read the Bible so that at the end of our lifetime shift God will say, "OK, good job, here you go." Rather, it is a gift given to us without any merit on our part other than faith.
Within scripture, a very different scheme is found, one which involves two key grammatical concepts: indicatives and imperatives. An indicative is precisely what it sounds to mean: it indicates something is or something has happened. An imperative often denotes a command; it means something that must happen. Many who remember my review of The Shack may recall that I pointed out that Christ's command to repent in Matthew 4:17 was an imperative in the original Greek. It was not an indicative, where a person could freely decide if they want to repent or not with no consequences - rather, it was a command that demanded a response with consequences for the wrong decision.
In scripture, especially in the epistles where the plan of salvation has already been carried out and is now being seen in practice, a familiar pattern arises with these terms: indicative first, imperative second. To give one example, from Colossians 3:1:
(Indicative) Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ...Note the order: because you have been raised with Christ, you must keep seeking the things above. It does not say, "If you keep seeking the things above, you will be raised with Christ." The believer justified by God has already been raised - the "seeking the things above" is simply a sign that they have been raised.
(Imperative) ...keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.
To again turn to Colossians 3, this time verses 12 and 13:
(Indicative) So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved...Note again, in the first example from the verses, that we don't put on a heart of compassion, etc., in the hopes of being chosen by God, but because we are the chosen of God. That is: because we are the chosen of God, we must put on a heart of compassion, etc. Note also the second example from these two verses, regarding forgiveness. The point made is this: Christians do not forgive to be forgiven, but we forgive because we have been forgiven. The Lord has already forgiven us the great debt we owed Him; we simply have no excuse to not forgive the lesser transgressions given by another.
(Imperative) ...put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone...
(Indicative) ...just as the Lord forgave you...
(Imperative) ...so also should you.
Earlier we stated that works salvation is "we do, so God must do as well." However, we can now see that the biblical definition of our relationship with God can best be summed up in this manner: God did, so we must do. This scriptural theology is very God-centered, not man-centered. It is not dependent upon us and what we do, but on God from whom all our faith and love is given.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
The Impersonal Nature of the Personal God
The definition of God which amounts to "whatever you perceive God to be" is said by many to be a personal God. However, the truth of the matter is, when this logic is reviewed, it turns out that this personal God is much more impersonal in nature. I hope, God willing, to explain this in greater detail within this post.
If we affirm that the deity of God exists, then we affirm the existence of the Being of God. It is the same as admitting the personhood of another man exists along with his existent state. What I mean by the latter is the very fact that the man exists, and all that goes with that proof that he is existent. However, along with that existent state comes, by definition, certain traits. Is he of European, African or Asian descent? How many years has he lived? What is his ethnicity? What kind of language does he speak? What kind of dialect of this language does he have? The list goes on. These are all traits specific to him, which affect his personhood.
Logic compels us to deny that a man can, outside of his existent state, possess any trait other than that compelled by force of means. An Asian man cannot suddenly become of African descent (as scripture asks, can an Ethiopian change his skin?; Jer 12:23), nor can a man who has lived seventy years suddenly become ten years old. For sure, he can temporarily change certain traits (a white man can take medication that will temporarily turn him black) or add to his current traits (a man who speaks French as a native language can teach himself German), but that which is part of his existent state cannot be removed from him.
Now we will give application of this to God. If we admit the deity of God, along with the Being of God, then it follows likewise that there must be some traits pertaining to that Being of God. That is, what is God's make-up? We will recognize that God is outside of certain limitations as found by a mortal man in his existent state - however, this does not mean God is not without traits pertaining to His Being.
Let us see this in application, with the definition of a personal God. Let us take two men who see God in their own personal ways: one sees God as a divine force - a vague kind of karma - whereas the other sees God as a therapeutic deistic version of the God of the Bible (all of the morals and ethics, but none of the accountability or authority). On the one hand, God is a vague force that simply keeps the universe together, similar to the Force of Star Wars; on the other hand, God is a rational, functioning entity who speaks, reasons, and interacts with creation, even setting down rules for it in a somewhat orderly. Both, however, are entirely different gods.
Let us put this in another application. Suppose we place a Muslim together with a Christian: on the one hand, God is a unitarian Being who is completely unable to take part in creation; on the other hand, God is a Trinitarian Being (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), with the second Person in the Trinity having taken on flesh and dwelt among mankind, representing a God who is far more interactive with His creation than the previous. These are, again, entirely different gods.
If we affirm the deity of God, we have to likewise affirm the Being of God. If we affirm the Being of God, we have to affirm the individual traits which compose God's very Being. Just as a man cannot contradict his existent state, God cannot contradict His entity. That is, God cannot be Trinitarian and Unitarian at the same time any more than He could be solely Creator (as found in monotheism) and solely creation (as found in pantheism) at the same time. To uphold that God is both Unitarian and Trinitarian is to present a contradiction. The deity of God cannot by definition be made up of a contradiction.
Therefore, those who would uphold that God is merely a personal God, from whom one can imagine their own definitions, are not teaching a coherent or logical definition of God. Rationally speaking, the personal God does not exist, because His very Being, logically, could not exist. It would be like a policeman writing down reports of a burglar from two witnesses, with one witness describing the burglar as a young white male, with the other describing an older black female. The policeman would have to logically conclude that either both witnesses were lying or one of them was in error - the burglar could not have been both a young white male and an older black female. This is why, in some regards, I am sympathetic to atheists who are responding to this plethora of ideas. For many, atheism is merely the rational conclusion of postmodern theology: if there are many gods, and there is no standard by which to define God, then, logically speaking, there can be no God.
Now let us recognize the main source of this concept of a personal God: the individual person. It comes from the individual's postmodern opinion manifesting itself in theological form. This is a weak basis at best, and is based entirely on fallacious logic. In attempting to justify all gods, the individual simply justifies no gods. What this does is transform the personal God into an impersonal God, because the personal God's existence is not a deity interacting with humanity, but humanity creating a God of its own design. This God, however, has no power. He is unable to do anything. With no existence of being, there are no discernible traits or qualities with which He is able to interact with His creation. He is powerless and unable to do anything with His creation. His very existence, in fact, is completely reliant upon the creation.
These are, of course, all the traits of an idol.
There is a story within Jewish tradition (reinvented in the Quran) where Abram (before being chosen by God) shatters all but one idol in his father's shop, then tells his father that the one idol did it. When the father replied that this was impossible, Abraham pointed this fact out, and showed that the idols had no powers at all, and therefore could not possibly be worshiped.
Isaiah likewise mocked idolatry, showing how with one piece of wood a man makes firewood to cook and then creates an idol to thank him for the food.
What likewise makes this impersonal is that we are removing God's sovereignty over His own standards and replacing them with our own. The Lord said to the Israelites: "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you" (Deut 4:2). Christ likewise said: "You are my friends if you do what I command you" (John 15:14). Yet those who would care to pick-and-choose what verses or commands to follow are disobeying God, even if they think they are still obeying God's commands by obeying part of His commands. Yet if our parents told us, as children, to mow the lawn and then clean the kitchen, and we only did one of those two chores, are we not still disobeying our parents? So too are those who want to acknowledge Christ's command "love one another" (John 15:17), and yet want to ignore or His statement "no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). Christ staunchly warned us, however, that we were to obey all His commands, and told His disciples: "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory..." (Luke 9:26).
But as we said, the proponents of a personal God are placing themselves as the authority over God, usurping God's sovereignty for their own. Many will deny they are doing so (often emotionally), but this is the logical conclusion of their own theology. It is a very man-centered theology, and perhaps one that represents a reversed kind of monergism: that is, the authority of man is supreme over the authority of God. Creation, however, cannot in any way usurp its creator. As the apostle Paul wrote: "The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?" (Rom 9:20). Man has absolutely no right to redefine God, just as the clay has no right to try to mold the potter. For us to attempt to do so is merely a sign of our heathen tendencies, in which we know God but do not honor Him as God, becoming futile in our speculations, and professing to be wise, people only become fools (cf. Rom 1:21-22).
Therefore, we have discussed a few things regarding those who want us to just seek after "our own personal God":
If we affirm that the deity of God exists, then we affirm the existence of the Being of God. It is the same as admitting the personhood of another man exists along with his existent state. What I mean by the latter is the very fact that the man exists, and all that goes with that proof that he is existent. However, along with that existent state comes, by definition, certain traits. Is he of European, African or Asian descent? How many years has he lived? What is his ethnicity? What kind of language does he speak? What kind of dialect of this language does he have? The list goes on. These are all traits specific to him, which affect his personhood.
Logic compels us to deny that a man can, outside of his existent state, possess any trait other than that compelled by force of means. An Asian man cannot suddenly become of African descent (as scripture asks, can an Ethiopian change his skin?; Jer 12:23), nor can a man who has lived seventy years suddenly become ten years old. For sure, he can temporarily change certain traits (a white man can take medication that will temporarily turn him black) or add to his current traits (a man who speaks French as a native language can teach himself German), but that which is part of his existent state cannot be removed from him.
Now we will give application of this to God. If we admit the deity of God, along with the Being of God, then it follows likewise that there must be some traits pertaining to that Being of God. That is, what is God's make-up? We will recognize that God is outside of certain limitations as found by a mortal man in his existent state - however, this does not mean God is not without traits pertaining to His Being.
Let us see this in application, with the definition of a personal God. Let us take two men who see God in their own personal ways: one sees God as a divine force - a vague kind of karma - whereas the other sees God as a therapeutic deistic version of the God of the Bible (all of the morals and ethics, but none of the accountability or authority). On the one hand, God is a vague force that simply keeps the universe together, similar to the Force of Star Wars; on the other hand, God is a rational, functioning entity who speaks, reasons, and interacts with creation, even setting down rules for it in a somewhat orderly. Both, however, are entirely different gods.
Let us put this in another application. Suppose we place a Muslim together with a Christian: on the one hand, God is a unitarian Being who is completely unable to take part in creation; on the other hand, God is a Trinitarian Being (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), with the second Person in the Trinity having taken on flesh and dwelt among mankind, representing a God who is far more interactive with His creation than the previous. These are, again, entirely different gods.
If we affirm the deity of God, we have to likewise affirm the Being of God. If we affirm the Being of God, we have to affirm the individual traits which compose God's very Being. Just as a man cannot contradict his existent state, God cannot contradict His entity. That is, God cannot be Trinitarian and Unitarian at the same time any more than He could be solely Creator (as found in monotheism) and solely creation (as found in pantheism) at the same time. To uphold that God is both Unitarian and Trinitarian is to present a contradiction. The deity of God cannot by definition be made up of a contradiction.
Therefore, those who would uphold that God is merely a personal God, from whom one can imagine their own definitions, are not teaching a coherent or logical definition of God. Rationally speaking, the personal God does not exist, because His very Being, logically, could not exist. It would be like a policeman writing down reports of a burglar from two witnesses, with one witness describing the burglar as a young white male, with the other describing an older black female. The policeman would have to logically conclude that either both witnesses were lying or one of them was in error - the burglar could not have been both a young white male and an older black female. This is why, in some regards, I am sympathetic to atheists who are responding to this plethora of ideas. For many, atheism is merely the rational conclusion of postmodern theology: if there are many gods, and there is no standard by which to define God, then, logically speaking, there can be no God.
Now let us recognize the main source of this concept of a personal God: the individual person. It comes from the individual's postmodern opinion manifesting itself in theological form. This is a weak basis at best, and is based entirely on fallacious logic. In attempting to justify all gods, the individual simply justifies no gods. What this does is transform the personal God into an impersonal God, because the personal God's existence is not a deity interacting with humanity, but humanity creating a God of its own design. This God, however, has no power. He is unable to do anything. With no existence of being, there are no discernible traits or qualities with which He is able to interact with His creation. He is powerless and unable to do anything with His creation. His very existence, in fact, is completely reliant upon the creation.
These are, of course, all the traits of an idol.
There is a story within Jewish tradition (reinvented in the Quran) where Abram (before being chosen by God) shatters all but one idol in his father's shop, then tells his father that the one idol did it. When the father replied that this was impossible, Abraham pointed this fact out, and showed that the idols had no powers at all, and therefore could not possibly be worshiped.
Isaiah likewise mocked idolatry, showing how with one piece of wood a man makes firewood to cook and then creates an idol to thank him for the food.
Surely he cuts cedars for himself, and takes a cypress or an oak and raises it for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a fir, and the rain makes it grow. Then it becomes something for a man to burn, so he takes one of them and warms himself; he also makes a fire to bake bread. He also makes a god and worships it; he makes it a graven image and falls down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire; over this half he eats meat as he roasts a roast and is satisfied. He also warms himself and says, "Aha! I am warm, I have seen the fire." But the rest of it he makes into a god, his graven image He falls down before it and worships; he also prays to it and says, "Deliver me, for you are my god." [Isaiah 44:14-17]The uniqueness of God is declared by the Lord: "I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me" (Isa 44:6). He likewise says: "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock?" (Isa 44:8) Those who seek after idols - be they tangible or mental - are simply seeking to "pray to a god who cannot save" (Isa 45:20). A personal God - as we have demonstrated - has no personal qualities nor discernible traits. Therefore, the personal God is one who cannot save. A personal God who cannot save is as impersonal a God as they come.
What likewise makes this impersonal is that we are removing God's sovereignty over His own standards and replacing them with our own. The Lord said to the Israelites: "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you" (Deut 4:2). Christ likewise said: "You are my friends if you do what I command you" (John 15:14). Yet those who would care to pick-and-choose what verses or commands to follow are disobeying God, even if they think they are still obeying God's commands by obeying part of His commands. Yet if our parents told us, as children, to mow the lawn and then clean the kitchen, and we only did one of those two chores, are we not still disobeying our parents? So too are those who want to acknowledge Christ's command "love one another" (John 15:17), and yet want to ignore or His statement "no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). Christ staunchly warned us, however, that we were to obey all His commands, and told His disciples: "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory..." (Luke 9:26).
But as we said, the proponents of a personal God are placing themselves as the authority over God, usurping God's sovereignty for their own. Many will deny they are doing so (often emotionally), but this is the logical conclusion of their own theology. It is a very man-centered theology, and perhaps one that represents a reversed kind of monergism: that is, the authority of man is supreme over the authority of God. Creation, however, cannot in any way usurp its creator. As the apostle Paul wrote: "The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?" (Rom 9:20). Man has absolutely no right to redefine God, just as the clay has no right to try to mold the potter. For us to attempt to do so is merely a sign of our heathen tendencies, in which we know God but do not honor Him as God, becoming futile in our speculations, and professing to be wise, people only become fools (cf. Rom 1:21-22).
Therefore, we have discussed a few things regarding those who want us to just seek after "our own personal God":
- It contradicts the very nature of a true Being, implying that a Being can be two things at once.
- It is sourced not to revelation or sound, consistent theology but to an individual's own personal preferences.
- It is the very definition of an idol, and hence worshiping this god is simply idol worship.
- This "personal God" has no ability to save, and no way to communicate with the individual. He is, for all intents and purposes, a useless god to whom to pray.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
IHOP sued by IHOP (again)
A fellow Kansas City inhabitant sent me with an article saying that the International House of Pancakes was renewing a lawsuit against the International House of Prayer - both of which are known as IHOP for short. The article link is below:
IHOP (the restaurant) files new lawsuit against IHOP (the ministry) - KansasCity.com
I'm wondering how this will turn out, considering Mike Bickle teaches the acronym IHOP came from God Himself. To quote a source:
IHOP (the restaurant) files new lawsuit against IHOP (the ministry) - KansasCity.com
I'm wondering how this will turn out, considering Mike Bickle teaches the acronym IHOP came from God Himself. To quote a source:
God spoke to me about four heart standards necessary for my future life and ministry. They are not the only values necessary in a New Testament church, but are the most neglected ones. In 1996, God corrected us as a local church, calling us back to these by using the acronym "IHOP."As the previously cited article explains, International House of Pancakes started using the IHOP acronym in 1973, some 23 years before Mike Bickle supposedly received his revelation. I have doubts that the argument "God gave it to me" would do well in a court case, but nonetheless it will be interesting to see how this develops.
1. Intercession: night and day prayer and worship affects our time
2. Holiness: the Sermon on the Mount lifestyle (Mt. 5-7) affects our thoughts and attitudes
3. Offerings: extravagant giving by living simply to give more to the harvest affects our money
4. Prophetic: confidence in God’s intervention (provision, protection, direction) and standing boldly in faith for what the Spirit is saying affects our security and identity (most difficult) [source; all emphasis in original]
Thursday, June 2, 2011
"Pilgrim's Progress" vs. "The Shack"
Sometime ago I finally read through Pilgrim's Progress for the first time in my life. As I finished, I couldn't help but remember that the front cover of William P. Young's The Shack (which I've reviewed before) has Eugene Peterson (infamous for his Message translation) comparing Young's book to John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. I decided to discuss just how different these two books actually are, and why comparing them is not only offensive to the memory of Mr. Bunyan, but the discerning reader.
Pilgrim's Progress is, from the very first page on, literally dotted with either scripture citations or references to scripture citations. This is not merely John Bunyan's opinion or his own personal theology, but the teachings of scripture put into a literary format. Many modern versions of Pilgrim's Progress either place the scriptural index right in the text itself, or at the end of every chapter.
The Shack, by stark contrast, has absolutely no scriptural citations, nor references to scripture. None. There could never be a scripture index because there are no verses to cite. Everything is from the mind of William P. Young, and everything that is written is simply from the substance of William P. Young's personal beliefs. At times scripture is vaguely referred to (such as Mack asking "Weren't you always running around killing people in the Bible?", etc.), but never is a direct reference made.
This plainly reveals the original source material for these two works: John Bunyan's source was the Bible; William P. Young's source material was an idol known as William P. Young's theology. This is probably one of the most important differences between the two.
Metaphors abound in Pilgrim's Progress, and virtually every character is a representation either of an attitude, a virtue, a vice, or a worldly truth. For example, the character of Pliable, who joins Christian early on but quickly abandons him at the Swamp of Despondence, is a representation of individuals who enjoy the idea of salvation, but then quickly run away at the conviction of their sins. Another example is Faithful, Christian's initial fellow pilgrim who is martyred by the residents of Vanity Fair and becomes a literal representation of the command from scripture to "be faithful until death" (Rev 2:10).
There are, however, very few metaphors in terms of God Himself. Christ is referred to as "Lord of the Hill," "King of the Land," etc., but no one within the story specifically represents Christ in any way other than what He is as the Glorified Lord. There are some who say that the character of Interpreter is meant to be the Holy Spirit, but even if this were so, it would not represent the Holy Spirit in Person so much as what the Holy Spirit does for the believer (that is, endow him with saving knowledge regarding Christ). While Bunyan has fun with literary interpretations, he does not stray too far from what scripture says of a believer's world view and, most of all, scriptural theology.
The Shack, by contrast, is an entire book centered around what is ultimately a bad metaphor for the Trinity (three people inside a shack). To top it off, every ethnic group seems to be represented therein: the Father is an old black woman, the Son is a Middle Eastern man (somewhat fitting, I suppose), and the Holy Spirit is an Asian woman. We are later introduced to a Hispanic woman named Sophia who is said to be the personification of God's wisdom.
What's more, William P. Young's literary interpretations are simply heretical. Papa (the Father character) reveals crucifixion scars on her hands and says, "We were there together," meaning that the Father and Son were crucified together and suffered together, which has been considered heretical since the early days of the church. It likewise contradicts the teachings of scripture that we are reconciled by the Son's body (Col 1:21-22) and that it was the Son who took upon flesh (John 1:14) and humbled Himself before men (Phi 2:5-11). The Father could only have scars if He had a physical body, and unless we are Modalists, we cannot rightfully say that He did.
This is probably one reason why so much of Bunyan's book deals with metaphors pertaining to believers and their interaction with faith and the world, rather than direct interaction with God. Any false representation would have led to dangerous grounds, and most likely Bunyan sought to avoid such traps.
As already stated, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is an entirely allegorical book. Like Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, it was never meant to be a literal interpretation of anything. Bunyan avoids any possibility of this being accepted literally by stating early on that all of it is a dream, and reminds the reader throughout the book that he is simply repeating what he saw in a dream.
Young, on the other hand, opens up The Shack with a claim that his story is true and that there is a real person named Mack who shared this experience with him. Now granted, I know that Young doesn't really believe that Mack exists nor does he claim this in public, but this leads to a different feel for The Shack than Pilgrim's Progress. That is, while Bunyan introduces the story as a dream, and hence the reader understands that the language of Pilgrim's Progress is that of a dream, Young introduces The Shack as a first-hand account, hence readers are supposed to have the mindset that a man named Mack really did go through all these experiences. That is, the reader is led to have a mindset that God really would manifest Himself as He does in The Shack.
If a man named Mack had indeed experienced all that is told of in The Shack, I would have promptly pointed him to Paul's warning that "even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14).
The main protagonists of Pilgrim's Progress (Christian, Faithful and Hopeful) meet various people along the way and, in particularly near the end, hold long discussions with them. What is thoroughly discussed is not only what is wrong and what is right, but that the wrong is an evil wrong that can benefit no man. The character of Ignorance, for example, is told by Christian and Hopeful that he cannot hope to enter the Celestial City (heaven) by his own ways, but he rejects their pleas and is in the end cast out by the Shining Ones (angels) of the city. Another example is seen in the character of Mr. By-ends and his friends, who discuss theology but are thoroughly silenced by Christian and Hopeful when their beliefs are shown to be completely fallacious.
Furthermore, the theology of John Bunyan is plainly seen in the pages of his book. One cannot walk away from Pilgrim's Progress and wonder what Bunyan believed in regards to salvation, our role in salvation, and God's sovereignty. In fact, if one reads Bunyan's purely theological works after reading Pilgrim's Progress, they will find a great consistency with the novel. Everything is there for you, in black and white, and easy to understand. Considering Bunyan wrote this in prison, in the midst of his own persecution, we should not be altogether surprised.
By contrast, The Shack reads like an Emergent book in the sense that the theology is at times so vague that it's difficult to lay down exactly what Young is trying to say. The one that stood out to me the most was William P. Young's Jesus responding to the question "Do all roads lead to you?" with: "Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you."
This, of course, leads the book to become very dangerous. When our Blessed Lord speaks of tares and wheat in the gospels, the tares He refers to are plants that look like wheat but are actually poisonous, and cannot be fully shown for what they are until the time of harvest. Young's book, like so many, is essentially a literary tare. It might, from the initial reading, seem orthodox, or even semi-orthodox, but when one really gets down and studies what he is saying, one realizes just how heretical it is. One of the biggest examples of this in the book (next to the previously mentioned teaching of universalism) is the teaching of a restorative hell, shown in the scene where Mack reconciles with his deceased father. Young does not flat out say he believes in a restorative hell in the book, but when one reads through what he is teaching, that is the obvious conclusion.
Bunyan is not afraid to come out and say, "This is what I believe, it is based on the word of God, and I am sticking by it whether you like it or not." Anyone afraid to do likewise, and anyone who feels they need to essentially hide their theology, should themselves and their work be considered very dangerous.
The goal of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress was to be an evangelical tool. It was written to explain the gospel in literature. It was written, first and foremost, to present God's message to the world while remaining faithful to the word of God.
The Shack, on the other hand, is essentially something to make someone feel better. Young himself experienced some great suffering in his life, and many who hold The Shack to be a wonderful piece of literature are likewise those who suffered from some tragedy in their life. Young has even said in interviews and lectures that certain representations (such as the crucifixion scars on the Father) were done to make people feel closer to God. The entire goal of the book, then, is to please men through emotional connections.
Some might wonder why I am presenting this as a contention against Bunyan. After all, isn't it good to make people feel better? I respond that the idiom is "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," not "the road to heaven." There is nothing worse than presenting falsehood and distortion of truth in the form of spiritual healing. It is just as bad as a doctor giving poison to a patient on the pretext that it will save their lives from a disease.
As such, what Young did in The Shack was try to make people feel better by completely distorting scriptural teachings and misrepresenting how God has revealed Himself to be. Unfortunately many people, seeking to please their itching ears, have grasped onto his work as a great piece of literature simply because it makes them feel better. I for one would much rather have a terrible life on earth with hopes of a glorious life in heaven than a great life on earth with an eternity in hell.
1. Plethora of scriptural citations/references vs. Absolutely none
Pilgrim's Progress is, from the very first page on, literally dotted with either scripture citations or references to scripture citations. This is not merely John Bunyan's opinion or his own personal theology, but the teachings of scripture put into a literary format. Many modern versions of Pilgrim's Progress either place the scriptural index right in the text itself, or at the end of every chapter.
The Shack, by stark contrast, has absolutely no scriptural citations, nor references to scripture. None. There could never be a scripture index because there are no verses to cite. Everything is from the mind of William P. Young, and everything that is written is simply from the substance of William P. Young's personal beliefs. At times scripture is vaguely referred to (such as Mack asking "Weren't you always running around killing people in the Bible?", etc.), but never is a direct reference made.
This plainly reveals the original source material for these two works: John Bunyan's source was the Bible; William P. Young's source material was an idol known as William P. Young's theology. This is probably one of the most important differences between the two.
2. Orthodox Metaphors vs. Heretical Metaphors
Metaphors abound in Pilgrim's Progress, and virtually every character is a representation either of an attitude, a virtue, a vice, or a worldly truth. For example, the character of Pliable, who joins Christian early on but quickly abandons him at the Swamp of Despondence, is a representation of individuals who enjoy the idea of salvation, but then quickly run away at the conviction of their sins. Another example is Faithful, Christian's initial fellow pilgrim who is martyred by the residents of Vanity Fair and becomes a literal representation of the command from scripture to "be faithful until death" (Rev 2:10).
There are, however, very few metaphors in terms of God Himself. Christ is referred to as "Lord of the Hill," "King of the Land," etc., but no one within the story specifically represents Christ in any way other than what He is as the Glorified Lord. There are some who say that the character of Interpreter is meant to be the Holy Spirit, but even if this were so, it would not represent the Holy Spirit in Person so much as what the Holy Spirit does for the believer (that is, endow him with saving knowledge regarding Christ). While Bunyan has fun with literary interpretations, he does not stray too far from what scripture says of a believer's world view and, most of all, scriptural theology.
The Shack, by contrast, is an entire book centered around what is ultimately a bad metaphor for the Trinity (three people inside a shack). To top it off, every ethnic group seems to be represented therein: the Father is an old black woman, the Son is a Middle Eastern man (somewhat fitting, I suppose), and the Holy Spirit is an Asian woman. We are later introduced to a Hispanic woman named Sophia who is said to be the personification of God's wisdom.
What's more, William P. Young's literary interpretations are simply heretical. Papa (the Father character) reveals crucifixion scars on her hands and says, "We were there together," meaning that the Father and Son were crucified together and suffered together, which has been considered heretical since the early days of the church. It likewise contradicts the teachings of scripture that we are reconciled by the Son's body (Col 1:21-22) and that it was the Son who took upon flesh (John 1:14) and humbled Himself before men (Phi 2:5-11). The Father could only have scars if He had a physical body, and unless we are Modalists, we cannot rightfully say that He did.
This is probably one reason why so much of Bunyan's book deals with metaphors pertaining to believers and their interaction with faith and the world, rather than direct interaction with God. Any false representation would have led to dangerous grounds, and most likely Bunyan sought to avoid such traps.
3. Obvious Allegories vs. Near Literal Representations
As already stated, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is an entirely allegorical book. Like Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, it was never meant to be a literal interpretation of anything. Bunyan avoids any possibility of this being accepted literally by stating early on that all of it is a dream, and reminds the reader throughout the book that he is simply repeating what he saw in a dream.
Young, on the other hand, opens up The Shack with a claim that his story is true and that there is a real person named Mack who shared this experience with him. Now granted, I know that Young doesn't really believe that Mack exists nor does he claim this in public, but this leads to a different feel for The Shack than Pilgrim's Progress. That is, while Bunyan introduces the story as a dream, and hence the reader understands that the language of Pilgrim's Progress is that of a dream, Young introduces The Shack as a first-hand account, hence readers are supposed to have the mindset that a man named Mack really did go through all these experiences. That is, the reader is led to have a mindset that God really would manifest Himself as He does in The Shack.
If a man named Mack had indeed experienced all that is told of in The Shack, I would have promptly pointed him to Paul's warning that "even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14).
4. Absolute Truths vs. Vague Theology
The main protagonists of Pilgrim's Progress (Christian, Faithful and Hopeful) meet various people along the way and, in particularly near the end, hold long discussions with them. What is thoroughly discussed is not only what is wrong and what is right, but that the wrong is an evil wrong that can benefit no man. The character of Ignorance, for example, is told by Christian and Hopeful that he cannot hope to enter the Celestial City (heaven) by his own ways, but he rejects their pleas and is in the end cast out by the Shining Ones (angels) of the city. Another example is seen in the character of Mr. By-ends and his friends, who discuss theology but are thoroughly silenced by Christian and Hopeful when their beliefs are shown to be completely fallacious.
Furthermore, the theology of John Bunyan is plainly seen in the pages of his book. One cannot walk away from Pilgrim's Progress and wonder what Bunyan believed in regards to salvation, our role in salvation, and God's sovereignty. In fact, if one reads Bunyan's purely theological works after reading Pilgrim's Progress, they will find a great consistency with the novel. Everything is there for you, in black and white, and easy to understand. Considering Bunyan wrote this in prison, in the midst of his own persecution, we should not be altogether surprised.
By contrast, The Shack reads like an Emergent book in the sense that the theology is at times so vague that it's difficult to lay down exactly what Young is trying to say. The one that stood out to me the most was William P. Young's Jesus responding to the question "Do all roads lead to you?" with: "Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you."
This, of course, leads the book to become very dangerous. When our Blessed Lord speaks of tares and wheat in the gospels, the tares He refers to are plants that look like wheat but are actually poisonous, and cannot be fully shown for what they are until the time of harvest. Young's book, like so many, is essentially a literary tare. It might, from the initial reading, seem orthodox, or even semi-orthodox, but when one really gets down and studies what he is saying, one realizes just how heretical it is. One of the biggest examples of this in the book (next to the previously mentioned teaching of universalism) is the teaching of a restorative hell, shown in the scene where Mack reconciles with his deceased father. Young does not flat out say he believes in a restorative hell in the book, but when one reads through what he is teaching, that is the obvious conclusion.
Bunyan is not afraid to come out and say, "This is what I believe, it is based on the word of God, and I am sticking by it whether you like it or not." Anyone afraid to do likewise, and anyone who feels they need to essentially hide their theology, should themselves and their work be considered very dangerous.
5. God-centered Goals vs. Man-centered Goals
The goal of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress was to be an evangelical tool. It was written to explain the gospel in literature. It was written, first and foremost, to present God's message to the world while remaining faithful to the word of God.
The Shack, on the other hand, is essentially something to make someone feel better. Young himself experienced some great suffering in his life, and many who hold The Shack to be a wonderful piece of literature are likewise those who suffered from some tragedy in their life. Young has even said in interviews and lectures that certain representations (such as the crucifixion scars on the Father) were done to make people feel closer to God. The entire goal of the book, then, is to please men through emotional connections.
Some might wonder why I am presenting this as a contention against Bunyan. After all, isn't it good to make people feel better? I respond that the idiom is "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," not "the road to heaven." There is nothing worse than presenting falsehood and distortion of truth in the form of spiritual healing. It is just as bad as a doctor giving poison to a patient on the pretext that it will save their lives from a disease.
As such, what Young did in The Shack was try to make people feel better by completely distorting scriptural teachings and misrepresenting how God has revealed Himself to be. Unfortunately many people, seeking to please their itching ears, have grasped onto his work as a great piece of literature simply because it makes them feel better. I for one would much rather have a terrible life on earth with hopes of a glorious life in heaven than a great life on earth with an eternity in hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)