An Examination of Purgatory Prooftexts

The following are taken from the website Scripture Catholic. The sections quoted from the website are in bold.

Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.

Let's look at the full context of this verse:

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny." [Matthew 5:21-26]

Christ is going through the moral law (specifically the ten commandments), and is now on the commandment "thou shalt not murder" (Ex 20:13; De 5:17). He then turns to his own authority, rather than that of tradition (cf. Mt 7:29), expositing the words of the Law (v. 21). He states that those who are angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, thereby extending the commandment to even "murderous thoughts." He goes on to give both legal and spiritual applications: whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council (the Sanhedrin), and whoever says "You fool!" will be liable to "the hell of fire" (v. 22). Christ then turns to how to resolve this issue by telling that, if they are on their way to the altar, to first reconcile with their brother before offering the gift (v. 23-24). He then turns to court language, saying one should "come to terms quickly" with their accuser while "going with him to court," lest he hand them over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and they be put in prison (v. 25), where they will never get out until they have paid the last penny (v. 26).

Our writer states that "the accuser" most likely refers to the devil, however, this would prove strange given the context - why would Christ tell us to "come to terms quickly" with the devil?! That makes positively no sense. Some would argue that "comes to terms quickly" means to deal with sin, but the original Greek of "come to terms" (ἴσθι εὐνοῶν) means literally "make friends" in the original Greek - again, how can we expect Christ to be instructing us to "make friends" with the devil? It is fairly clear that Christ is continuing the context of the previous verse, which dealt with aggravations we might have with others - here, he is talking about aggravations others might have with us. In this context, it is one to whom we are in debt.

In regards to the payment, this is a reference both to Jewish and Roman practices of the day regarding courts: there were judges in every area of the Jewish nation to handle courts (as per Deu 16:18), and Roman law permitted the accuser and accused of a court case to settle their dispute on the way to the trial (a kind of precursor to "out of court settlements"). Given the immediate context, there is nothing spiritual regarding this court case.

Yet even if we permit that the court language here (judge, guards, etc.) is spiritual (as I know some Protestant commentators say), we have to keep in mind the use of the phrase "until you have paid the last penny." The phrase means that every tiny little coin will be sought after, and nothing will be forgotten - most definitely, it means all the debt will be paid. However, does this immediately mean Christ is teaching of Purgatory? Compare this with the similar language and case of the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Mt 18:21-35), which likewise dealt with the issue of forgiveness and our transgressions against others. In verse 34 it is said that the servant would be sent into the prison "until he should pay all his debt." However, given how much was owed (see v. 24), it is clear that the servant was in way over his head, and he would never repay the amount owed. The phrase, therefore, does not refer to a kind of temporal payment, but an eternal payment.

Matt. 5:48 - Jesus says, "be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect." We are only made perfect through purification, and in Catholic teaching, this purification, if not completed on earth, is continued in a transitional state we call purgatory. 

This interpretation of the verse is far removed from the original context. Christ is talking about the topic of mercy (Mt 5:43-48). See the parallel verse in Luke 6:36, and it is even more clear that Christ is saying we should be perfect in mercy, not completely purified by sins. It most definitely does not say that believers need to undergo any kind of "purification."

Scripture, in fact, makes it clear that there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (Ro 8:1). What need, therefore, would there be for further purification?

Matt. 12:32 – Jesus says, “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next.” Jesus thus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death. The phrase “in the next” (from the Greek “en to mellonti”) generally refers to the afterlife (see, for example, Mark 10.30; Luke 18.30; 20.34-35; Eph. 1.21 for similar language). Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for 2,000 years has called this state purgatory. 

I've dealt with this verse before, and I would suggest readers go there to see the full explanation of this verse. To sum it up, the emphasis is on the wrong syllable: Christ is not saying sins can be forgiven after death, but that the severity of the denial of his Messianic status and Lordship is so great that it shall never be forgiven.

Luke 12:47-48 - when the Master comes (at the end of time), some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. This state is not heaven or hell, because in heaven there are no beatings, and in hell we will no longer live with the Master. 

As I've discussed before, people often have a habit of missing the point of a parable, or taking a parable too literally - this is one such example. But first, let us deal with the addition to scripture: no where, in either verse 47 or 48, does it say that after the beating they "will live." That is reading into the text something which is not there.

This is because, in actuality, Christ is speaking of different levels of severity of punishment upon those who should have expected the coming of the Messiah and yet did not prepare accordingly. Those who knew better (such as Caiaphas and unbelieving Pharisees) will be punished harshly, while those who did not know better but should have still been prepared (such as, perhaps those who turned against Christ at the instigation of the Sanhedrin) will receive a lighter punishment - they will still, however, receive a punishment. Both parties will also likewise still receive a portion with the unfaithful (v. 46).

Luke 16:19-31 - in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God's graces for all eternity. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory. 

Verse 23 clearly says the man was in Hades - in other words, hell.

1 Cor. 15:29-30 - Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, in the context of atoning for their sins (people are baptized on the dead’s behalf so the dead can be raised). These people cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory. These verses directly correspond to 2 Macc. 12:44-45 which also shows specific prayers for the dead, so that they may be forgiven of their sin.

This is an interesting interpretation, given it's similar to the Mormon argument that one can be baptized on behalf of family members who have passed on. It was also the argument made by the heretic Cerenthis and his followers, who interpreted these verses in such a way. John Chrysostom, in his commentaries, refers to Marcionites abusing this verse as well, though in a different way: they would take a dead man, lay him on a bed, ask for his consent to be baptized, and someone beneath the bed would answer in his stead, and hence they would baptize the corpse shortly thereafter.

This verse has certainly perplexed commentators and theologians throughout history, though few of them, if any, have come to the conclusion that it is speaking on Purgatory. Some of the more plausible explanations:

1) Paul is referring to a possible practice unique among the Corinthians of being baptized in the name of fellow believers who had not yet been baptized. However, his statement here is not an affirmation of such a practice.

2) Paul is referring to believers as a whole as "dead," since baptism is a symbol of our death with Christ and spiritual resurrection (Ro 6:4).

In any case, nowhere is Paul talking about atoning people for their sins by baptizing the dead.

Phil. 2:10 - every knee bends to Jesus, in heaven, on earth, and "under the earth" which is the realm of the righteous dead, or purgatory. 

This is likewise an interesting interpretation, given it's popular for some Roman Catholics today to argue that Purgatory is a state of being rather than a literal place (despite the teachings and beliefs of well respected Roman Catholics from the past, including Thomas Aquinas, as well as historical interpretations by church officials).

In any case, jumping to the notion that "under the earth" refers immediately to Purgatory is a massive jump indeed, given that it most likely refers to those who have passed on (in contrast to "on earth," that is, still alive). It could mean, at the very least, fallen angels waiting in the pit.

2 Tim. 1:16-18 - Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him “on that day.” Paul’s use of “that day” demonstrates its eschatological usage (see, for example, Rom. 2.5,16; 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; 5.5; 2 Cor. 1.14; Phil. 1.6,10; 2.16; 1 Thess. 5.2,4,5,8; 2 Thess. 2.2,3; 2 Tim. 4.8). Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory. 

Upon what basis do we believe Onesiphorus was dead? While I recognize a handful of commentators believe he was, there is no evidence this is the case. Therefore, this argument is irrelevant.

Heb. 12:14 - without holiness no one will see the Lord. We need final sanctification to attain true holiness before God, and this process occurs during our lives and, if not completed during our lives, in the transitional state of purgatory.

It is true that without holiness no one will see the Lord, but the author seems to not understand the intent of the writer to the Hebrews. Nowhere does it speak of Purgatory, or come close to the doctrine of Purgatory, and to simply take the truth that without holiness no one will see the Lord and read Purgatory into it is committing blatant eisegesis. In fact, the writer of Hebrews clearly teaches that men are justified before God based on the sacrifice of Christ, and require no further purification.

One verse that demonstrates this:

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. [Hebrews 9:27-28]

And again:

And by [the Father's] will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. [Hebrews 10:10]

And again:

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. [Hebrews 10:19-23]

Such a passage as this last one would be impossible with the doctrine of Purgatory. One could not be able to tell living believers that they could enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus if they required further purification to enter such holy places.

Heb. 12:23 - the spirits of just men who died in godliness are "made" perfect. They do not necessarily arrive perfect. They are made perfect after their death. But those in heaven are already perfect, and those in hell can no longer be made perfect. These spirits are in purgatory. 

At this point, we have to wonder if our author is taking these interpretations of scripture from a secondary source, or simply blatantly mishandling God's word. Let's see the full context of the verse:

For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. [Hebrews 12:18-24]

The writer of the epistle speaks of the contact with God in the Old Testament, and contrasts it with us (living believers), who are able - without any form of purification from Purgatory - to approach God and join the company of God, the angels, and believers from the past. This is what "the spirits of the righteous made perfect" refers to. Contrary to proving Purgatory, this passage, like many within Hebrews (see the previous response) proves problematic for those attempting to teach Purgatory from the epistle.

1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the "prison." These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision. 

Are they? Again, let's look at the full context:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. [1 Peter 3:18-20]

These "spirits" are those which "formerly did not obey" in "the days of Noah" - are only people from the days of Noah in Purgatory? If we presume the reality of Purgatory, that would be an irrationality. What Peter is actually speaking of is the nature of the "spirit" which has made us alive, and says that with this same spirit he went down and preached to those in the days of Noah, calling for the repentance of man, and yet ignored these warnings until the time of judgment.

Rev. 21:4 - God shall wipe away their tears, and there will be no mourning or pain, but only after the coming of the new heaven and the passing away of the current heaven and earth. Note the elimination of tears and pain only occurs at the end of time. But there is no morning or pain in heaven, and God will not wipe away their tears in hell. These are the souls experiencing purgatory. 

Again, we must understand context - why have the tears and pain and mourning been done away with? Because "the former things have passed away," not because of Purgatory. Nowhere in the verse is it speaking of souls in Purgatory, nor does it even hint at it. In fact, this event takes place after the resurrection and final judgment (see Rev 20:11-15), and is simply describing the condition of those who have been resurrected - they will not have tears or experience mourning because all that could have caused such things have passed away, and God is making all things new.

Rev. 21:27 - nothing unclean shall enter heaven. The word “unclean” comes from the Greek word “koinon” which refers to a spiritual corruption. Even the propensity to sin is spiritually corrupt, or considered unclean, and must be purified before entering heaven. It is amazing how many Protestants do not want to believe in purgatory. Purgatory exists because of the mercy of God. If there were no purgatory, this would also likely mean no salvation for most people. God is merciful indeed. 

As with Hebrews 12:14, is is true that nothing "unclean" will enter into the city, but why is this? Again, because of the justification of men by God. Does the end of verse 27 even say "only those who have been purified by Purgatory"? On the contrary, it says: "only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life." Those who are in the book shall enter into the city without fear of judgment, for they have been elected for salvation "from the foundation of the world" (Re 13:8).

See also the response to Hebrews 12:14 above.

Luke 23:43 – many Protestants argue that, because Jesus sent the good thief right to heaven, there can be no purgatory. There are several rebuttals. First, when Jesus uses the word "paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol," meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection. Second, since there was no punctuation in the original manuscript, Jesus’ statement “I say to you today you will be with me in paradise” does not mean there was a comma after the first word “you.” This means Jesus could have said, “I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise” (meaning, Jesus could have emphasized with exclamation his statement was “today” or “now,” and that some time in the future the good thief would go to heaven). Third, even if the thief went straight to heaven, this does not prove there is no purgatory (those who are fully sanctified in this life – perhaps by a bloody and repentant death – could be ready for admission in to heaven). 

All right, many many many many corrections need to be made here.

First, the Greek word here for "paradise" (παράδεισος) is of Persian origin, not Hebrew, and refers to a garden or enclosed park. In the Septuagint, it is used in reference to literal gardens, including Eden as well as the gardens mentioned in the Song of Solomon. In the New Testament, it is only used three times: here, in 2 Corinthians 12:4 when Paul says he was "caught up into paradise," and in Revelation 2:7 when it talks of the Tree of Life which is "in the paradise of God."

Second, the argument that there was no comma and that Jesus was actually saying "I say to you today" is similar to the tactic used by Joyce Meyer and Jehovah's Witnesses, who move the comma to prove their heretical doctrine - unfortunately, our author is here committing the same tactic. While it is true there were no commas in the original Greek, a plain reading of the grammar shows that the traditional placement of the comma (after the "I say to you") is sound. To quote Young's Literal Translation:

And Jesus said to him, "Verily I say to thee, To-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise."

Even just rationally, this argument regarding the comma makes no sense - on what other day would Christ have told the thief this? "Truly I say to you tomorrow...oops! I just told it to you."

Thirdly, the idea that one can be sanctified by "a bloody and repentant death" suggests that the thief was forgiven because he was crucified. The fact is, the thief was justified by his repentance and faith, not merely because he was crucified.

Gen. 50:10; Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8 - here are some examples of ritual prayer and penitent mourning for the dead for specific periods of time. The Jewish understanding of these practices was that the prayers freed the souls from their painful state of purification, and expedited their journey to God. 

Genesis 50:10 is speaking of mourning, not prayers - let alone "ritual prayers." The same can be said for Numbers 20:29 and Deuteronomy 34:8. Mourning does not automatically equal praying, let alone praying for the sins of the dead.

Zech. 9:11 - God, through the blood of His covenant, will set those free from the waterless pit, a spiritual abode of suffering which the Church calls purgatory. 

The term "waterless pit" is in reference to a practice in the middle east where a slave trader would put his slaves and prisoners into a pit or empty well until the next morning, where they were taken out to be sold (think of Joseph and his brothers). The people in the waterless pit is a reference to the state of man, which is enslaved to sin. There is absolutely no reason to immediately assume this passage is about Purgatory.

How to be Annoying in Online Discussions

Some of you have probably wondered to yourself: "Just how can I make the internet an even more aggravating place to be in?" Have you ever wondered how you can go to any online forum or form of social media and make your mark in its culture? If you have, just follow these simple tips, and you can have a sure promise of success!

1) Just jump in.

Don't actually have some background knowledge in what's being discussed. Don't do any preliminary research. Don't even bother reading back and seeing how the thread started or how the conversation began. Who needs to see the flow of thought? Who needs to see if anything's already been addressed? Who needs to understand another person's point of view? Just dive in the minute you see a comment or post you don't like. Don't respond to the person's overall view, but what they're saying right then and there. Make wild assumptions even.

In fact, if you want to get golden points, actually admit what you're doing. Say something like "I haven't actually read through the thread, but...", or "Hey, I haven't actually read your post, but..." This will give you plenty of legitimacy in the conversation!

2) Break up every half a sentence from the person's post into countless mini-quotes.

You know what I mean. Don't just give a full, coherent response to the other person's post - that would be too easy on the eyes and make discussion easier. Instead, quote the person's posts, then cut it up into mini-quotes, each between half a sentence or a single sentence long. Yes, I know that he explained that one point a few sentences later, but don't bother to respond to the context - just respond to what you see in that tiny quote. And when you get to said explanation, don't acknowledge it - in fact, treat those two quotes as separate ideas!

Remember, if a person doesn't have to scroll down for a whole minute to read your response, you haven't done your job well.

3) Don't actually respond to what the person is saying.

Look at that point the guy is trying to make there. Isn't it a wonderful point? It is, in fact, it might refute your case. So here's what we're gonna do...we're going to pretend we don't understand what he's getting at, and misinterpret it so that it makes him look dumb.

If that sounds like too much work, you can always just repeat the same argument you made before. Change a word here and there, maybe add a comma, and you're good to go. And yes, these do go to eleven, why do you ask?

4) Make several posts in a row.

So you've posted your glorious response, and then you realize...wait! You have something else to add! No, don't go for that "edit" button - that would be too organized. No no no, you have to make a whole other post! Who cares if the person you're responding to might be already working on a reply, and may miss your follow up post before he's hit "send"?

Oh, and just for good measure, when the other person responds, don't give him time to respond to your second post to catch up...respond IMMEDIATELY to that post he just made! That'll show him how crafty you are!

5) Insult and attack if you must.

Uh oh! It looks like someone's made a rational counterpoint that you can't give a response to! We can't have that! When desperate times call for desperate measures, you know what to do. No, I'm not talking about saying something humble like "I'll need to do more research before I respond to that," or "That's an interesting point, I'll need to consider it." I'm talking about accusing the person of being too slow, maybe even too stupid, to get your wonderful arguments.

If the forum offers sarcastic looking smilies - use 'em! You get double points for doing so.

6) If they get upset, you must project!

Now if the other person is rational and not just crazy like you, at some point they're going to call you out on all your shenanigans. That's when you use your secret weapon: projection. Ask why they're getting so upset. Accuse them of doing the same thing you're doing (even if there's no way to prove it), and say that it's clear they're getting upset because they have no real arguments. Yes, that's right, they clearly are only upset because of how super duper awesome you are. That's the only possible explanation.

Oh, and if a mod or admin steps in and enacts some discipline because your antics violate "forum rules" (whatever those are), accuse the website as a whole of censoring the truth! Just ignore the fact that plenty of other people are disagreeing and not being supposedly censored - clearly the only reason they're responding to you this way is because they're fascists.

7) If they leave - no matter why - declare victory.

If you're still using all these tricks, at some point the other person is probably going to think you're acting like an immature individual and cease conversation. They might tell this to you bluntly and say they don't desire to continue conversation, or they might just flat out stop talking to you. Depending on the website, they might put you on ignore. And how should you respond? Should you repent of your deeds and seek to better yourself, so that the next conversation you have might be edifying?

Of course not! This is a victory! Go into the streets and proclaim your victory to all the world! You've successfully annoyed someone on the internet! But oh no wait, don't think that. No, you won this debate because of your immense skill and the power of your arguments! Ha ha! Score one for some random guy on the internet!

Oh yeah, we suggested earlier that there might be some problems encountered with the owners of the website. If you get banned from a forum or website, just remember...it wasn't because of your personal flaws. No, it was because of how super awesome your ability to handle adult conversations was. Clearly, these people just can't handle the truth.

8) Don't think this blog post is about you.

Hmmm...could this blog post be describing you? Naaaah...




So there you have it, eight helpful tips on how to be annoying in online discussions. Just follow these easy tips, and soon you'll be having countless of people face palming themselves into oblivion and cringing at the very thought of opening their browser.

An Open Email to IHOP-KC and Mike Bickle

The following is an email I sent to the International House of Prayer on February 6, 2013. Initially, when I had sent a question to the Twitter account of IHOPU, I received cordial and prompt responses. They eventually directed me to Mike Bickle's assistant at IHOP-KC. As of yet, I have not received a response. Because of the explanations I went through in the email, I decided to share it on my blog for others to read. Perhaps I will receive responses here.

***

Greetings,

During the One Thing conference, I replied to a tweet made by IHOPU, which had made mention of an Anna anointing. I asked them for the biblical foundation of such an anointing, and they sent me to a lecture by Mike Bickle regarding it. I printed out the notes, listened to Mr. Bickle speak, and then sent an email to IHOPU asking if I could direct some questions and concerns. They provided me with this email address, and so I thought I would send said questions and concerns this way.

Firstly, in Part II, a heavy emphasis is placed on the function of the Temple in the Old Testament. However, this is all under the old covenant, and in the way worship functioned in the theocracy of ancient Israel and Judah, and the Temple itself was twice destroyed - the last time being by the Romans in 70 AD. Since then, it has never been rebuilt, and its services have not continued. Mr. Bickle argues, in the lecture, that the Temple worship was never nullified in the new covenant - however, there seem to be two problems here:

1) The Temple model at IHOP-KC seems to be selective about what is accepted from the old covenant worship. For example, the musicians and dancers are used, but no animal sacrifices or priesthood. As pertaining the priesthood, Bickle calls the Levites "intercessory missionaries" in the lecture, however the Levites were the priests descended from Aaron and who assisted in the sacrifices - they did not simply sing and dance and pray. Hebrews 7 compares and contrasts Christ to those Levitical priests, saying that Christ has now replaced them as a better priest, fulfilling their function more perfectly. As pertaining the animal sacrifices, it will be granted that one might argue Christ's sacrifices undid the animal sacrifices, but that brings us to the next point:

2) No where in the New Testament is the Temple ever made the exact model of worship. In fact, the Epistle to the Hebrews makes it clear that the worship and Temple in the Old Testament were but a shadow of the heavenly things, and that in the new covenant it takes place in heaven with Christ, who now functions as our intercessor.

Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. [Hebrews 8:1-7]

And likewise later on, in which Christ is called the "greater and more perfect tent":

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. [Hebrews 9:11-14]

The law and all under it is called by the author of Hebrews "a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities" (Heb 10:1). The lesson of the epistle to the Hebrews - written supposedly while the Temple was still up and functioning - seems to be that Christ fulfills the role of the Levitical priesthood, as well as the role that the Temple functioned in in sacrificing and atonement. The Temple was not a model for how to worship, but a shadow for the final "Temple" in heaven, where God the Son would intercede continually for His people and their sins, which were wiped clean by the blood spilled on Calvary.

For certain, worship and the formation of God's church was discussed in New Testament scripture. We see the leadership organized in the pastoral epistles. We see rules for orderly worship in 1 Corinthians 14:26-40. We have examples of how early Christians worshiped from both Christian and non-Christian sources in the days of the post-apostolic church. None of it suggests anything close to the Temple of David, or that we should emulate the Temple worship right down to constant, never ceasing worship.

Secondly, some of the quotations and use of passages from the Old Testament in Section III concerned me, as they often seemed to be out of context or eisegeted.

For example, Isaiah 62:6-7 is cited and is said to be about intercessory missionaries at the end of the age, however it appears no commentator or theologian has ever perceived it in this fashion until recently. The "watchmen" mentioned in verse 6 has most often been interpreted as general ministers of religion (cf. Ez 3:17; 33:7; Isa 22:11; 52:8; 56:10), and Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were definitely "watchmen" in the post-captivity era. Today, the "watchmen" are ministers and pastors of the Christian faith. The words "they shall never be silent" does not imply constant singing or praying, but rather constant vigilance - it was a reference to the practice of watchmen of the era to call out the hour and the state of security ("three o'clock, all's well," etc.). Generally, the passages do not immediately reveal any prophecy about an end times prayer movement. It might discuss ministers of the gospel, but not "intercessory missionaries."

Another example is seen with Isaiah 42:10-15. It is said to be the "clearest picture" of "prophetic singing before Jesus' return." However, context has to be examined here. verses 1-9 had discussed the coming of God's Servant (ie., Christ), and part of this section is quoted by the evangelist Matthew in Mt 12:18-21 and is said by him to have been fulfilled (Mt 12:17) - in other words, it's talking about the first coming of Christ. In light of this news of a coming savior, the prophet Isaiah therefore tells the people to "sing to the LORD a new song" (v. 10). The following sections are in reference to the lands around Judah - where Jews either lived or interacted with the people of - celebrating this news.Like with Isaiah 62:6-7, one cannot see an end times prayer movement here unless it is first assumed.

While perhaps not a big deal, the last part of this use of Isaiah 42 that surprised me was the wording of verse 15 in the notes, which are done with: "I will lay waste [by earthquakes] the mountains..." [emphasis/italics in original]. Actually, look at the full wording of verse 15:

I will lay waste mountains and hills, and dry up all their vegetation; I will turn the rivers into islands, and dry up the pools. [Isaiah 42:15]

The words "lay waste" actually are "dry up" in the original language, and the "mountains and hills" are a synechdoche for the trees on them. The overall context is saying that, through a kind of drought, the Lord will defeat his enemies. It is not talking about an earthquake.

Thirdly, I was also concerned about some of the passages cited in Section IV, regarding the New Testament and "night and day prayer."

For example, Mr. Bickle says that the "order of worship that God commanded David to embrace...is timeless and valid today," and then quotes Matthew 6:10 and highlights "on earth as it is in heaven." However, this isn't saying anything about 24/7 prayer. In fact, this is from the Lord's Prayer, which - after advising us not to pray in overly public ways or commit vain repetition (v. 5-8), Christ states in verse 9: "pray then like this" (or "in this manner" literally). Again, it's not talking about praying in the same fashion the Levites and Temple employees did, let alone committing 24/7 prayer.

Another example is seen with Luke 18:7, which I have noticed seems to be a favorite of many IHOP-KC staff members to validate the growing prayer movement. In the lecture, Bickle attempts to tie it in with Isaiah 62:6 simply because it speaks of "night and day" and "justice." However, a reading of the full context shows what it's really about:

And he told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart. [Luke 18:1; emphasis mine]

Verse 7 is coming off the tail end of the parable, but the parable is said right off the bat to simply be a lesson about how we should pray to God always and not lose heart if prayers are not answered. That is the context of the parable - not an end times prayer movement.

Yet another example is seen with the citation of Paul in 1 Th 3:10, 2 Ti 1:3, and 1 Ti 5:5 which is said to show how the apostle "embraced night and day prayer in various seasons." However, in all these examples, it clearly appears that Paul is using a figure of speech. Are we to believe that the apostle Paul literally prayed 24/7 that he would met with the Thessalonians again and encourage them? Was he literally praying 24/7 for Timothy and nothing or no one else? Was he commanding widows to do nothing in their lives but 24/7 prayer? Was he commanding them to take shifts doing 24/7 prayer as IHOP-KC does? The answer would have to, logically, be no. Paul's use of "night and day" here is not to be taken in a literal 24/7 sense, but in the same sense as a husband might tell his wife, "I'm always thinking about you," while not meaning literally that he's always thinking of her and not the bills, his job, etc.

The final example I'll bring up can be seen in part D of Section IV, and go through it bit by bit:

1) Citing Luke 10:38-42, with the story of Mary and Martha, it is written by Mike Bickle in the notes that "Jesus valued the lifestyle of Mary of Bethany in sitting before him." He combines it in the lecture with Mark 14, even though these are two different stories and were isolated events - not necessarily lifestyles. While Mary lived in honor to the Lord and it cannot be denied she had a good presence in his earthly ministry, it was not night and day prayer that was emphasized in these two stories: in Luke 10, it actually states that Mary was seated and "listened to his teaching" (v. 39) - it was her honoring of God's word that was commended; Mark 14 was about Christ's burial, not about 24/7 prayer.

2) While Cornelius and John the Baptist and the apostles did indeed pray, how are these related to "hourly" prayer, let alone an "end-time" prayer movement? All believers pray, and while some certainly pray more than others, does any mention of a person praying signify that they are doing so in the same manner as a 24/7 prayer movement? It seems like any time prayer is mentioned, it is automatically assumed to be in the same context as what is done at IHOP-KC.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, much of what happens at IHOP-KC and how it operates seems to be grounded upon the personal revelations given to Mike Bickle (1983, Cairo, etc.) and, at times, Bickle's peers. Throughout the lecture, we constantly hear "God is doing this," "now this is happening," "the Spirit is doing this," etc. This seen both in the notes and throughout the spoken part. The very foundation of IHOP-KC was by divine revelation. The very acronym "IHOP" was through divine revelation. Several sections of scripture are read through the lens of IHOP-KC-centered divine revelation. This causes me to want to ask a few questions:

1) How do we know it all comes from God? With what surety do we have? How do we know it was God that Bickle heard in Cairo?

2) Does this not logically mean that any who oppose IHOP-KC and its cause are acting against God? This isn't a matter of a difference of opinions - if God is truly working through IHOP-KC and is using it as an instrument for His end times movement, then there is no in between or gray area for this...those who work against IHOP-KC or oppose its theology, teachings, and causes are working against God and His end times movement.

3) Isn't the authority not truly on scripture, but on our presupposition about what scripture says through the guidance of supposed divine revelations? The last statement in the notes is:

We grow in revelation of the Word gaining insight into His will, ways, and salvation and to understand the unique dynamics of His end-time plan to transition the earth to the age to come. [emphasis in original]

Given that barely any one, in the past 2000 years of church history, has ever received such revelation regarding God and His end-time movement, how is this not reading scripture through a lens? If not, why isn't it?

I look forward to hearing your response.

The KJV and Septuagint: A Comparison

In the late-to-mid third century BC, a group of Jewish translators gathered together in Alexandria to begin a Greek translation of Old Testament books. Because of the tradition that there were around 70 translators assigned to the task, the work was given the name Septuagint (sometimes called LXX, after the Roman numeral). Much later on, in the early seventeenth century AD, a group of English translators would meet to begin the translation of the Authorized Version (AV), which would become known historically as the King James Version (KJV). Since their conceptions, both translations have experienced similar traditions and misconceptions regarding how they developed and what, exactly, they are. Sometimes they are used as a kind of supreme authority or standard, while other times they are worshiped almost like gods. I thought it would be worth going over some of the comparative problems that occur regarding these two translations.

It should be noted that this is examining the beliefs stemming from King James Onlyism and what one might call "Septuagint-Onlyism," or at the very least the more extreme opinions of those who adhere to the Septuagint. This is not meant as an attack against those who personally like the KJV as a favored translation, nor against those who study the Septuagint or appreciate it as a historical document relevant to the study of scripture.

1) The translators were divinely inspired.

The most extreme of KJV-Onlyists believe that God Himself had a hand in the translation of the book, so much so that some have claimed "[so-called] mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation" (pg. 19; Ankerberg). By contrast, the original KJV translators saw themselves in a much more humble light. In an introduction to the first edition of the KJV, entitled The Translators to the Reader, the authors of the KJV said "a variety of translation is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures," meaning that reviewing other translations besides the KJV was helpful in determining the original wording of scripture. One of the guidelines given the translators, in fact, was that they were to review previous translations (including Tyndale's and Geneva's) when dealing with more difficult passages (pg. 71; White). The translators of the original AV certainly did not consider themselves higher or better than any translator who had come before them, nor any that would come after. They considered their translation one in a great line of English translations, and recognized as language developed that many more translations would be needed in the centuries to come.

With the Septuagint, there are many traditions surrounding its creation. One of the most popular is that the 72 translators came from Palestine and were placed on an island until their task was completed. Another tradition says that each translator worked alone, shared their results, and found they had miraculously come out with the exact same wording all 72 times. A more "refined" version of this tradition says that the 72 translators broke up into teams of twos, and each group of twos came up with the exact same wording. However, the language of the Septuagint suggests it was not done by Palestinian Jews, as "there are words and expressions which plainly denote its Alexandrian origin" (pg. ii; Brenton). Also, the tradition regarding the translators breaking up and coming up with the exact same wording for their translation holds little historical merit.

Some have proposed that, because the New Testament writers used the Septuagint, the translation must have a divine source. In fact, the New Testament writers were not always reliant upon the Septuagint:

In the consequence of the fact that the New Testament writers used on many occasions the Septuagint version, some have deduced a new argument for its authority, - a theory which we might have thought to be sufficiently disproved by the defects of the version, which evince that it is merely a human work. But the fact that the New Testament writers used this version on many occasions supplies a new proof in opposition to the idea of its authority, for in not a few places they do not follow it, but they supply a version of their own which rightly represents the Hebrew text, although contradicting the Septuagint. [pg. iv, Brenton]

Some of these changes are fairly minor. For example, in Christ's use of Deuteronomy 6:13 in Matthew 4:10, it states at the end "and serve him only" (NASB). However, the word "only" (monos in the original Greek) is not in the Septuagint translation - it was added here as emphasis, given the context of Christ being tempted to worship Satan.

2) There has only been one version of the translation throughout history.

Many KJV-Onlyists have the idea that the KJV they hold in their hand is the same KJV that was published in 1611, and thus for more than three hundred years the English translation hasn't seen a single change. This simply isn't true - the version which the vast majority of people use today is actually the 1769 edition, completed some 158 years after the first edition of the KJV. Compare Genesis 1:2 with the two versions:

And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. [1611 printing]

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. [1769 printing]

While the overall context stays the same for the most part, there are major changes to spelling and punctuation. There are bigger differences still - for example: Psalm 69:32 originally read "seeke good" in the 1611 edition, while the 1769 edit changed it to "seek God"; Jeremiah 49:1 originally read "inherit God" in the 1611 edition, while the 1769 edit changed it to "inherit Gad."

This doesn't cover that, up until the 1769 edition, there were dozens of editions of the KJV printed. In fact, a new edition of the KJV was printed the very next year, in 1612. These later editions were not always perfect - one contemporary source made the claim that, of the six editions of the KJV printed in the 1650's, over 20,000 errors could be found (pg. 78; White). Some of these were even "embarrassing printing errors":

The 1613 printing omitted the word "not" from the seventh commandment, inadvertently "encouraging" people to commit adultery. This King James edition became known as the "Wicked Bible." Another printing of the KJV became known as the "Unrighteous Bible" because it stated that the unrighteous will inherit the kingdom of heaven. And a few printing errors continue to occur in the KJV and other versions today. [pg. 13; Ankerberg]

In the same fashion, some believe that the Septuagint they hold in their hand is the exact same Septuagint that has been seen throughout history, right from its publication down through the Church Fathers. I touched on this in another post, but it's worth going over again here. In essence, the idea that the copy of what we have today that is known as "the Septuagint" is the same as  what was first translated by the initial seventy translators is simply false. Many seem to think that Church Fathers were walking around with one copy of the Septuagint under their arms, and they were all pretty much the same - such a mindset is likewise false.

For one, the initial translation of the Septuagint was simply the Law, not the entire Old Testament. The rest of the books were translated somewhat piecemeal throughout the next hundred years, and while we don't know the exact date of when all books were completed, the prologue from the Wisdom of Sirach suggests that the entirety of the Old Testament was completed sometime by the second century BC, so that by the time of Christ the Old Testament was readily available in Greek.

Even after this, the history of the Septuagint is not complete, for three major revisions happened afterward: the first, by a Jewish proselyte named Aquila, in the early second century AD; the second, in the late second century AD, by a Jewish convert named Theodotion; the third, by a Samaritan convert to Judaism named Symmachus. The revision by Theodotion is especially important for this discussion, as his version was actually used many times by Church Fathers (such as Justin Martyr) over and against the wording of the "original" Septuagint. His version of Daniel was especially widely used by Christian apologists and theologians. Among the Jews in Asia Minor and the Middle East, the version of the Septuagint by Aquila became popular and was used as their "official" version of the Septuagint well into the Middle Ages.

This is not to say that we have absolutely no idea what the Septuagint said - we simply have to be careful when we say "Church Fathers quoted the Septuagint" or "early Christians used the Septuagint." It's a much more complicated situation than we may realize.

3) The translation is pure and nearly without error.

A lot of people believe that the KJV is the most pure and undefiled version of the Bible available, but the plain facts present a problem with this assumption.

For one, the KJV is based on far less manuscripts than modern-day translations. Whereas today we have over 5500 manuscripts to use in translating and studying the New Testament, the translators of the KJV had only five or six late manuscripts (12th-14th century). While the overall message and theology of the KJV and later manuscripts differs little from modern translations and earlier manuscripts, there are significant results of this. One is the inclusion of major textual variants, many of which are not considered to be part of the earliest manuscripts and readings. The most famous example of this is the longer reading of 1 John 5:7, aka the Comma Johanneum, which was believed to have been introduced through a note on a Latin manuscript and hence is not original.

For another, there are noticeable translation errors within the KJV. Some are perceived contradictions within scripture that do not exist in the original Greek (cf. Acts 9:7 versus 22:9 in the KJV). Others are supposed references to mythical animals, such as unicorns (Nu 23:22, De 33:17, etc.) and satyrs (Isa 13:21; 34:14). Some critics of Christianity have used the KJV's mention of unicorns and satyrs against the Bible, not seeming to realize that the original text doesn't speak of such animals; on the other hand, some KJV-Onlyists, in an attempt to respond to this dilemma, have gone so far as to try to prove unicorns existed!

In regards to the Septuagint, it has been said by some that it is one of the most accurate translations of the Old Testament into another language. In actuality, modern scholars are often critical of the accuracy of some of the books. It must be remembered, as explained earlier, that the Septuagint was a translation over time, with only the books of the Law being completed first, with the others completed bit by bit over time, most likely by different parties. We are able to discern different translators because of the varying skills and styles of translating found within it.

The variety of the translators is proved by the unequal character of the version: some books show that the translators were by no means competent to the task, while others, on the contrary, exhibit on the whole a careful translation. The Pentateuch is considered to be the part the best executed, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the very worst. [pg. iii; Brenton]

Even contemporaries of the Septuagint offered some constructive criticism regarding its language. While discussing the translation of his grandfather's work from the original Hebrew into Greek, the author of the Wisdom of Sirach makes reference to the Septuagint in his introduction:

You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite out diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed.  [source]

Some of the errors in the Septuagint especially came out during Jerome's translation of the original Hebrew text into the Latin Vulgate.

In the early fifth century Jerome provided a fresh translation of the Old Testament in Latin. What made his work unique was that it was based not upon the Greek Septuagint version, but upon the actual Hebrew of the original Old Testament. Jerome was one of the very few early Christians who was able to read both Greek and Hebrew. As he translated from the Hebrew, his version varied both in content (the LXX having some additions and some deletions when compared with the Hebrew text) and in style (Jerome did not feel he had to accept every interpretive translation that was to be found in the Septuagint)...One aspect of his work that caused consternation among the people was that he did not use the traditional translation in the book of Jonah regarding the "gourd." The Hebrew is difficult here, and Jerome decided not to follow the LXX's identification of the plant as the "gourd," but instead followed the Palestinian Jewish understanding and identified it as the caster-oil plant. [pg. 11; White]

Some have attempted to put forward that the Septuagint is a far more accurate translation than the Hebrew Masoretic Text, based on a conspiracy theory that the Jews purposefully changed their scripture to take out all references to Jesus. While it is true that there are some moments in the Masoretic Text where the Jewish scribes clearly wanted to minimize the potential of Christian use, and did so in the process of adding the vowel marks, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shed greater light on the accuracy of the Masoretic Text. It has shown that, by and large, the wording of the Old Testament has remained fairly consistent between the years before Christ and the years after Christ.

Keep in mind that all of this is not saying that the KJV or Septuagint are completely unusable. No translation is perfect, and some are more flawed than others. The key is identifying where these flaws are and being able to deal with them if they come up. It is also important to know, when the enemies of Christ turn to finding flaws in his written word, where they are attacking something on the basis of what is said, and where they are attacking something on the basis of how it was translated.

-------------

Works Cited

Ankerberg, John and John Weldon. The Facts on the King James Only Debate. Eugene: Harvest House, 1996.

Brenton, Sir Lancelot C.L. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009.

White, James. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995.

The False Dichotomy of Romanism versus Protestantism

Oftentimes, either when I read Roman Catholic apologetics or I interact with Roman Catholics, I notice that there is a recurrence of an assumption, and that assumption is actually, when one gets right down to it, a logical fallacy. Permit me to explain...

In the world of logical fallacies, there is a particular fallacy known as a false dichotomy, also known as a false dilemma. This belief teaches that there are a limited number of options (most popularly two), when in fact more options exist or can exist. For example, it would be a false dichotomy to say "In American politics, you're either a Republican or you're a Democrat" when a person could also be a member of a major third party, such as the Libertarians.

It should be quickly noted that there are indeed times when the options are limited, and in such a case a false dichotomy does not automatically exist. For example, if you go to a restaurant and the waiter asks "Soup or salad?", you can't immediately say "That's a false dichotomy!" simply because there are two options - the restaurant does indeed only have two options there.

However, in the case of churches and forms of what calls itself Christianity worldwide, many within the realm of Roman Catholic apologetics appear to believe that there are either two options: Roman Catholicism (or at the very least, loyalty to the Roman bishop) or one of the Protestant sects. This is a false dichotomy because this is not the only option available. In addition to Roman Catholicism, one can likewise choose Eastern Orthodoxy, the Coptic Church, or even the Church of the East (traditionally labeled "Nestorians" although they have denied believing in the historical definition). This is but a sample of other groups who make similar claims as the Roman Catholic Church, such as apostolic succession or a form of holy tradition. If one wants to go to the "church of the apostles," then, certainly on a surface level, there are a number of churches to choose from.

Now, I am not writing this post to necessarily support one side over and against another, however this factor is something that often gets ignored in Roman Catholic/Protestant dialogues, especially since the Roman Catholic side often attempts to woo the Protestant side towards a single church. This often happens under the rationale of the false dichotomy mentioned in this post - in fact, oftentimes it appears as if the Roman Catholic apologist is either completely unaware of the other "apostolic" churches, or is intentionally avoiding them. This especially comes out when said other churches are brought into the equation, and the responses I have encountered vary, depending on the maturity of the individual Roman Catholic: some ultimately stumble, because all the prize arguments ("we're the church of the apostles," "we're the church founded by God," etc.) suddenly come under scrutiny and there is no other defense; some attempt to shrug it off or be dismissive, which, when pressed with the differences between the churches, causes them to likewise stumble; some will try to find similarities between the churches to minimize the differences (for example, comparing Purgatory to Aerial Toll Houses), not realizing that these similarities are superficial at best and, when reviewing the worldview of the two churches, prove to be completely incompatible; those who are intellectually honest will have to confess that those churches likewise are in error, and will then have to defend themselves over and against the other "apostolic" options.

In the end, Protestants can probably take joy in the thoughts of someone I was once speaking with over this very issue: "It's refreshing to know Rome isn't the only One True Church I'm missing out on."

Richard III Theology

Some demotivational posters inspired by Shakespeare's The Tragedy of Richard III. It's my favorite Shakespeare play, and I was recently inspired by it with the news that they supposedly found his remains over in Britain.

The screenshots are taken from the excellent Ron Cook portrayal of the title character in a BBC production, which can be viewed in its entirety here.

John Bunyan and Perseverance of the Saints

The following is from John Bunyan's masterful work Pilgrim's Progress.

Then I saw in my dream, that the Interpreter took Christian by the hand, and led him into a place where was a fire burning against a wall, and one standing by it, always casting much water upon it, to quench it; yet did the fire burn higher and hotter.

Then said Christian, What means this?

The Interpreter answered, This fire is the work of grace that is wrought in the heart; he that casts water upon it, to extinguish and put it out, is the devil: but in that thou seest the fire, notwithstanding, burn higher and hotter, thou shalt also see the reason of that. So he had him about to the back side of the wall, where he saw a man with a vessel of oil in his hand, of the which he did also continually cast (but secretly) into the fire.

Then said Christian, What means this?

The Interpreter answered, This is Christ, who continually, with the oil of his grace, maintains the work already begun in the heart; by the means of which, notwithstanding what the devil can do, the souls of his people prove gracious still (2 Cor. 12:9). And in that thou sawest that the man stood behind the wall to maintain the fire; this is to teach thee, that it is hard for the tempted to see how this work of grace is maintained in the soul. [source]

Did Jews ever consider the apocrypha scripture?

The following is from Against Apion, by Flavius Josephus. It sheds light into how Jews in the time of Christ considered the books considered by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and other groups to be canon, as well as how serious the Jews took the word of God and preserved them.

It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willing to die for them. [1:8; source]

Questions on Salvation

On an internet forum, I had responded to some questions concerning salvation, and I decided to repost it here on my blog. The questions asked are the ones in bold.

What do you have to do to be saved?

Let's make something clear: the act of salvation is the work of God. Paul states in Romans 3 that there are no righteous, no not one, and all have fallen short of the glory of God (v. 10 and 23); he likewise states in Ephesians 2 that we are dead men and (literally in the Greek) "objects of wrath" before God (v. 1-3). What happens then is a regeneration of our heart - as Paul said: "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved" (Eph 2:5). While we were dead, God made us alive - God had to raise us spiritually in order for us to be saved, hence sola gratia. This regeneration causes a person to confess faith in God, as the apostle John wrote:

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. [Jn 1:12-13]

A lot of people like to quote v. 12 and forget what happens in v. 13: the apostle clarifies that a person is not a child of God because they were born by blood (that is, you're saved because you're a Jew, or because you're in a Christian family), nor by the will of flesh (that is, your works), nor by the will of man (that is, your own individual will to believe), but you are born of God - that is, by God's will. This is what our Lord meant when he told Nicodemus one had to be "born again" to see the kingdom of God (Jn 3:3). We owe nothing to ourselves and all to God the Father and the atoning work of Christ - soli deo gloria and solus christus.

Now one thing we have seen here likewise is the importance of faith. When we turn to Christ, we are justified by his blood through our faith, and we are counted as righteous in Christ. As the apostle Paul wrote: "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (Ro 4:4-5).

Once you are saved, does that mean that you're automatically going to heaven?

Those who are God's sheep will never be lost, as Christ said:

"I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." [Jn 10:28-29]

The apostle Paul likewise wrote:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. [Ro 8:31-39]

Now if by "automatically going to heaven" you mean that's it, you got your ticket punched and you're going to heaven no matter what you do, even if it's murder, then that's wrong. People often confuse the doctrine of OSAS with Perseverance of the Saints, but they're not the same. Perseverance does not mean you're clear to go no matter what: part of the perseverance is that you will be sanctified more and more by God, approaching closer and closer that state of glory - you'll never be sinless, but more and more you'll find you can sin less. A lot of people like to quote Philippians 2:12, but can't seem to grasp that it's only half a sentence. The full passage from Paul reads:

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. [Php 2:12-13]

Yes, after being saved, we do things for our betterment or to show we are saved (as a pastor of mine once said, we're not "chosen to be frozen"), but it's not because of something we have to do or something we are capable of doing - it's because God is working within us and perfecting us, and He will see this through. As the apostle Paul said: "he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Php 1:6).

What if you commit a mortal sin after you are saved?

A Christian is judged by their fruits - a person who has a heart regenerated towards God will not go out and seek to kill someone, or steal a car, or the like. He might have those temptations, he might come close, but as seen before, God will preserve him from all acts that would violate this.

I know it's not popular for some to suggest that a statement of faith can be false, or that we can judge whether or not a person is truly saved, but I believe this to be scriptural. The Lord speaks of those who call him "Lord, Lord," and yet were never known by him (Mt 7:22-23). If you study the language the apostle John uses against Diotrephes (3 Jn 1:9-11) and Jude uses against the heretics and false teachers (Jude 1:17-21), you'll see they are questioning whether or not the individuals were truly Christians to begin with.

I am getting confused. Does the person have a choice in the matter? Do they only choose once?

If by choice you mean the heresy of Semi-Pelagianism where God gives a general offer and a person, by their own power, chooses, then no. If you mean does man do anything, then yes, but it is only by the grace of God. As Paul said in Ephesians 2, we are dead men before regeneration - it is God who brings us to life, not ourselves. However, once we are regenerated, then we turn and come to Christ, and are kept preserved by him. As the Lord said: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44). In the original Greek, it literally reads "no one has the power to come to me," and the drawing is not a passive thing, but is an effectual calling upon the person (the word literally means "dragging"), and the end result is that, on the last day, that person is raised up.

I'm not quite certain I know what you mean by "only choose once." A person repents and puts their faith in Christ only once, yes, though they will continue to turn to Christ for repentance and strength their entire life - again, an aspect of the "perseverance." They rest in the knowledge that they have a high priest who "always lives to make intercession for them" (Heb 7:25). 

An Interview with a Former IHOP-KC Member

During my Prayer and Prophetic Conference tweets, I entered conversation with one of my twitter followers, a gentleman named Ryan. He admitted that he had used to belong to the International House of Prayer, and so I asked if he would be willing to share his experiences by answering some questions.

Below are the questions I asked him, followed by his answers.

1) When did you first encounter or hear about the International House of Prayer?

At the bible college I attended in Dallas called "Christ for the Nations Institute" they had a prayer room that was an extension of IHOP and many of the IHOP leaders came to speak at the school to the students frequently and every year they would have a prayer conference with IHOP leaders.

2) What inspired you to pursue it?

I wanted to have a dynamic relationship with Christ. I wanted to hear his voice and have the kind of relationship that they described where you can see Christ face to face and hear his actual voice. I wanted to experience Christ. I wanted to feel the spirit. I wanted a living faith that I could touch and feel.

3) What were your initial experiences there?

I found it very frustrating as they were promising me that if i pressed in to prayer, then these gift would be given to me. I found that prayer was a work, and these gifts seemed like a wage from that work. If only I prayed longer, harder, more sincere, with more faith always more more more...and yet I still felt none of the gifts they promised.

4) What were your experiences as time progressed? How were you involved?

I began to lead worship in the prayer room and since I worked overnight security, on my nights off I would be in the prayer room all night to lead worship and to "keep the candle burning of prayer" for the prayer room. All night I would be there and pray and lead worship, still, I never felt any of the gifts that were promised.

5) What did they teach you while you were there? Anything out of the ordinary, compared to other churches?

they taught me that by faith I could literally ascend into heaven and we had this teaching from Bob Sorge that I will never forget where he was trying to teach us that by faith we could slide into the godhead and cuddle between God the Father and the Son, like a child getting between two parents. We could stop natural disasters, wars, heal anyone in the world at any time, provided we had enough faith. We could have rapturious visions and trances. We practiced cataphatic prayer, centering prayer, breath prayer, Lectio Divina any and all aspects of Roman Catholic Monastic Mysticism. We were the super Christians, the "revealed Sons of God" that all creation had been groaning for. God was waiting for us to rise up.

6) Did you ever feel any kind of "pressure" regarding your time there?

Yes, if you were not praying enough, then something was wrong with you. Guilt was a major motivating factor in my experience. There were all these wonderful things promised to you, and God cannot lie, so if they don't happen, then it is your fault. You didn't pray long enough, press in enough, believe enough, have enough faith so forth and so on. Much of my time was spent in tears as none of these things promised were happening to me. I felt that Jesus just didn't love me enough to bless me in the way he promised. I guess the leaders have never had that experience of crying and crying out to God what is wrong with me that you don't love me like you love others? Why do you not want me Jesus? Why do you not love me? I want to hear you yet you are not speaking to me.but again and again, if only i pressed in more and longer and harder etc. I would have these things...and hour after hour nothing. If it was not for grace, this could have destroyed my faith as I very easily and at times thought this whole christian thing was a lie. However, the grace of christ kept me in the fact that christ has risen and we have the only historically verifiable faith in the world. I could not leave.

7) When was the first time you began to feel things were not right?

The more I read the scriptures, the more I studied hermeneutics and learned how to study my scriptures, the more I applied the rules of hermeneutics to the scriptures, the more they taught me that what I was learning from them was wrong. I began to see how out of context these verses were and that they simply could not mean what they were telling me they meant. When I tried to show them using proper hermeneutics either I was told I was "quenching the spirit" or that I did not have a "revelation" on these verses like they did. or I needed to understand the special spiritual meaning of the verse.

8) What convinced you to abandon the International House of Prayer and its movement?

I realized that what they were doing was anti-scriptural. As I began to study church history I realized the pool that they were fishing from was Roman Catholic Monastic Mysticism, not biblical protestant (never mind reformed) Christianity. I realized that what they were teaching was closer to the New Age Movement than Biblical Christianity.I realized that Christ had already blessed me with every spiritual blessing and that I was complete in Christ. did not have to work to earn his love or to be closer in him. he died for me when I was a dead man. I can't by my works earn a greater closeness, he loved me and gave me himself, the holy spirit and every spiritual gift while I was still a sinner. He wanted me to rest in him, not work to earn more of him. I had Christ, and I finally realized it. So I left.

9) What did you experience leaving the International House of Prayer?

Besides always being referred to as "a spirit quencher" I was seen as a less than. However, I felt a burden lifted off of me. I had Christ and it didn't matter how I felt, I had Christ by faith and all his benefits by union with him. I no longer felt like I had to work to earn his love or his closeness. I truly had rest in him. Prayer was now a joy for me, not a work.

10) Do you have anything to say to those currently involved with IHOP-KC or its related movements and ministries?

I love you and so does Christ, however, you are in a movement that is not just in error, but dangerously so. the well where this water comes from is stained with false prophets, heretics, mystics and schismatics. If you have faith in Christ, you have everything in him. I know you have experienced things i cannot understand. I also know that Satan comes as an angel of light. Please do not let your experience be your guide to scripture, let the scriptures be your guide to your experience. Please study your scriptures they way they were designed to be studied with proper hermeneutics with a proper guide in Church history and leave this movement. prayer is vital and important yes, piety is vital and important yes, holiness is vital and important yes, but they do not teach true prayer, true piety or true holiness. test what I say apart from your experience and test it by the word. I know that you will find these words true.

Things Jesus Never Said

All credits to the original meme maker.

Madden Theology

I was joking last night with some people regarding John Madden and how he would interpret various branches of Christian theology in his usual football rhetoric, and...well, it escalated...

So imagine, if you will, if John Madden was a...

Monergist

Synergist

Charismatic

Roman Catholic

Eastern Orthodox

Liberal Christian

Emergent

Dispensationalist