When You Decide Who God Is

A few days ago, I had quite the experience at a local pub here in Hampton Roads. I was spending some time unwinding after work, having a drink and reading Martin Luther's famous Bondage of the Will. Suddenly, I was brought into a conversation by three people: one gentleman by himself; and a couple. In terms of being able to handle a conversation between adults, I might from now on call these three (in order of the gentleman, the woman, and the man) by the names of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Bad and Ugly were obviously intoxicated (Ugly even more so), and so I tried to minimize my time speaking to them by speaking with Good instead. This proved to be a fruitless endeavor, given that Bad often interrupted Good, and Ugly spent much of his time leaning against me and murmuring things like "Your arguments are really bad" (he never said why) or "I don't want to talk to you any more" (apparently he couldn't just go anywhere else in the pub, which was empty). He was also doing small, annoying things like pinching my cheek and saying "You're so cute," or randomly tugging on the straps on the shoulders of my shirt. The amount of times Ugly made physical contact with me, in fact, gave me a brief fright that I was either going to have to call the police or reinterpret the meaning of "laying on of hands."

The range of topics between the four of us was everything from the morality of "self pleasure," to Calvinism, to whether the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds, to the nature of canon. The part that stuck out for me, however, was near the end, when Good asked me if I believed in "religion or relationship." I attempted to explain that this was really a false dichotomy, given God is the initiator of faith (and thus religion), and therefore it's a much more complicated matter (which is probably worth a future blog post!). Bad then cut in, declaring herself "Catholic," and saying that she liked going to liturgy because it appealed to her.

"It satisfies me, and that's what's important!" she said.

I then asked, "So you're saying that with worship it's more important to satisfy you rather than God?"

"No!" Bad retorted. "Don't misuse my words!"

"But that's what you said," I replied, "you said the important part was that it satisfied you. That just isn't scriptural."

"Well," she said, changing the subject (or trying to), "I just can't believe that my Jewish friends are going to hell, because they don't believe in Jesus!"

"Then you're at odds with Christ," I said, "because he said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me,' and 'he who is ashamed of me and my words, I will be ashamed of him before the Father.'"

To this, Bad said, "But you can't handle the Bible like that!"

"Why not?" I immediately asked. "Jesus quoted God's word against the devil. He quoted it against the Pharisees and Sadducees. The apostles quoted it against the Jews and Gentiles. Acts says that when Paul went into a new town, the first thing he would do is go to the local synagogue and reason with them from the scriptures. The standard was the word of God, and at this moment you are opposed to it."

Bad's response to this, and I quote:

"I don't care!"

Later on, as I drove away from the pub and headed back home, I pondered on what had just happened. Aside from the fact that I felt like I had just experienced firsthand an episode of Wretched Radio's Witness Wednesday, the words of Bad came back to me, and I realized that this is the battle cry of man's unregenerate state before God, and when faced with the truth of who God is they will turn violent and defensive. In retrospect, this seems to be the sad cleverness behind the lie of postmodernity: it offers a friendly answer but demonstrates no substance of truth; it plays the scholar while acting the fool.

Worst of all, this theology presents what appears to be a peaceful facade - a supposed ability to solve all the world's problems by pretending these problems aren't there - but in doing so, sacrifice the truth, and become enemies of it. I think it was part of the providence of God that the part of Bondage of the Will I was reading touched somewhat on this very subject; Luther writes, "To want to quell these tumults, therefore, is really to want to remove the Word of God and stop its course" (pg. 91). And likewise, "When we abandon [holy truths], we abandon God, faith, salvation, and all of Christianity!" (ibid) When we throw out the truth standard which God has put in place, then there is no standard, and every man is his own god, because every man is permitted to define god by his own standards.

What happens, then, when this cloak covering evil and error is removed, and the nakedness is exposed? Frankly, nothing much can be done or said. This is why there is nothing left to say except that which Bad said to me that night, when she declared "I don't care!" Here the facade of peace is removed, and the hostility is shown for what it is. Far from seeking truth, the rejection of the true God and His word is revealed to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear. The standard then becomes one we invent, based on what we decide to be truth (even if it is no truth). we in essence base God not around His word and truth, but our word and truth, and hence we place ourselves as the more important factor in worship over and against God. This is rank idolatry, of course, and it is this god which so many today worship. When this god feels threatened, its hostility lashes out at those who dare question its authority, and any gentleness the god has proclaimed to have is shown to be false. As Martin Luther wrote: "The world and its god cannot and will not bear the Word of the true God" (ibid). If, as Fulton Sheen once said, atheism is a cry of wrath, then postmodernity may be called a cry of rebellion.

Moments like what I experienced can no doubt be disheartening, and it can make us feel that we should join those passive voices which have submitted to this worldly theology. However, let us not cease to defend the truth, regardless of who it might opposing us or however they may choose to oppose us. The last word on this shall go to Martin Luther:

"Doctrinal truth should be preached always, openly, without compromise, and never dissembled or concealed."

---------
Quotations from Bondage of the Will are taken from the translation by J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston, published by Baker Academic.

Therapeutic Theology IV: A New "D'oh!"

Hi folks. Over on the left here, you'll see another one of those little images we've reviewed before, with text saying "Faith; It doesn't make things easy; It makes things possible," citing Luke 1:37 as the source of the quote. Is this what the text actually says? Well, as we always do with these posts, let's see the actual context:

For nothing will be impossible with God. [Luke 1:37]

Wait, where's faith being talked about? Where are we talked about? Huh?

Let's now see the real context:

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. [Luke 1:35-38]

Here we see the angel's response to Mary's famous question: "How can I get pregnant if I'm a virgin?" The angel explains the machinations of the virgin birth, the pregnancy of elderly Elizabeth, and ends it all with "for nothing will be impossible with God."

Now let's answer some simple questions:

1) Is this verse about faith? No, it's about the virgin birth and Elizabeth's own child-bearing, despite her old age - both of which wasn't reliant upon faith, but the actions of God.

2) Does this verse say that faith doesn't make things easy? Again, it's not about faith. We're not even the subject, but God is.

3) Does this verse say faith makes things possible? Yet again, it isn't about faith, let how faith effects our lives.

In summary, what we have here is a verse actually about the power of God being made about us, and for the sake of making people feel better upon reading it. Bluntly put, this is a terrible - and disrespectful - use of God's word.

Therapeutic Theology III: The Lost Context

Well, friends, it's time once again to review one of those silly images shared on social media that take a passage of scripture and turn it into some feel good therapeutic nonsense. This one says: "God can restore what is broken and change it into something amazing. All you need is faith." It claims to come from Joel 2:25.

As we always do, let's see the original wording of the verse:

I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten, the hopper, the destroyer, and the cutter, my great army, which I sent among you.

Huh...so God can restore what is broken, eh? I assume what's broken is...uh...whatever the locusts, hoppers, destroyers, cutters, and God's great army ate? And where in the heck does faith fit into the picture? Do I need faith to handle the locust problem? Uh...I'm really confused here.

All right, so already we see a problem. Let's review the real context of the passage:

Then the Lord became jealous for his land and had pity on his people. The Lord answered and said to his people, "Behold, I am sending to you grain, wine, and oil, and you will be satisfied; and I will no more make you a reproach among the nations.

I will remove the northerner far from you, and drive him into a parched and desolate land, his vanguard into the eastern sea, and his rear guard into the western sea; the stench and foul smell of him will rise, for he has done great things.

Fear not, O land; be glad and rejoice, for the Lord has done great things! Fear not, you beasts of the field, for the pastures of the wilderness are green; the tree bears its fruit; the fig tree and vine give their full yield.

Be glad, O children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God, for he has given the early rain for your vindication; he has poured down for you abundant rain, the early and the latter rain, as before.

The threshing floors shall be full of grain; the vats shall overflow with wine and oil. I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten, the hopper, the destroyer, and the cutter, my great army, which I sent among you.

You shall eat in plenty and be satisfied, and praise the name of the Lord your God, who has dealt wondrously with you. And my people shall never again be put to shame. You shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God and there is none else. And my people shall never again be put to shame." [Joel 2:18-27]

So is this about God taking something broken and making it all better, and all you need is faith? Actually no, it isn't at all about that. The Jewish people had been called to repent, and this section takes place after said repentance would happen, and presents the promises which shall be fulfilled. The Lord promises to remove the plague of locusts that had come upon the people (see Joel 1:4), and proceeds to make promises for relief and joy...even eternal promises - promises which many commentators (even Jewish ones) believe to be about the age of the Messiah. The rest of the chapter continues on speaking of eternal rest in God and a prediction of Pentecost and the apostolic era.

This is all a fairly brief explanation, I know, but the overall premise is fairly well seen and clear in the entire reading. To be frank, these therapeutic interpretations of scripture are simply getting more and more removed from the original context. Please people, stop sharing these things!

Whose Faith is Truly Special?

A while ago, I entered a discussion with someone that covered the topic of synergism versus monergism. The accusation was made my way that my theology turned men into prideful beings, as they looked upon their faith as though it made them better than others with no faith.

My response was that "my theology" (not that I myself invented it, or it rises and falls on my account, but rather it is the theology to which I adhere) could hardly make men prideful. For one, it was given to men as a gift, on account of nothing that they did (cf. Eph 2:8-9). For another, this gift was given completely undeserved. The Lord could have bypassed Tony-Allen and left him an unregenerated sinner, and He would have been perfectly just in doing so - instead, He effectually called him into the fold, for no other reason than His purpose and will (cf. Rom 9:10-11), and owing to nothing but His mercy (cf. Rom 9:18).

Upon what basis can I place my pride? That I was a sinner worthy of damnation? That our blessed Lord had to die to atone for sins which I could never repay? That Jesus Christ, the Son of God, had to suffer on my behalf and fulfill all requirements of the Law, because I could not do it myself? That it was by the working of the Spirit that my heart was regenerated and not because I was smarter, kinder, or more holy to do it myself? Where in all this can I truly have pride? How can I look upon my faith as proving I'm better than someone without faith when I recognize: 1) that faith is not my own to begin with; 2) sans this faith and regeneration given by God, I would be no different than the person without faith?

I then told the person that it was their own theology, in fact, which led to prideful thinking. This was because they say that God calls to everyone, and pleads with everyone, and it's up to us to respond of our own power (a rather Semi-Pelagian position). What, then, made them so much more smarter and better than the atheist next door? What made them different than a person who rejects the gospel to their dying day? They would have to be intellectually honest and say that it's because they were somehow better, smarter, or more receptive of the gospel. They were, in essence, somehow better than the other person.

I recognize, of course, that few synergistic testimonies are about how great and wonderful they are, and most synergists are themselves humble Christians. However, their position in regards to salvation - when truly examined - states that part of their salvation was owed to them. They contributed to it. Even if it was a mere 1% out of 99%, they were still responsible for that 1%, without which God would have failed. They were able to contribute 1% by their own accord, making themselves better and, in some respects, far more religious than those who rejected God and did not fulfill that 1%. My position, on the other hand, states that God's contribution was 100% His doing. I offered nothing to the table except my own sin, for which God had to suffer, atone for, and then absolve by grace through faith, bringing me to repentance. There is no room for me to be prideful.

Some might say, "But can't you be prideful that God chose you over someone else?" I respond by repeating what I mentioned earlier: that Christ had to die for me in the first place, to atone for my sins, shames me from any possible pride. With the idea of election comes the responsibility of recognizing that your atonement was paid for at a price (cf. 1 Cor 7:23). I am no more prideful that God granted me faith, at the cost of Christ's sacrifice, than I am prideful that I love today in freedom because an American soldier in a foreign land died on my account. My salvation was paid for with the atoning blood of Christ, and there is no pride that can be taken from that.

There is only one thing I am prideful one, but it is not pride of my own, but pride I throw upon God, the one who took on flesh, dwelt among us, and gave Himself so that my betrothed and I can be among His flock. All glory that could possibly go to me I redirect to the Lord, and all who desire salvation I point towards Him. God bless.

"When a Jihadist Calls"

Christian apologist David Wood goes through some 40+ messages on his phone...

Revelation Apart from the Word

The following is taken from RC Sproul's article "The Establishment of Scripture," from the 2009 edition of Ligonier Ministries' Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible.

The claims of private revelations are many. Pat Robertson has routinely received a "word of knowledge" on national television. He says God reveals specific illnesses of people who live in various parts of the nation as he prays. I have seen him say things like, "Someone in Topeka, Kansas, is being healed of a goiter right this moment." This is an astonishing thing. Here is a man hundreds of miles from the scene who is getting supernatural revelation of the healing of a specific disease in a specific city. But what puzzles me is the restricted specificity of these revelations. The disease and the city are named, but never the name and address of the person being healed. Consequently, the prophecy can be neither verified nor disproved.

Oral Roberts once told the nation that God had revealed to him that his life would be taken if he didn't raise a large amount of money in donations. Robert Tilton promised his constituents that he would mail them a special message from God if they sent in their donations. These, of course, are crude forms of modern claims to added revelation. How these claims can be entertained by the credulous is a matter of consternation for me.

But it gets more subtle. We hear respected Christian leaders claiming that God has "spoken to them" and given specific guidance and instructions they are duty-bound to obey. They are careful to note that this divine speech was not in audible form and there is a disclaimer that this is not new "revelation." Yet the message that is "laid on the heart" is so clear and powerful that to disobey it is to disobey the voice of God. I am not speaking here of the work of the Holy Spirit, by which He illumines the text of Scripture in such a sharp manner as to bring us under conviction or direct our paths; in such times, the Spirit works in the Word and through the Word. I am speaking of the voice of the Spirit that men claim is working apart from the Word and in addition to the Word.

Though such claims are more often than not attended by the disclaimer that they are not revelation, the way they function is as revelation, so that the distinction between them and bona fide revelation is, in actuality, a distinction without a difference. [pg. 56]

My Testimony at Long for Truth

A few days ago, I was interviewed on the podcast Long for Truth about my spiritual journey (and what a journey it was to say the least). If you'd like to hear it, always wondered what I sounded like, or you wonder how many times a person can say "you know" in 45-minutes time, here is the link to the podcast below.

What is Fellowship?

Recently I encountered an interesting definition of the word "fellowship." A gentleman was using the term in reference to the relationship between believers and unbelievers, and the ability for believers to befriend and witness to unbelievers and sinners. Is this the case? Is this a proper definition of "fellowship"?

One of the first mentions of "fellowship" in scripture is in regards to the early Christians, a use that is repeated in Paul's letters:

And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. [Acts 2:42]

And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. [Galatians 2:9]

The word used here both times for "fellowship" is the Greek word κοινωνία, which refers to a kind of communion or partnership. It comes from the noun word κοινωνός, which means a "sharer" or "companion," and hence signifies some level of intimacy. Within the New Testament, various forms of κοινωνία are used about nineteen times. At times it references a contribution (Ro 15:26; 2 Co 9:13), other times a kind of sharing or participation with something else (1 Co 10:16; 2 Co 6:14; Php 3:10; He 13:16). Many more times, however, it is seen as fellowship among believers or with God. 

Let's see many of the serious verses which use the word seen in Acts and Galatians:

God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship [κοινωνίαν] of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. [1 Corinthians 1:9]

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship [κοινωνία] of the Holy Spirit be with you all. [2 Corinthians 13:14]

The life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship [κοινωνίαν] with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. [1 John 1:2-3]

If we say we have fellowship [κοινωνίαν] with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship [κοινωνίαν] with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.[1 John 1:6-7]

The most important aspect of fellowship, seen in these verses, is that it is among believers, and this is because of the fellowship held between the individual believer and God. That is, because the individual believer is in fellowship with God, so too are all individual believers in fellowship with one another, because of that union with God. It is our union with God that enables us to have union with one another, and we have fellowship through the common faith we share and our unity in the common God.

Is it possible, therefore, for believers and unbelievers to have "fellowship"? Quite the contrary, and no where does scripture make such a possible connection. Believers and unbelievers cannot have fellowship because the unbeliever does not have fellowship with the Trinitarian God. While it is proper for us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Mt 5:44), as well as to assist our enemy in times of need so that we "heap burning coals on his head" (Pr 25:21-22; Ro 12:20), and we should of course witness to those who are lost...we cannot have the same relationship with unbelievers that we have with believers. My spending time with coworkers after my shift ends is not the same thing as having a meal with a family from my church - that's just the reality. We call the bonding between believers "fellowship" because, like the origins of the Greek word suggests, we are "sharers" in faith and belief, united by a common God. This kind of experience cannot happen outside of companionship with believers - in fact, there are times when it can be downright dangerous, hence Jude's warning to "show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh" (Jude 1:23).

When we try to decide how scripture defines a certain word, we must strive to avoid our own personal definitions, or definitions that have been given to us from anywhere other than scripture. We must permit scripture to speak for itself, and not strive to speak for it. God bless.

Therapeutic Theology II: The Revenge

I came across another one of these images on a social media site which shall remain nameless. It cites Romans 8:28 and reads: "God can turn around any situation." I just did some cross referencing in the Bible, and realized that, once again, we had an example of therapeutic theology robbing a verse of its context and reading into some feel good mentality that distracts people from the true meaning.

First, let's look at the original wording of the verse:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. [Romans 8:28]

All right, so maybe this is a little more in context than the previous image we looked at. Now, let's look at the full context - and I do mean the full context.

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. [Romans 8:18-30]

What is this talking about? Is this talking about God taking your flat tire on the highway and making your day all brighter? Is it saying that it doesn't matter if they put toppings on your hamburger (when you clearly said not to put any on there) since God will make you smile later on? Is it saying that it doesn't matter if someone's texting and talking while you're trying to watch Les Miserables, because God will help you enjoy the movie nonetheless? Actually, no. In fact, starting in verse 18, Paul even confesses that there are sufferings, but that it doesn't matter compared to the glory revealed to us (that is, salvation). He then talks of how the Spirit assists us during these sufferings, and then says: "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." Does this mean, however, God can make our day better? Actually no, given the following verse, which is the famous golden chain of redemption. This means that God makes all spiritual things work out for good, because no matter how bad our sufferings might be. It is saying that regardless of what a Christian encounters that will cause him to feel despair and a loss of hope, that we can find joy and peace in the knowledge that we are in the hands of a God who will never let us go, and who will see us through to the end.

As I said in the previous post, this sort of thing does nothing but sacrifice the true meaning of God's word in exchange for emotionalism and "feel good" theology. Yes, I'm sure this image brightened the day for some people...but at what cost? And what does it ultimately teach them in regards to the treatment of God's word?

Silly Arguments Part III

Well kids, we've been graced yet again by face palming Picard, which means it must be time again for another silly argument.

I saw the image on the left shared on social media. It's a sign held up that reads: "Claiming that someone else's marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you're on a diet." I thought I would provide a brief response to it.

Firstly, the analogy here makes no sense. A person is on a diet to abstain from food - they would only be angry at the doughnut eater because they might desire the doughnut themselves. By contrast, people opposed to same sex marriage are not desiring it (let alone homosexual fornication) for themselves. The reason one might oppose homosexuality based on religious beliefs is not because of personal preference or abstinence, but because it contradicts divine truths. Comparing it to a doughnut being eaten while someone's on a diet is truly comparing apples with oranges.

Secondly, no one's "angry." Well OK, the Westboro cult, maybe, but they're special any way.

Thirdly, some might contend that the picture is trying to say, "Religious people are against same sex marriage because they think it's wrong, same as those who follow a diet think eating a doughnut is wrong." Even with this understanding, however, the analogy completely fails, because even those on a diet might recognize a doughnut as a legitimate food to eat (even if unhealthy), whereas a person who upholds belief in a Divine Creator, who has designed the natural order, are opposed to same sex marriage on the grounds that it is completely contradictory to said natural order. A closer analogy would be a person on a diet advising another person not to eat a rubber tire.

Truth be told, and being perfectly blunt, this is a really, really, really, really, really, reeeeeeally bad argument. I saw this being shared and people saying "Wow, that's awesome!" in response, and couldn't help but think...really, people? And some of these people were individuals who claimed to be Christians - do they truly not understand the difference between being on a diet and believing in a just, holy, righteous God?

We seriously need to pray for them.