Podcast: Steve Kelly and God Visions

Here is the latest podcast, in which I review a Steve Kelly sermon talking about how we can obtain and keep our "God vision."


Here is the link to my podcast on Steve Kelly's cultic teachings regarding church leadership.

Podcast: Design of Providence

Here is the latest podcast, where I go through 2 Kings 18-19 and speak on God's providence and His sovereignty in all things.

The Sham of Love Equality

When the Supreme Court met a while ago to begin deliberation on the issue of DOMA and Prop-8, and then released their recent decisions on both, I saw some of the usual repeated mantras over social media. "Hooray for love equality!" some said. Others put up the equal-sign for their profile pic, saying to their friends, "This means I favor equal rights for all!" And then there is the "Equal Love; Equal Rights" slogan that many have repeated. Yet when I have engaged this worldview in discussion and dialogue, I can't help but notice that there is a certain level of hypocrisy and inconsistency found within.

The biggest problem is where this presupposition defines marriage, which boils down to "two people feeling emotionally satisfied with one another." The idea is that if two people of the same gender feel satisfied in one another, then why shouldn't they be allowed to be together and even marry? It's the classic "who cares so long as the person's happy" fallacy. If you attempt to qualify marriage in any way (the interaction of the genders, the ability to procreate and produce families, the need for a mother and father figure on the child, etc.), they find all that unnecessary, and toss it out. They demand that we make the definition of marriage be the satisfaction found in a union between two people.

Of course, what happens when this same standard used for homosexuals, and this same definition of marriage, is applied to other areas? What of "intergenerational" relationships, such as between a 50-year old man and a 15-year old boy? If it is entirely consensual, and the two feel emotionally satisfied, why is it wrong? If a brother and sister fall in love and decide to marry in an "interfamilial" relationship, and the two feel emotionally satisfied with one another, why is it wrong? Shouldn't any and all examples of two people feeling emotionally satisfied be permitted and accepted by the government under the law? This isn't even covering the issue of why, if it's possible for more than two people to feel satisfied together, polygamy should be illegal.

When these issues are brought up, usually two responses are given:

1) Straw men. People will accuse you of equating homosexuality with pedophilia, incest, polygamy, etc. The fact is, this isn't what we are doing - no one is saying that all homosexuals are pedophiles and vice versa, or that homosexuality and incest are the same thing. What we are attempting to do is to show the shallowness of this marriage definition, and just how weak a position it is by taking the same presupposition and presenting it in a similar situation. This is especially important as, at the time of this writing, those who promote "interfamilial," "intergenerational" and polygamous marriage make the exact same arguments made by those who promote same sex marriage. Why does the position of "equal love; equal rights" not work for them?

2) Inconsistency. The person who just a moment ago did not like you qualifying marriage...will now begin to qualify marriage. They might bring forward reasons why an elder and a minor shouldn't be married, or why siblings shouldn't be married, or why a marriage shouldn't involve more than two people - and some of their reasons might be perfectly valid and legitimate. The problem is that they are holding "interfamilial" and "intergenerational" marriages on a different standard than they are same sex marriage. On the one hand, they deny that you should qualify marriage; on the other hand, they affirm you should qualify marriage. In this case, even the same sex supporter - though unintentionally - realizes that a definition of marriage as "two people emotionally satisfied with one another" is a feeble one at best.

From this comes an obvious conclusion: the idea of "equal love; equal rights" and "love equality" is simply a sham. It's simply an emotional slogan for the cause of same sex marriage, so that its supporters can cry it out and feel as if they have done something grand. Yet they do not really approve "equal love; equal rights" because they believe that if a brother and sister have fallen in love and desire to fulfill their dreams of marriage - perhaps even adopt a child and raise it with love - then it should be opposed by the law. If a 25-year old and a 14-year old fall in love and desire to begin marriage, they oppose it and believe statutory rape laws should stand. It is clear that even in their minds, not all "love" is equal, and not all "love" should be given the same rights other "love" is given.

It is popular for those in the same sex marriage camp to compare those who oppose it to the racists of the 1960's and those who opposed interracial marriage (a fallacy I've examined before), but even in their case this same analogy can be lodged their way. When they support the marriage between homosexuals but deny marriage to other groups who, by their own logic appear perfectly legitimate, then they are no different than those in the 1930's who opposed the Nuremberg laws against Jews in Nazi Germany, but approved of the Jim Crow laws against blacks here in the United States. They are no different than someone who might approve of their child marrying an Asian person, but not approve of them marrying a black person. Already there are voices in this country, seeing the privileges given to homosexuals, who are beginning to ask that "interfamilial," "intergenerational" and polygamous marriages be permitted as well. No doubt in decades to come, many who supported same sex marriage will find themselves opposing the governmental affirmation of "interfamilial" marriage - or any other kind of distortion of how even nature has always defined marriage and true union - and they too will be called racists and intolerant bigots by the coming generations who have been raised to emotionally respond and parrot popular arguments, all for the sake of a new wave of public opinion.

Of course, we know why mankind is inconsistent, and why they desire to support their favorite sin, even in the face of an inconsistent worldview.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. [Romans 1:28-32]

The only reason we have not yet seen greater immorality find greater approval in our culture is because God has thus far restrained it. If we inspire more judgment, more judgment shall come. Man's natural state is open rebellion against God, and their denial of Him will come in many forms, whether it be in false religions, apostate churches, or embracing sins such as this. I saw someone on social media say the Supreme Court made the right decision despite God's intentions. Yet God is still in control - indeed, the spreading of sin is by God's sovereign will, so that His judgment may be true and His cause glorified (cf. Ro 9:22-24). The increase of sin is not a sign that God has failed, only that God has judged, and is bringing further judgment.

How should we take all this? We should be praying for the repentance of friends, family, and neighbors. We should be praying not that they would be correctly aligned in politics, or that they would understand this one issue (for your opinion on homosexuality does not save you), but rather that they would come to an understanding that they themselves are sinners deserving of judgment. There is a natural law, even if they deny it, and it is God alone, not the Supreme Court or any other higher court, who will have the final say on what unfolds on the day of judgment. On that day, all men will be held accountable for their sins, but only those purified by the blood of Christ will be deemed innocent. Regardless of the state of our society, we should all ponder the state of our souls, and remember that no matter how many years we live, eternity shall be a long time. Let us remember that as we look upon society and those who oppose God - and let us not forget that once, too, we were like them. God bless.

Enmity Against the True God

The following is a section from Jonathan Edwards that deals with those who create a God of their own mind, and the hostility they display when the true God is revealed. In fact, he calls it a rejection of God entire.

If you think that there is a God, yet you do not realize it, that he is such a God as he really is. You do not realize it, that he is so holy as he is; that he has such a hatred of sin as indeed he has; that he is so just a God as he is, who will by no means clear the guilty. But that in the Psalms is applicable to you: “these things hast thou done, and I kept silence: thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself.” Psalm 1. 21. So that your atheism appears in this, as well as in thinking there is no God. So that your objection arises from this, that you do not find such a sensible hatred against that god which you have formed, to suit yourself; a god that you like better than the true God. But this is no argument that you have not bitter enmity against the true God; for it was your enmity against the true God, and your not liking him, that has put you upon forming up another in your imagination, that you like better. It is your enmity against those attributes of God’s holiness and justice, and the like, that has put you upon conceiting another, who is not so holy as he is, and does not hate sin so much, and will not be so strictly just in punishing it; and whose wrath against sin is not so terrible.

But if you were sensible of the vanity of your own conceits, and that God was not such an one as you have imagined; but that he is, as he is indeed, an infinitely holy, just, sin hating and sin revenging God, who will not tolerate nor endure the worship of idols, you would be much more liable to feel the sensible exercises of enmity against him, than you are now. And this experience confirms. For we see that when men come to be under convictions, and to be made sensible that God is not as they have heretofore imagined; but that he is such a jealous, sin hating God, and whose wrath against sin is so dreadful, they are much more apt to have sensible exercises of enmity against him than before.

Your having always been taught that God is infinitely above you, and out of your reach, has prevented your enmity” being exercised in those ways, that otherwise it would have been. And hence your enmity has not been exercised in revengeful thoughts; because revenge has never found any room here; it has never found any handle to take hold of: there has been no conception of any such thing, and hence it has lain still. A serpent will not bite, or spit poison, at that which it sees at a great distance; which if it saw near, would do it immediately. Opportunity often shows what men are, whether friends or enemies. Opportunity to do puts men in mind of doing; wakens up such principles as lay dormant before. Opportunity stirs up desire to do, where there was before a disposition, that without opportunity would have lain still. If a man has had an old grudge against another, and has a fair opportunity to be revenged, this will revive his malice, and waken up a desire of revenge. [source]

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]

Do Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God?

Some time ago, I had written a post regarding the Roman Catholic Catechism and Islam, dealing with the Catechism's statements on whether or not Muslims are fellow worshipers of the true God of Abraham. Since then, I've come across many people (mostly Roman Catholics) who continue to say that they, and Jews, do worship the same God as Christians. Mostly they will try to rationalize an argument in order to say this (and we will get to some momentarily) - however, the question ultimately boils down to this question: how do all three religions treat God the Son, aka Jesus Christ?

We must remember that Christians uphold God as a Trinitarian God. That is, God is one Being, made up of three co-equal, co-existent and co-eternal but distinct Persons in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity, it must be noted, is not Tritheistic with three separate gods, but rather each Person, while being distinct, represents the fullness of God. This is seen in scripture, where in Christ it is said "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9). God the Son, while being distinct from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, still represents the fullness of God. Christ was not one third of God (which is tritheism), but he was God the Son made flesh.

Jews and Muslims, on the other hand, believe in a Unitarian God. That is, God is not one Being found in three distinct but equal Persons, but rather one Being and one Person. On this basis alone, we can see that the Christians worship a God that is already very different than the Jewish and Islamic gods. To Jews and Muslim, God is not a Trinity, and therefore they would deny not only the Messianic status of Christ (for the Jews) and the deity of Christ (for the Jews and Muslims), but they would deny, and reject worship of, God the Son.

What does scripture say about those who deny God the Son? The overall teaching of scripture is that those who deny the Son are denied by the Father as well. Christ stated that those who denied him before men, he would deny them before his Father (Mt 10:33). He told the unbelieving Jews: "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also" (Jn 8:19); and likewise, "If God were your Father, you would love me" (Jn 8:42). He told the disciples: "No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn 14:6); and likewise, "Whoever hates me hates my Father also" (Jn 15:23). The apostle John put it in the most blunt manner when he wrote "no one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 Jn 2:23). According to the resounding testimony of scripture, those who deny God the Son and reject worship of him reject worship of the true God. Why is this? It is because, as God the Son represents the fullness of God, denial of one Person of the Trinity is denial of God in toto. Those who choose not to worship one Person of the Trinity refuse to worship God in toto.

Many will of course try to rationalize out of this. Some responses to such arguments:

Did the people in the Old Testament worship a Trinitarian God? The fullness of the Trinitarian revelation was not yet given to those under the old covenant, however God still existed as a Trinity, and the people under the old covenant therefore worshiped a Trinitarian God. There are moments in the Old Testament where a pre-incarnate God the Son was even encountered by believers.

Wasn't Jesus a Jew, and didn't he worship as a Jew? Didn't he pray to YHWH, just as the Jews today do? Such questioning, in fact, is ironically similar to arguments made by Muslims against the Trinity (ie., "If Jesus was God, who was he praying to?", etc.). That Jesus lived under the Mosaic Laws is, of course, clear to be seen in scripture, but this was out of the necessity that, as the perfect sacrifice before God, he live post-incarnation as the perfect man, and therefore had to fulfill the Mosaic Law and all it required. Yet if we ask then, whether or not he prayed to YHWH, we have to first realize we are heading down a dangerous road, theologically speaking. That is, we have to ask if we are suggesting that Jesus prayed outside his role in the Trinity? When Jesus prayed, it was the Son praying to the Father - Jews of today do not have this ability. We have to also remember that Jesus, as God the Son, was himself YHWH - those who have evangelized to Jehovah's Witnesses realize how important it is to prove that the holy name of God was attributed to Jesus Christ. To be certain, those who argue "Jesus was Jewish" are simply giving a non sequitor.

Don't Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham? Let's first ask ourselves from where Islam came - to put it bluntly, it was from a false prophet in ancient Arabia who heard demonic lies in the desert. The god of Islam taught his people teachings so woefully different than the God of Christianity that, on this basis alone, one has to wonder how one can logically conclude the god of Islam and the God of Christianity are the same God, as God would not contradict himself in such a blatant manner. Simply claiming that you'd like to worship the God of Abraham does not automatically mean you are - I could claim my car was the God of Abraham and worship it, that wouldn't mean I was worshiping the same god as that of Christians.

Scripture says rejection of the Son will lead to rejection by the Father, but it says nothing for those who simply don't know any better. Where, however, in all of scripture is this such a distinction made? Such a question demands we find a gray area where the word of God sees only black and white. I am aware there are many pet verses taken by people out of context to prove inclusivist beliefs, therefore I might direct the rest of this conversation to this post.

More importantly, all of these arguments ignore the clear teaching of scripture on this matter. Those who forsake the teaching of scripture for human reasoning in essence forsake God's authority for the authority of man. Especially with Roman Catholics, who are fond of opening up arguments on this subject with "The pope said..." or "My church says...", they seem to unwittingly desire to quote a pope or church over and against the words of scripture. I'm sorry, but scripture trumps any words of man.

It must be noted here, as we conclude this post, that we should still witness to and pray for our Jewish and Muslim friends. They must hear who the true God is, and be invited to worship Him, for only God the Son can purify them of their sins and be made righteous before God the Father, sanctified and sealed by God the Holy Spirit. God bless.

How do we know someone is speaking from or for God?

Introduction

Many people today claim to speak for God, or claim they have something to say from God. Many times, however, this claim is made with no real standard or with no real solid basis for people to believe it. I've written out six conditions and arguments many use to support people who make such claims, which we will now review. This isn't, of course, a complete list, only a list of possibilities I could think of and desire to talk about.

Possibility 1: They have dreams and visions.

Many leaders or ministers in the so-called "prophetic movement," or just in Hyper-Charismatic or Neo-Pentecostal circles in general, seem to rely heavily upon their dreams or visions. It is believed by many that these dreams and visions are being given by God and are meant to guide and direct the church in this modern day and age. People immediately uphold all these dreams and visions as coming from God and being meant to be followed.

Perhaps what disturbs me the most is that when I read about these men and women who talk of their dreams and visions, there seems to almost be little to no effort made either on their part or the part of their followers to discern whether or not this dream or vision really did come from God. When I bring this up, I'm usually charged with being a Pharisee, a divider of the church, etc., but I believe I have biblical grounds for doing so. For example, the Lord spoke through the prophet Jeremiah against those who relied upon their dreams to instruct the people when, in fact, their dreams were all but useless.

"I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in my name, saying 'I have dreamed, I have dreamed!' How long shall there be lies in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies, and who prophesy the deceit of their own heart?" [Jeremiah 23:25-26]

Many people might interject here with, "Ah, but the people in that verse are lying - they're blatant false prophets." They forget, however, the frightening words found in the prophecies of Ezekiel:

"They have seen false visions and lying divinations. They say, 'Declares the Lord,' when the LORD has not sent them, and yet they expect him to fulfill their word. Have you not seen a false vision and uttered a lying divination, whenever you have said, 'Declares the LORD,' although I have not spoken?" [Ezekiel 13:6-7]

God says that the false prophets had literally seen false visions, and heard lying divinations, and believed them to be from God. This means the false prophets saw or discerned something which they perceived was from God, yet was not. They didn't make up a vision, they saw a legitimate vision...but it wasn't from God. We might look to Mohammad and Joseph Smith, two men who claimed to have seen and heard visions from God, as examples of this. These men had spiritual experiences and claimed to have spoken to divine entities, and yet most Christians would be quick to discredit their experiences as false.

People also forget another story, found in scripture's historical narrative:

And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.” [1 Kings 22:19-23]

Micaiah is here speaking to King Ahab concerning the idea of war with Syria. All of Ahab's personal prophets claimed that they had visions and prophetic input that the war with Syria would go well. Micaiah, on the other hand, preaches that the war would go horribly, and then states that God had intentionally permitted the sending of a "lying spirit" in the mouth of all the prophets, so that they would prophesy falsely and bring ruin to Ahab. The prophets claimed to be speaking for and from God, but they were in fact speaking falsely - what's more, God had willed this to happen as a form of judgment.

So what is the standard in regards to dreams and visions? Let's go back to the words God spoke through the prophet Jeremiah:

"Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? declares the LORD." [Jeremiah 23:28]

These are beautiful words to ponder: "let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully." God even compares dreams and God's word with straw and wheat, signifying how different they are.

Many might interject here that God has used dreams for His purposes. For example, the dreams of Pharaoh and the king of Babylon were interpreted by godly men to explain God's intentions, while Joseph and the wise men were warned by God about King Herod through dreams. That God can use dreams for His purposes or to give some amount of guidance or warning is certainly possible. However, what is our basis of authority, as scripture itself says? Scripture never says dreams are our authority - in fact, they often tell us otherwise, such as those false teachers who relied heavily on their dreams over the teachings of scripture, as many in the Neo-Pentecostal movement do (Jude 1:8). That God used x or y to get His will done does not  automatically mean that we should likewise use or rely on x and y as our standard over and against scripture. Jonathan Edwards put it best when he said: "God has not given us his providence, but his word to be our governing rule" (Humble Inquiry).

Possibility 2: They perform miracles.

Many today uphold a belief that signs and wonders are necessary in order to evangelize (also known as "power evangelism"). Yet when the early followers of Christ asked for a sign that they "may see and believe" in Him, Christ merely identified Himself as the bread that came down from heaven to give life to the world (John 6:30-33). Certainly Christ performed signs and wonders during His ministry - as did the apostles - yet the hinge of belief was not on how many signs and wonders were performed, but on whether people truly had life in Christ granted them by the Holy Spirit.

In fact, Christ warns the disciples that signs and wonders can be made by false teachers and prophets.

"For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect." [Matthew 24:24]

Paul makes a similar warning concerning the man of lawlessness.

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. [2 Thessalonians 2:9-10]

Scripture makes it clear that it is entirely possible for false teachers to perform signs and wonders for the people to see. Therefore, the mere ability to perform a sign or wonder cannot be a standard to know someone is speaking to or from God.

Possibility 3: They prophesy events that come true.

If someone predicts an event, natural occurrence, or the results of an election, is that enough to demonstrate that they are speaking from or for God? Many are familiar with what scripture teaches regarding false prophets and prophesies that don't come true:

"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him." [Deuteronomy 18:22]

Yet many people forget what scripture likewise teaches regarding false prophets who prophesy things that do come to pass.

"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and he says, 'Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, 'and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him." [Deuteronomy 13:1-4]

If a prophesy given by someone does not come true, that's a good sign they are a false teacher (though some contest that). However, even if it does come true, that is not enough to verify that they are working for God. Rather, it is their doctrine and how well they keep to God's word. That is the ultimate decider as to whether or not the individual is, in fact, speaking for or from God in regards to miracles and wonders. A supposed prophet can split a hundred moons in half, and a supposed miracle worker can heal a hundred men of leprosy. If they are not speaking according to the word of God, they are not from God, and none of that will matter.

Possibility 4: They have a huge amount of followers.

We are essentially arguing here for spiritual pragmatism, wherein quantity is the defining quality - a kind of divine ad populum. As I've discussed in another post, scripture never says large numbers equals heavenly blessings. There are many examples in scripture where the believers were greatly outnumbered by the unbelievers or false believers (Gen 6:5-8; 1 Ki 19:18; Isa 1:9; Rom 11:5). There are some small churches out in the countryside who have far more Christians in them than some of the biggest mega churches in the major cities.

Possibility 5: They have a large number of people who claim to have been blessed.

Many people, in a spirit of emotionalism, will defend a teacher or ministry on the claim that "countless people have been blessed." The idea is that, since so many people have had changed lives or emotional experiences in this ministry, it must surely be sourced to God.

Of course, I once met a man who claimed to have been greatly blessed. He used to be a gang banger but was now a productive member of society. He followed God and assisted his community. He had found a complete turnaround. He had completely changed his lifestyle. This blessing he felt had come from God he claimed to have found in...

...Islam.

That a person has had a "changed life" is not enough to prove that someone or someone's ministry is from God. This is the problem with contemporary Christianity, which believes the faith to be nothing more than a catalyst for changing lives. This makes its followers no different than those who claim to have been blessed by turning to Sikhism, Mormonism, Buddhism, New Age alternatives or any other religion that claims to give you a better life now.

God certainly desires "changed lives" in the sense that we are to put away the old self and put on the new self, which abhors sin and wickedness. However, using a subjective argument like "my life is better, therefore this person is being helped by God" is, as said before, simply spiritual pragmatism. It should also be pointed out that if a person was indeed saved or bettered in their life, it was not because of that individual or their ministry, but by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Possibility 6: They believe in Jesus.

Oftentimes, when dilemmas are demonstrated in a person's theology or lifestyle, one of their followers will fall back on one simple fact. They will say: "Ah, but they believe in Jesus, don't they? Don't we all follow the same Messiah? That should be good enough!" Oftentimes this will be used to support superficial peace, saying: "I don't think we should continue arguing about this - after all, don't we all still believe in the same Jesus?"

It might sound ironic, as a follower of sola fide, for me to say that this is perhaps the weakest argument against such men. However, to say they believe in Christ and that is good enough is not sola fide but easy believism. Mere mental assent to Christ's existence is not a guarantee for salvation, nor does it demonstrate you are a true believer. During the Sermon on the Mount, Christ warned:

"On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, an do many mighty works in your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'" [Matthew 7:22-23]

Christ speaks of men who did wonders and signs in His name (directly relevant to Possibilities 2 and 3, listed above), and yet when they come before Him on the day of judgment, Christ will say to them "I never knew you." He does not say "Oh yeah, you went to church for a while" or "Yeah, and you were a real disappointment in the end," but rather "I never knew you." They claimed to be followers of Christ, and even showed off miracles they believed demonstrated such a claim, and yet it turns out they were nothing more than goats masquerading as sheep.

False teachers, in fact, will come under the guise of men who are after the heart of Christ. The apostle Paul warned the church:

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of Light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. [2 Corinthians 11:13-14]

It is not enough to simply decree a belief in Christ. Rather, we must present the fruits of such belief. Because I recognize that this opens up a whole other can of worms, I defer discussion on judging someone's faith, or whether or not we have the ability to discern it, to this post I made here.

Conclusion

Reviewing what we've gone over, what is the primary ground by which we know someone is speaking directly from or for God? The answer:

If they abide by His holy word.

That's disappointing to a lot of people, of course, but that is because they are not truly satisfied with the supremacy of God's word. They're not happy with just having God's word. They want the charismatic speaker who claims to have prophecies from God. They want the man rocking back and forth on stage talking about dreams he's had. They want the female preacher who gives good advice and has thousands of "saved" women attending her church. They want the pastor who has hundreds of stories of people who have been healed through miraculous or unique ways. They want the ministry led by people who claim the Holy Spirit is working through them for specific, specialized reasons. When people can't repeat the word of the Psalmist when he says "in the way of your testimonies I delight as much as in all riches" (Psa 119:14), they will seek something to fill in that spiritual gap. Such people we should work with and try to save to the best we can, while remaining strong in our convictions and preventing ourselves from falling into the same trap as did they. "Save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh" (Jude 1:23).

Allah sent me an email

This was actually sent to my workplace. I swear I am not making any of this up.

From: Allah [mailto:god@llah.us]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:46 AM
To: [n/a]
Subject: Where?


Help! I am Allah, God of The Religions, am now here on Earth, and asking the Press to help Me locate an organization, community or nation to receive Me. Here is all you have to do on behalf of your company, community or nation: send an email to god @llah.mobi (no spaces) or SMS/VM 707-925-2488 and say something such as "On behalf of, (your company, community, or nation) We want to welcome you, God Allah." Be sure to include your email, SMS text number (if you have one), name and phone number. Then I will contact you back through email with more information about how this applies to your company, community, or nation. If you want to learn more of God Allah (or God the Father, Christianity) see a church or mosque near you for more information. Please be advised this is a very, serious emergency for many people around the world so you were advised to communicate with Me immediately. Also, due to the nature of this emergency, it is possible there could be spiritual repercussions for your failure to comply. Thanks.

Emergency Message,

God Allah
Author, Holy Qur'an / Bible
Lord of the Worlds
god @llah.MOBI (subscribe)
god @llah.US (unsubscribe)
P.O. Box 701
San, Mateo CA 94401
+1 (707) 925-2488 SMS/VM
A.LLAH.US

In the event of subscribe error, go to https:// ALLAH . zendesk .com

Mike Bickle and His Time with God

Perhaps what is most often forgotten (or perhaps unknown) to many involved with the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (and all its associated movements) is that the founder, Mike Bickle, claims to have started the movement under direct orders from God, as given to him in Cairo, Egypt and other parts of his life.

Many have immediately responded to this by pointing out that other Christians or Christian leaders have made similar claims. For example, Richard Wurmbrand, founder of Voice of the Martyrs, claimed to have seen Jesus while in a prison cell. However, Bickle's claims go far deeper than mere visits or appearances, and his accounts go so far as to attempt to give legitimacy to his movement. His accounts speak of what he calls an "initiative" from God, and the fulfillment of end times prophecies, as told to him by God.

One of Bickle's accounts regarding all this is from Session I of his presentation Encountering Jesus: Visions, Revelations, Angelic Activity from IHOP-KC's Prophetic History. The PDF transcript is here. The part dealing with Cairo reads:

My first dramatic, life-changing encounter related to this movement was in Cairo, Egypt in 1982. Now, we moved to Kansas City in November; so this is two months before we moved. I am in Cairo, Egypt, in a hotel room, and I had a life-altering dramatic experience where the fear of the Lord fell on me in a literal way. That was the only time that I have ever experienced the fear of the Lord at that level, or in that magnitude.

The Lord said, “I will change the understanding and expression of Christianity in the whole earth in one generation.” Not this movement, or that movement, but God Himself will do this through all the thousands of movements and millions of ministries.

He said, “I am going to do this across the whole earth in one generation.” My spirit trembled, and the fear of the Lord fell on me. I will give some of the details on the notes that I am not going to go into. The Lord spoke clearly what I call four heart standards. These were four values the Lord cemented in me in Cairo, Egypt. Now some people have misquoted us. I mean there are many even in our midst, and they said these are our four values.

I said, “No. We have about twenty values. We do not have only four values, but these are the four that are the most neglected in church history. We have many more values besides these four. But, the Lord insisted on these four. The work must be built on these four values.” Everything is measured in terms of our faithfulness to believe God for the future. Are we holding the line on these four values in our individual lives and as a ministry? He said that the movement would be built on night and day prayer. He said that the movement would be built on holiness of heart.

This is essential: extravagant giving, offerings for the poor, and the activity of the Holy Spirit—we would have faith in what the Spirit is saying and what the Holy Spirit is doing. Believe it or not: that is the most challenging of all, to take a stand for what the Holy Spirit is saying and what the Holy Spirit is doing. I have some more notes on that here that you can read on your own.

During the rest of the session, Bickle makes similar claims. For example, he claims Bob Jones (who later became a major embarrassment for the Kansas City Prophets, of which Bickle was part) received visitations from angels giving details on the youth ministry, even supposedly foretelling the coming of the International House of Prayer. Bickle goes on to say near the end:

IHOP–KC is not my dream. IHOP is my assignment. The dream of my heart is what happens between my heart and Jesus...This is not my dream. This is my assignment. God will do His part, and I will do my part... [emphasis mine]

An even more descriptive account is found in Mike Bickle's book Growing in the Prophetic. In it, he writes:

But it was years later in September 1982, in a dirty little motel room in Cairo, Egypt, that the belief in an End Times outpouring of the Holy Spirit became a personal issue to me. The eight-by-eight-foot room was equipped with a small bed, squeaky ceiling fan, stone-age plumbing, and an assortment of crawling things that periodically scampered across the concrete floor. It was primitive by Western standards. I was alone, so I set aside the evening to spend with the Lord in prayer. I knelt on the cement floor by the rickety bed for about thirty minutes when I had one of the most incredible encounters that I’ve ever had.

I didn’t see a vision, and I wasn’t caught up into heaven. I simply heard God speak to me. It wasn’t what some people call the audible voice. I call it the internal audible voice. I heard it as clearly as I would have heard it with my physical ears, and, honestly, it was terrifying.

It came with such a feeling of cleanness, power, and authority. In some ways I felt I was being crushed by it. I wanted to leave, but I didn’t want to leave. I wanted it to be over, but I didn’t want it to be over.

I only heard a few sentences, and it only took a few moments, but every word had great meaning. The awe of God flooded my soul as I experienced a little bit of the terror of the Lord. I literally trembled and wept as God Himself communicated to me in a way I’ve never known before or since. The Lord simply said, “I will change the understanding and expression of Christianity in the earth in one generation.” It was a simple, straightforward statement, but I felt God’s power with each word as I received the Spirit’s interpretation. God Himself will make drastic changes in Christianity across the whole world. This reformation revival will be by His sovereign initiative. [pg. 79; Prophetic, 1996]

He adds later on:

My experience in the Cairo hotel room lasted less than an hour, though it seemed like a couple of hours. I left the room and walked around the streets of downtown Cairo alone until about midnight, committing myself to the Lord and His End Time purpose. The awe of God lingered in my soul for hours. I woke up the next day still feeling its impact. This experience connected my heart in a deeply personal way to the End Time fulfillment of the Joel 2/Acts 2 prophecy on a global level in this generation. [pg. 81; ibid]

From all this, we have some very serious realities:

1) Bickle claims that the founding and running of IHOP-KC and its related ministries was by the order, blessing and activity of God - he even goes on to say in Session II that "the Lord committed to do this" (source). He likewise states in the same session: "in 1996, [God] gave us an acronym" (ibid). Bickle thus claims that even the acronym IHOP was given to him by God. This despite the fact that IHOP was already the official acronym by the International House of Pancakes, and had been since 1973. Apparently, the Lord didn't have the foreknowledge to see the two lawsuits that the regular IHOP lodged against Bickle's IHOP.

2) Bickle claims it as his "assignment," as in, his duty from God. When explaining the goals and standards of IHOP-KC, Bickle often uses the phraseology "God said this" or "the Lord told us this." While many pastors might say they felt "called" to the ministry, few would use the blunt and direct terminology that Bickle does, let alone would many pastors make such claims as God directly telling them to enter ministry. What Bickle does, as he explains in the previously cited book, is part of the "End Time fulfillment of the Joel 2/Acts 2 prophecy on a global level in this generation." IHOP-KC's own vision statement tells us that they are here to "call forth, train, and mobilize worshiping intercessors who operate in the forerunner spirit as End Time prophetic messengers" (pg. 236; Prophetic, 2006).

3) Bickle claims that, according to God, the Holy Spirit is working through the various ministries, and IHOP-KC in particular, even saying that we should have faith "to take a stand for what the Holy Spirit is saying and what the Holy Spirit is doing." Certainly Bickle doesn't take the extreme stance Harold Camping did by saying those outside his group are not blessed by the Holy Spirit, but the words coming out of IHOP-KC, its leadership and its followers makes it clear that they believe the Holy Spirit is giving a special blessing to them and their prayer movement. Again, this is happening under the auspices of God, who instructed Mike Bickle and his staff personally.

In the past, I've had many followers or supporters of IHOP-KC, including some who have responded to this blog, tell me that if I disagree with Mike Bickle's teachings, methods or goals, then that's perfectly fine, as it doesn't make me a heretic or a bad Christian. They take the position that these are things we can have simple disagreements on.

However, I don't think we should pussyfoot around with this matter. Let's be intellectually honest, and let's call a spade a spade. If Mike Bickle truly did receive revelation from God, and God Himself is ordering him to do what he's doing in Kansas City and elsewhere, then anyone who opposes IHOP-KC is opposing not only Mike Bickle or IHOP-KC, but the very Living God. This isn't a mere disagreement between myself and Mike Bickle - if Bickle is speaking the truth, this is a war of words between myself and God. This is why some IHOP-KC defenders (as this post demonstrates) have gone so far as to argue that disagreement with Bickle, his ministries and teachings is, in essence, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

This is the danger of any "prophetic" movement, or of any leader who claims to be speaking for or from God. That is, there can be no middle ground - either it does come from God and we must obey it, or it doesn't come from God, and we must deny it and avoid the person giving said message. No where in all of scripture was any "gray area" given for those who spoke in God's name. Some of the harshest words God had was for those who spoke falsely in His name (Deu 18:20; Jer 5:30-31, 27:15; Eze 13:9, 22:28; Luke 6:26). This is because speaking falsely in God's name is a very little discussed but very real example of the commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain (Exo 20:7).

Therefore, if Mike Bickle isn't speaking from God, and it wasn't God that Bickle heard that night in Cairo...then he's a false prophet, and he and his so-called prophetic ministry must be avoided at all costs. Do I deny Bickle heard a voice? Not necessarily...but if he didn't hear a voice from God, then he heard it from someone else.

Using Evil Recorded in the Bible Against the Bible

It's popular for many today to quote passages dealing with evil in the Bible, and use it against the Bible. It's done either in the tone of "Look! Evil! That must mean this book is evil!" or "This happened in the Bible, this must mean God approves it." How many times, for example, have we heard the story of Lot and his daughters (Gen 19:30-38) quoted as if to embarrass us that it exists in the Bible?

Let's review a few things regarding this:

Firstly, let's clarify what the Bible is. The Bible is not about how nice a guy Jesus was. It isn't about how God is nothing but love, love, love, exciting and new. It isn't about how wonderful a people Christians are. It isn't about how great the world would be if we were just all so gosh darn nice to one another for a change. It isn't about how better your life can be. It isn't about getting rich. It isn't a children's book. And it most certainly isn't about buying some panhandling kid a pair of goofy shoes.

What is the Bible about, then? It is the story of mankind's fall and his salvation by the merits and salvific atonement of Christ. In order to talk about mankind's salvation, however, one must give a reason for man to be saved, and that entails either a discussion of or examples of mankind's evil. How can you possibly understand the words of the apostle Paul, that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23), unless you see this discussed or displayed beforehand?

Secondly, and on that same train of thought, it is fallacious to assume that the mere mention of evil makes an entire work evil. A work on the proper mode of government would have to, by example, give poor examples of leadership, as Machiavelli does in his famous work, The Prince or his other, lesser known work, The Discourses. Yet if an author gives poor examples of leadership so that we may more properly understand the better examples, that does not give us the right to simply dismiss his entire argument. If anything, it's a fine example of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Thirdly, it is fallacious to state that, simply because a writer includes evil in his work, he must somehow approve it. According to such logic, an author who writes on the Holocaust must approve of the Holocaust, irregardless of whether or not he wrote on the Holocaust as an evil and barbaric act of inhumanity. In like manner, simply because an incident is recorded in scripture does not mean God approved of it.

Is there evil in the Bible? Yes there is. There's incest, rape, fraud, the murder of best friends, the breaking of oaths, and other examples. Yet man is a fallen creature, and even unbelievers would agree that man is capable of doing all the aforementioned evil. The Bible does not mince words when it comes to mankind's depravity. Men in toto are by their nature objects of wrath because of their sin (cf. Eph 2:3). Let us therefore give thanks to God for Christ, who "knew no sin," yet became sin "so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21). The Bible does mention evil, but it likewise tells us how we are able to flee from it and seek the righteousness of God.

The Materialistic Limitations of God

Recently I've rediscovered my love for the writings of H.P. Lovecraft, and have - thanks to Kindle versions available online for free - been reading and rereading his entire works of fiction. Lovecraft is famous for his creation of the mollusk-headed god Cthulhu, and there are many who, while not knowing the name of Lovecraft, do know the name of Cthulhu. Lovecraft is considered today one of the greatest writers of the horror genre, and one of the first to really evolve the "cosmic horror" niche. Modern writers like Stephen King and others cite him as inspiration.

He was also, among these things, an atheist. On this subject, I came across this article quoting chunks from a written correspondence between H.P. Lovecraft and three acquaintances. In particular among Lovecraft's acquaintances was a friend named Maurice W. Moe, with whom Lovecraft often sparred in regards to religion. An interesting section to me was near the beginning, in which Lovecraft writes:

The latter conception, of a God who is confined in action to our visible universe, leaves us to speculate as to what God or forces may preside over the rest of creation—or if we adhere to the commandment of Scripture, and believe only in one God, we must assume that the rest of space is godless; that no personal loving father-deity is there to bless his sons and subjects. But then, if this be so, why did the personal all-wise parent select this one particular little universe wherein to exercise his beneficence? I fear that all theism consists mostly of reasoning in circles, and guessing or inventing what we do not know.

If God is omnipotent, then why did he pick out this one little period and world for his experiment with mankind? Or if he is local, then why did he select this locality, when he had an infinity of universes and an infinity of eras to choose from? And why should the fundamental tenets of theology hold him to be all-pervasive? These are monstrous uncomfortable questions for a pious man to answer, and yet the orthodox clergy continue to assert a complete understanding of all these things, brushing inquiry aside either by sophistry and mysticism, or by evasion and sanctified horror.

It seems that Lovecraft's contention is this: does the limitation of God's personal work present a limitation on God Himself? In other words, why would God create such a spectacular universe if He only intended to interact with a small part of it? What was the thinking process in such an endeavor? Why, in the great expansive universe, is religion in general so geocentric?

Those most familiar with Lovecraft's work would know that this thought process is present in his stories. Characters often interact with creatures, spirits, or gods that cross time and space. For example, in a 1919 short story entitled Beyond the Wall of Sleep, the narrator, working at an insane asylum, discovers that a patient there has become a "prison" for a star-like entity that belongs, as it itself explains, to a race of "roamers of vast spaces and travellers in many ages," adding: "Next year I may be dwelling in the dark Egypt which you call ancient, or in the cruel empire of Tsan-Chan which is to come three thousand years hence" (source). The entity likewise states: "We shall meet again—perhaps in the shining mists of Orion’s Sword, perhaps on a bleak plateau in prehistoric Asia. Perhaps in unremembered dreams tonight; perhaps in some other form an aeon hence, when the solar system shall have been swept away" (ibid). In Lovecraft's universe, the idea of a "godless" galaxy was not an issue, as every corner of time and space had some form of deity or spiritual force. It was interesting, therefore, to read this line of thinking from Mr. Lovecraft outside of his fictional works, and I thought it was worth giving a response, just for the sake of discussion.

Firstly, we read the objection "we...believe only in one God, we must assume that the rest of space is godless; that no personal loving father-deity is there to bless his sons and subjects." This objection tells us that if there is one God, who focuses on earth, then "the rest of space is godless," as there is "no personal loving father-deity...there to bless his sons and subjects," as God has, for whatever reason, limited Himself to earth. However, this presupposes that by God's giving direct revelation to one part of His creation, God limits Himself to that part of His creation. We are to believe that if God gives particular attention to one planet, then all the rest are forsaken.

However, there is a fallacy behind the very idea that giving special attention to one part of our focus while giving general attention to the rest means those under the general attention are completely forsaken. Let me present a scenario: a mother has two children, one with Down Syndrome, the other mentally healthy. She is going to be giving special attention to the child with Down Syndrome, but the general motherly attention owed to the child without Down Syndrome. In this case, it would be erroneous and cruel to suppose that, because she gives special attention to the child with Down Syndrome and general attention to the other, she must either hate or completely ignore the other child. In like manner, that God gives special attention towards the Earth and its inhabitants does not mean God has completely forsaken the rest of the universe.

Such thinking as proposed in this first argument also ignores a few important elements from the Christian perspective:

1) All the universe exists by the supreme will of God. The universe cannot be "godless" if we know that it is sourced to God itself (Gen 1:14-19; Psa 8:3, 33:6, 136:5-9; Isa 42:5; John 1:3; Heb 1:10, 11:3; Rev 4:11) and performs its daily actions by the will of God (Job 9:7; Psa 147:4). Obviously we are not proposing that God has marionette strings and is guiding the planets along - there are rational and scientific explanations for the method by which the planets revolve and stars do what they do. Science does not contradict the sovereignty of God over creation; it merely reveals the natural means by which He performs it. Neither is this a case of "the god of the gaps" as so many wrongfully call it, for we are not saying that God is a God of Planets, nor (as we outlined before) that the planets revolve because God is actively doing so in the same manner I would push a stalled car down the road. Rather, we are arguing that the source of a planet's existence - as well as the source of all physics and science behind its planetary motion - is sourced to God. I know that lightning does not strike the earth because God is up in the clouds chucking lightning bolts at people - all the same, I know that lightning does not strike, be it through natural means, except by God's will.

2) All the universe is a sign of God's existence. Of this scripture speaks plainly: the heavens are said to "declare the glory of God" (Psa 19:1); the prophet Isaiah asks, "Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these?" (Isa 40:26); the apostle Paul writes that God's "eternal power" and "divine nature" are perceived "in the things that have been made" (Rom 1:20), and I have no doubt the blessed apostle would include the stars and planets within this passage. Contrary to the idea that the universe sans Earth is considered godless, scripture sees the universe as a sign that the universe is anything but godless, and in fact is a sign of a Divine Creator.

When one thinks about it, the very notion that the rest of space is "godless" seems to imply God can create a universe too big for even Him, which is similar to the conundrum as to whether or not God can create a rock so big even He can't lift it up. God is not limited to planets, nor to moments in space itself. The fallacy here may be in equating, as I outlined earlier, God giving one kind of attention to a part of His creation does not mean He has forsaken the rest of His creation. This just simply isn't true - God is not limited by the scope of His own creation.

In fact, the prophet Jonah had an even more close-minded view of God's scope than earth versus the universe, as he believed God's control only extended so far as the holy land of Israel. Hence the reluctant prophet, not desiring to preach to Nineveh (Jon 1:1-2), left Israel to escape the call (Jon 1:3). His hypothesis proved utterly false, as God came to his boat and caused the storm that would unfold the rest of the story. In Jonah's mind, the fact that God, at that time, was giving special attention to Israel, that must mean that the rest of the world is godless. This wasn't true - wherever one of God's people went, He was there. In like manner, if mankind were to ever reach a state of scientific development that he would be able to reach out and colonize on other planets - perhaps even the most distant galaxies - I have no doubt that God would be able to have the gospel spread among the stars, and to save men even on the utmost limits of creation itself.

Secondly, we have the question: "why did the personal all-wise parent select this one particular little universe wherein to exercise his beneficence?"; as well as "why did he pick out this one little period and world for his experiment with mankind?"; and finally "why did he select this locality, when he had an infinity of universes and an infinity of eras to choose from?" Again, all fair questions to ask, but when we ask the question of why we must seek to resolve the question of motive. To ask why with no interest in resolving motive is about as sensible as asking why a man bought a 2012 Kia Rio5 with all the possible car models on the world, and then concluding from this question that the man must not exist at all.

It might be interesting to point out, first and foremost, that our planet - at the time of this writing - is practically the only planet in the known universe which can sustain life, and this is because Earth meets all the necessary requirements for this. The rate of rotation, the distance from the sun, the atmosphere, and many other factors key into this. For certain there are planets out there which are close to being able to support life, or have the possibility of supporting life, but Earth is the only planet on which all requirements are met and which we know for a fact these requirements have given us life. In any case, God could not provide the same form of attention He gives to Earth to other planets such as Jupiter, Neptune, or Mercury for obvious reasons: there's no reason to do so. None of the stars on Orion's Belt could provide sustenance for humans, nor could any "dwarf planet" like Pluto. That God would choose Earth to create mankind and show it benevolence is hence, in many ways, a logical step, given He could not do it on any other planet.

Yet many might make the logical contention that God did not happen across the planets, but rather was the creator of them, and so we might ask: "why did God design only one planet upon which to have the climax of His creation, which is mankind?" Again, a fair question, one that might be flatly answered by stating that it was God's will. While this might sound like a cop out response when taken in isolation from the rest of this post, it is not when one considers the focus on the creation of Earth. This was where the climax of God's creation occurred, and where God focused his special revelation. This was the methodology by which God ordained that His glory would be seen, both in the past, present and the future.

Thirdly, we are asked: "why should the fundamental tenets of theology hold him to be all-pervasive?" I would argue because by necessity a god who created the universe would have to be all-pervasive. If God created all matter as we know it, and began what we know by our limited measurement as time, then God would have be outside the natural, material world. God would, by necessity, have to exist outside of time, space and matter - and yet He is likewise the creator and initiator of it all. What I mean by this is that God is the Great Initiator of all we know: it was He who began the roll of history; it was He who made the first matter; it was He who brought about all things into existence. In order for all this existence to come into being, something outside of that existence would have to...well...exist.

Let me put it this way: an automotive designer does not initially exist as part of the car he designs. Before even the idea of that car comes into being, something outside of that car has to exist. It is from the creativity and the will of that automotive designer that the car's design, purpose and existence comes into being. However, the automotive designer does not morph himself into that car, or suddenly cease to exist because that car of his now exists, nor is the designer compelled to stay inside that car and never leave it. The car may be limited by the designer, but the designer is not limited by the car. In like manner, time, matter and all existence exists because of God, according to His design and purpose, and hence He is, by necessity, outside of such limitations. If this is the case, then God is indeed "all-pervasive."

Pragmatic Evangelism and God's Word

When writing about those who come to the Lord's Supper without proper evaluation of their own lives, Jonathan Edwards responded to many objections he was receiving from his opponents on the subject. The main position of his opponents was that the Lord's Supper was a converting tool rather than an ordinance for the saints of God. Objection 20 specifically dealt with a form of argumentation that said: "Some ministers have been greatly blessed in the other way of proceeding, and some men have been converted at the Lord's supper" (quoted from the book).

This kind of argumentation is not unlike the mindset of many today who support what is today known as Pragmatic Evangelism. The notion is that the methodology of evangelism is irrelevant if the consequences are that people are saved. Some will respond to criticism of a minister or a particular methodology with "Well I was saved by the preaching of x," or "Well God saved me by y." It is the "ends justifies the means" mindset that has seeped into many churches today. As such, I believe Edwards's own response to this mindset, some 250-years ago, is still relevant even today.

Though we are to eye the providence of God, and not disregard his works, yet to interpret them to a sense, or apply them to a use inconsistent with the scope of the word of God, is a misconstruction and misapplication of them. God has not given us his providence, but his word to be our governing rule. God is sovereign in his dispensations of providence; he bestowed the blessing on Jacob, even when he had a lie in his mouth; he was pleased to met with Solomon, and make known himself to him, and bless him in an extraordinary manner, while he was worshiping in an high place; he met with Saul, when in a course of violent opposition to him, and out of the way of his duty to the highest degree, going to Damascus to persecute Christ; and even then bestowed the greatest blessing upon him, that perhaps ever was bestowed on a mere man. The conduct of divine providence, with its reasons, is too little understood by us to be improved as our rule. "God has his way in the sea, his path in the mighty waters, and his footsteps are not known: And he gives none account of any of his matters." But God has given us his word, to this very end, that it might be our rule; and therefore has fitted it to be so; has so ordered it that it may be understood by us. And strictly speaking this is our only rule. If we join any thing else to it, as making it out rule, we do that which we have no warrant for, yea, that which God himself has forbidden. [Humble Inquiry Concerning the Qualifications for Membership in the Visible Church]

The Death of Love

The word "love" has lost all meaning in today's society. In some respects, I would almost say we need to remove it from our language. It has become a near useless word, something thrown around and used so readily that, if words had value in the supply-and-demand system, the word "love" would be dirt cheap.

Some of our flawed understanding of love comes in a flawed understanding of God. Many today have turned God into a squishy Being who loves all unconditionally, and has the same love for all people everywhere. This mentality might do wonders for therapeutic religion, and it might help a church win converts, but it doesn't survive under biblical scrutiny. If God loves all people the exact same way, why did He intentionally spare Noah but destroyed all those outside the ark? If God loves all people the same way, why did He bless the Jews and punish those in the land of Canaan? Atheists are quick to point out these inconsistencies, and though I would argue they're just responding to straw men, that straw man is the most readily accessible version of Christianity available in western society.

Some of our flawed understanding of love comes from a flawed understanding of love between one another. How many times have we encountered someone who was staying in an abusive relationship because they "loved" the other person? How many times have we encountered people who believed it was OK to enter an immoral lifestyle simply because the two people "loved" each other? (See my post here). A popular argument today, mostly in the context of homosexual marriage, is "equal love equal rights." Of course, most who hold to this view aren't consistent with it: some who uphold same sex marriage with "equal love equal rights" will immediately backtrack when asked if a brother and sister in a relationship is also "equal love equal rights." All of these are examples where the word "love" is treated as a shallow, superficial thing that can be used to stir emotions and justify a certain position.

Obviously, speaking from a biblical perspective, we are commanded to love on varying levels. We are told, first and foremost, to love the Lord (Matt 22:37) We are told to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matt 5:44). The Lord told believers to love one another as he loved them (John 13:34). A husband is commanded to "love his wife as himself" (Eph 5:33). We are told to pursue, among many other things, love (2 Tim 2:22).

Let us note quickly that love, contrary to popular sentimentality, is not always the same. A man loves his wife differently than he loves his children. A believer loves his best friend differently than he loves God. This realization, that a person's love differs from subject to subject, avoids the mindset mocked by atheists, which we described earlier. Obviously Christ had love for all eleven disciples of his who were faithful, and yet John is identified at least five times as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 20). Even in this situation alone we find that God has a variation of love.

Let us also note that, while we are commanded to love, we are at the same time told not to love certain things. We are told to stay away from the love of money (Heb 13:5), and told not to "love the world" or "the things in the world" (1 John 2:15), something the apostle Paul faulted Demas for (2 Tim 4:10). The apostle Paul likewise warned against those who were "lovers of self," "lovers of money," and "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God" (2 Tim 3:2, 5). Christ himself said that we must love him more than our parents (Matt 10:37) - not meaning we should hate our parents, of course, but that salvation was more important than family acceptance. While we are told to love, we are likewise commanded to be discerning with our love. Clearly, there are some things we cannot love, and there are some forms of "love" we should seek to avoid. This is why our Lord warned us that "no servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other" (Luke 16:13) - you cannot love all things equally without, at some point, becoming inconsistent. This is why creating the concept of "love" into a vague thing that is applied equally across the board is so dangerous.

The problem is that "love" today has been the quintessential trait to have, and has been made equal with "anything that is pleasing," and hence anything that is displeasing cannot be love and therefore must be avoided. This is why whenever someone attempts to review what a false teacher believes or they criticize another person's theology, many people jump out and accuse them of not showing enough "love." Upon what basis? If a friend you cherished told you, in a state of intoxication, that they were going to go out and drive, wouldn't you stop them? Wouldn't you warn them of the error they were committing? Wouldn't you take a stern position if they became defensive towards you? Why is that showing love, but rebuking someone for their (perhaps damnable) error is not?

The apostle Paul told the Philippians that he prayed not only that their love would abound all the more, but that it would abound "with knowledge and discernment" (Phi 1:9), yet no one today seems willing to exercise this knowledge and discernment. The apostle Paul likewise commended Timothy not only for following his love, but likewise his "teaching," "aim in life," and "faith" (2 Tim 3:10), but many people seem to desire to forgo such things for the sake of a superficial concept of "love." Such people do not fit the model of love as scripture teaches it, but rather those who Paul described as having "refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 The 2:10).

The question is, where does this true Christian love come from? Is it something we instill in ourselves? On the contrary, Christian love is in and of itself a gift from God.

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. [1 John 4:7]

The apostle John, writing to believers, says that we should "love one another," and this is possible because "love is from God," and "whoever loves has been born of God." We do not love to be born of God, but rather those who are born of God love. This is why the commandment to love God comes before the commandment to love our neighbor (Mark 12:29-31), for how can one love their neighbor the way God intended unless they first know God? Hence the statement by the apostle John that those born of God likewise know God, and hence they love. In here we have two revelations: 1) love is not something we create or produce, but something granted by God; 2) there are varying levels of love (God for man, man for God, man for man, etc.), and hence we are able to discern the differences between various levels of love,  as well as an ability to discern between true love and false love. Therefore we are able to realize that the love between God and man is different than that of between husband and wife, and we are able to understand that criticism of falsehood is not a lack of love for another person, but an example of love for the truth.

The problem with many today is that they have separated themselves from a concept of love that bears distinction and discernment. Perhaps, therefore, "love" is not entirely dead, but it needs only be discussed on a much more mature manner. For Christians, it shall have to be discussed within the context of how God Himself has defined it, and by nothing else.

The Personal Negation Fallacy

On more than one occasion I have had someone respond to an argument or position with simply, "I don't like that." That seems to be popular in this day and age, especially in regards to religion. A person might say, "I can't believe in a God like that," or, "I don't like that God would do such a thing." From this, the person concludes that the thing must be false.

The problem is that merely negating something does not automatically make it not true. Let me put it this way: a person may not like a 55 mph speed limit and want to drive 70 mph, but that isn't going to stop a policeman from pulling them over for speeding. Simply not liking the speed limit did not magically make the speed limit dilemma disappear, or make it conform to what the person desired. Reality did not suddenly transform to the person's personal opinion.

In like manner, this same standard can be applied to negations within faith. Saying "I don't like the idea of a God who sends people to hell" does not suddenly mean that God must not send people to hell. Saying "I prefer a God who does this" does not suddenly make it so that God does as you desire. Reality does not conform to your personal whims and desires, and sooner or later - whether it's when the policeman clocks your speed, or you appear before God on the day of judgment - you will have to answer to reality.

God's Gift to Man

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." [Gen 2:18]

This passage of Genesis takes place in the second chapter, during the more specific account of the sixth day of creation. God creates Adam (v. 7), designs the Garden of Eden (v. 8-9), and then places Adam in the midst of the garden. There, Adam is given a duty: to tend the garden. He's then given an early form of the Law - he may eat of every tree except the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (v. 15-17). For all intents and purposes, one would think the story was over.

Yet then the Lord, in divine contemplation, announces two things: 1) it is not good that man should be alone; 2) He will create a helper for him. The Lord is referring, of course, to woman, specifically the creation of Eve. The term "helper" does not mean a subordinate in every sense of the term, but moreso an indispensable companion (something even 18th century commentators recognize). The term translated "fit for" means literally "the opposite of", and perfectly summarizes the relationship between man and woman. Men and women serve different roles in a relationship, and compliment one another in different ways - anyone who denies this has never truly understood relationships.

It is interesting to note that, after saying this, the Lord does not immediately create Eve - in fact, He doesn't begin the creation of Eve until verse 21. Why the delay?

What must first happen, it seems, is that God must instill within the man the realization that he needs a helper. He takes the animals that were created from the ground and brings them to the man, permitting Adam to name them all (v. 19). It is interesting that at the very end of verse 20, after Adam has surveyed all of creation, he laments that "there was not a helper fit for him." While even domesticated animals can provide the simulation of companionship, man was not created to live in a house with forty cats, nor to live out in the woods with a dog and be settled with that. Dogs and cats can offer unconditional love, but they cannot offer the kind of love that a man truly needs from his partner.

Adam has now come to realize this very thing - he realizes, as God had realized before, that there is no helper suited for him. Nay, he needs a helper suitable for him. I've known many people - men and women - who lived a life of lonely monotony and believed they were content, only to reach an older age and realize that, in actuality, they were not. There comes a time when even the coldest of people desire companionship. As we see here, God early on instilled in us that kind of need.

With the need given to Adam, God causes a deep sleep to fall upon him, and while Adam is asleep, God takes one of his ribs and closes the flesh in place (v. 21). The original Hebrew which we translate as "rib" literally means "side," so that there was most likely a lot more taken from Adam than just a rib (hence the need for God to close the flesh up). God is literally taking part of Adam's side to make someone to be at his side. Matthew Henry gives a beautiful explanation of the immediate significance of this: God takes a piece not from Adam's head to rule him, nor from his feet to be trampled upon, but from his side; from his side to be equal, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.

A greater significance, of course, is that we can see here an early Messianic foreshadow. Out of Christ's own side, after it was pierced by a Roman spear, came blood and water (John 19:34). It was from this blood and water that God would secure and sanctify His bride, the church, who was bought for and purified by His blood (cf. Eph 5:25-26).

With this chunk of Adam, God fashions the woman Eve and brings her to the man (v. 22). Many commentators say that the language used in this verse is similar to language used of a father bringing his daughter to the groom. It's very fitting, given that God is now presenting Adam with his bride, Eve. Again, we have an early Messianic foreshadow: God brings Adam his wife, just as God gives to the Son His bride - those who are in the church (John 6:37).

Adam, upon awakening, is ecstatic over Eve - not for any special beauty or personality, but for the realization of what God has now given him. We see this with his immediate response: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" (v. 23). Keep in mind this is not giving man complete sovereignty over woman in the same manner he did the animals in verse 19, to whom he also gave names. The name given to her is not simply for name's sake, but for a specific reason: she was taken out of man. She is literally "bone of his bones" and "flesh of his flesh" - no other living thing could have been talked about in such a fashion.

The order and place of man and woman within creation is seen in the rest of scripture. Most notably the apostle Paul writes: "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" (1 Cor 11:8-9). Some say this is sexism and misogyny, placing woman at a lower or secondary place than man and compelling her to submit to his authority. They seem to forget, however, the beauty of what this narrative teaches: woman is God's gift to man. She was made for him as a gift to complete and fulfill him. She is given to the man by God as a gift, so that the two can, as scripture goes on to say, "become one flesh" (v. 24).

Therefore, any man who dishonors his wife does not dishonor her, but dishonors the God who granted her to him as a gift. Any man who beats his wife, demeans her with psychological abuse, or plays the scoundrel against her and commits adultery, is spitting into the face of the Lord who granted her to him. Any man who by his own cause and want destroys that which no man should separate (cf. Matt 19:6) and does not repent of it is transgressing mightily against the Lord, and on the Day of Judgment he will have to give an answer for it.

Meditations on Genesis 1:3-4

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. [Gen 1:3-4]

After hearing about the fun times had by two friends, I decided to pick up Bible journaling. One friend was going through the Gospel of John, but I decided to start at the very beginning - namely, Genesis. I've been trying to do it Matthew Henry style: not only going verse by verse, but phrase by phrase, and writing down not how the verse relates to me personally, but rather how it fits into the larger context of scripture. As I went into the beginning of creation, there were two things I noticed: 1) light is created in verse 3 on the first day, yet the sun and moon are not made until verse 16, on the fourth day; 2) God only identifies the light as being good (verse 4), yet the darkness is not included.

The question, of course, is where did that light come from, and what was it?

One can't help but conclude, if the sun is not created until verses 14 to 18, then this cannot be a natural light. If so, then what is it? It can only be the Divine Light of God, the same Light which Paul describes in an epistle:

For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. [2 Corinthians 4:6]

Remember that previous to this, the world was described as "without form and void," and "darkness was over the face of the deep" (v. 2). Yet even in the midst of this darkness, God was present, for we are told in the same verse that God the Holy Spirit was "hovering over the face of the waters." If God was present, why then was there darkness? Is God not light, in which there is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5)? It is hard to imagine the Person of the Holy Spirit hovering over the dark void and yet no light to be seen at all. How can divinity exist in darkness without light of any kind?

The answer is simple, at least in the sense that we may return to the previous quotation of Paul: the Light, which is revealed in verse 3, is God making His presence known. God was letting it be known, not only for the formless creation, but for the benefit of those who would be reading Genesis for years to come, that in the midst of the darkness He was present. That He had not made Himself known is irrelevant - He was still there. Darkness must never be seen as the weakness of God, but merely the absence of God. Not absence in the sense that He is not present, for it is clear here that God is present even the darkness - rather, it is the absence of the knowledge of His presence. There are many times in our lives when we find ourselves in great darkness, and it feels like God is not present - yet it is clear, from the very beginning, that God is still present even in the greatest of darkness.

What follows next is plain in the text: God commands for there to be light, light is revealed, and it is said that God saw the light as being good. He then separates the light from the darkness. Many things can be seen from this:

1) The light is good because it comes directly from God, and as God is a perfect Creator it stands to reason that all He creates would be perfect.

2) The darkness is not said to be good because darkness, by its very nature, acts contrary to light. God will later call the sun and moon, natural night and day, equally good because natural night serves good purposes - it is at night that bats and various insects are able to function and find food. Yet spiritual darkness has no good purpose, and the absence of God is the greatest evil that can be devised.

3) God separates the light from the darkness for two-fold reasons:

a) God is in control of good and evil. Not that God is Himself the author of sin, but that sin and evil cannot usurp or thwart God's will. That an evil man may believe himself to be in complete control of his destiny is only an example of his own total foolishness. To his brothers Joseph said, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). To King Sennacherib the Lord says, "Have you not heard that I determined it long ago? I planned from days of old what now I bring to pass, that you should turn fortified cities into heaps of ruins" (2 Kings 19:25), and likewise to the king of Assyria, "Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it, or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it?" (Isa 10:15). God is able to separate light from darkness because it is He who is truly in command, and the darkness has neither ability nor power over Him. Hence the words of the apostle John: "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (John 1:5).

b) Light and darkness are opposed to each other, and cannot coexist. The apostle Paul rightfully asks "what fellowship has light with darkness?" (2 Cor 6:14). Where there is light, there is no darkness; where there is no light, there is only darkness. God's separation of light and darkness signifies that, in His eyes, there is no middle ground. He would make this abundantly clear through the prophet Isaiah with the words: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Isa 5:20).

There is one final aspect to these passages: they are an early Messianic shadow. The prophet Isaiah foretold "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light" (Isa 9:2), which was fulfilled by Christ (Matt 4:16). The apostle John wrote that Christ, that Light, is He through Whom we have seen "glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (John 1:14), and it is He who has made God known (John 1:18). Christ came to a world shrouded in spiritual darkness, revealing the presence of God and bringing in the Light once again. Yet with light comes conflict with darkness, which hates that light which extinguishes it. "This is the judgment," Christ said, "the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil" (John 3:19). To His brothers, the Lord said, "The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil" (John 7:7). The world is by nature darkness, and is by nature working in darkness, and thus hates that light which exposes its evil works for what they really are (John 3:20).

There will, however, come a time when light will truly triumph over darkness. It is said that the celestial city, the bride of Christ, will have "no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb" (Rev 21:23). It is likewise said "there will be no night there" (Rev 21:25), for the light of God will never be extinguished. For now, however, "the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining" (1 John 2:8), and until Christ returns we who "were darkness" must "walk as children of light" (Eph 5:8), and preach the Gospel so that those still living in darkness may turn "to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me" (Acts 26:18). Amen.

Presuppositions on Miracles and God

In an earlier post I discussed what I called the "fallacy of contrary presuppositions." Namely, two presuppositions that a person upholds which cannot coexist without one contradicting the other. Recently I've been reading or encountering another series of contrary presuppositions that I often seen be made by accidental deists, liberal theologians, and similar groups. Many of these people will assert, at once, two things:

A) God exists


B) Miracles do not exist, or cannot be proven

Herein is the problem: A is affirmed without being established, yet B is affirmed without establishing why in light of A. Let me explain this contradiction by highlighting that both A and B deal with the supernatural. A affirms that God exists, which therefore affirms the supernatural exists; B denies that miracles happen or can be proven, hence either denying or objecting to the supernatural.

At this point we can immediately see the contradiction. Namely, that a person admits that a Being, energy or presence exists beyond the confines of the natural world, yet refuses to believe that anything that likewise goes beyond the confines of the natural world exists, or can be verified. In other words, they are affirming that A is true, yet they are denying miracles in B, even though the belief in A, by extension, confirms that B cannot be true in the sense that miracles cannot happen or be proven. Yet if the supernatural exists, that at least provides the possibility that miracles and other supernatural occurrences exist.

Many might immediately protest this reasoning and accuse me of opening the door for false miracles and giving validity to supposed miracles found in false religions. On the contrary, I am simply skimming the surface at this point. If B is false because A is true, then miracles have the possibility of happening, and then can be studied, and therefore some validity can be given as to whether or not they actually happened. To give an example: I believe in God, and I believe God performs miracles - but when miracles that supposedly happen at a Benny Hinn event are proven false time and time again with medical evidence and background checks of the supposedly healed, I can safely say that the miracles are false. Likewise, if I believe in the one true God of Christianity, then miracles attributed to false gods such as those in Hinduism, Islam or otherwise can be dismissed based on our presuppositions. This argument is merely meant to give validity to the idea of miracles, not to affirm miracles in toto.

In order for a person to uphold both A and B, they have to either admit to deism or some form of dualism: deism in the sense that they believe in a god, but he is a passive, absent one; dualism in the sense that there is a supernatural world, but this supernatural world will have nothing whatsoever to do with creation. Whether the person directly confesses one belief or the other, they will be separating themselves from orthodox, historical Christianity.