Talking about IHOP-KC and Scripture: My Second Appearance on the Long for Truth Podcast

I was on the Long for Truth podcast again to talk about the teachings of Mike Bickle and the International House of Prayer. This time, we specifically focused on whether or not IHOP-KC truly holds scripture up as their standard. As we discussed and explained, Mike Bickle and company do not, in fact, hold scripture up as their final standard.

The link to their original blog post can be found here.

The podcast can be listened to below:

Listen to "Mike Bickle and Scripture: With Tony- Allen" on Spreaker.

Matthew 17 - An Example of Bad Allegorization

How one reads and interpret scripture is a vitally important part of the Christian life. Just as we would want to understand the point behind every secular work created by fallible man, so should we strive to understand and comprehend what God's word is attempting to say. One of the greatest dangers in misunderstanding a passage of scripture is turning a descriptive passage of scripture into an allegory, and by extension turning it into a prescriptive passage.

Recently I saw a link on Twitter for the International House of Prayer's Marketplace Conference. In the video on the page, there was a use of Matthew 17:1 that I thought was worth using as an example to examine and discuss a more proper view of scripture, and an improper use of allegory.

Near the beginning of the video, Linda Fields and Daniel Lim (CEO of IHOP-KC) have this conversation:

Linda Fields: "Our theme is 'come up higher' from Matthew 17, and as you know we were talking about that a moment ago - I loved what you had to say about what Jesus was actually inviting Peter, James and John to. What was that?"

Daniel Lim: "Well Matthew 17, all of us quite familiar with that verse because it's a verse where Jesus in a very rare occasion revealed his glory to his disciples in a way that would shock them. We call that the Mountain of Transfiguration. But the context of Matthew 17 is actually a context where Jesus invited Peter, James and John to a prayer meeting. They were on their way to a prayer meeting, to a high mountain to pray. So I believe that this is a very beautiful word picture about us engaging in discipling different spheres of society, but from a prayer-based culture. Jesus always invited us to go higher; going higher actually means get nearer; getting nearer to him is a sign of going higher." [Transcribed from the audio]

The passage is further interpreted later on, after some of the speakers are mentioned.

Linda Fields: "I just love the idea of a whole family coming around the table, Daniel, all spheres of society coming together saying we want to impact the world for Jesus Christ. And we are coming here together to come up higher with the Lord and receive revelation, refreshing, there'll be teaching..." [Transcribed]

From these teachings, we get a few things from Daniel Lim and Linda Fields regarding what Matthew 17 has to teach for us:

1. Christ revealed himself to the disciples "in a way that would shock them."
2. Peter, James, and John were invited by Christ to a "prayer meeting."
3. This story is a "word picture" about "discipling different spheres of society" from the context of a "prayer-based culture."
4. In the passage, Jesus is inviting us "go higher," and hence "get nearer" to God, in order to "receive revelation" and "refreshing."

When we encounter a teaching by someone from the word of God, the first thing we need to do is examine what they are teaching, and hold it to the light of scripture. If what they are teaching is plain in scripture, then they are speaking in accordance with what scripture has written; if what they are teaching is not plain in scripture, then they are inserting doctrines and beliefs into the passage. We will examine these four statements one at a time, and see how they line up with what is written.

1) Christ revealed himself to the disciples "in a way that would shock them."

Some might be wondering why I highlighted this phrase, since, at first glance, it doesn't seem like too big of a statement. The truth is, such language is common in Hyper-Charismatic camps to attempt to make their unorthodox and often shocking interpretations of what is and isn't the Holy Spirit seem much more biblical. This is where you get phrases like "God will mess up your theology," or "God will appear in ways you never expected." While I do not deny God can give His providence and grace through ways not explicitly mentioned in the Bible (for example, finding good health insurance for your family), there are many things which are quite clearly not the Holy Spirit. For example, what is called "holy vomiting," as well as uncontrollable shaking like someone with Parkinson's Disease, are not outlined in scripture as traits the Holy Spirit instills in a person...in fact, they are usually associated with demonic influence. While I am not advocating judging the fruits of the Spirit by subjectivity, if someone that people are attempting to pass off as "the Holy Spirit" appears shocking to us, then that should be a red flag that we should be extra discerning.

2) Peter, James, and John were invited by Christ to a "prayer meeting."

No such invitation is directly given by Christ in the passage, let alone in any of the other versions found in the Synoptic Gospels. The accounts by Matthew and Mark do not make mention of the purpose for which they went up the mountain, aside from the purpose we outlined earlier. Luke's account states that Christ "took along Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray" (Luke 9:28). The verb "went up" is in the third person singular, referring to Christ alone, and is continued into the verb "to pray." This suggests that Christ had gone up to pray, and had merely brought the disciples along. We see this especially in verse 29: there, we find that Christ is praying alone, while the disciples are said later to have fallen asleep (v. 32). If this was a prayer meeting, it was perhaps the worst prayer meeting in history, since only one person was praying while the others were sleeping through it.

The purpose of the disciples being brought up the mountains, as interpreted by commentators and theologians throughout history, is directly related to the appearance of Moses and Elijah alongside Christ, as well as the voice from God the Father. Moses and Elijah each represented an aspect of the Jewish holy text: Moses represented the Law; Elijah represented the prophets. The words of God the Father regarding Christ were a reference to Deuteronomy 18:15, in which the Lord says, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him." The apostles themselves later confirmed that this statement was a Messianic prophecy regarding Christ (Acts 3:22; 7:37). With the three disciples themselves witnessing this, they in essence fulfilled the command by the Law regarding the number of witnesses, and hence could confirm the event took place (Deu 17:6; 2 Cor 13:1).

From all this, we can gather that the point of the disciples being brought up the mountain was to witness a visual confirmation of Christ's words regarding his being the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets (Mt 11:13), and a confirmation of Christ's Messianic status. The point is, Christ did not invite the disciples up to have a "prayer meeting"; Daniel Lim is completely reading that into the passage to attempt to give Mike Bickle's "prayer culture" theology biblical credit, when there really is none.

3) This story is a "word picture" about "discipling different spheres of society" from the context of a "prayer-based culture."

We must be very careful whenever he hear someone call something a "word picture," or an "image" of something; this is basically admitting that they are creating an allegory, or spiritualizing a passage. There are many allegories in the Bible. There are generally accepted shadows of Christ (cf. Gen 3:15), and there are times where Biblical authors themselves will make reference to certain actions or personalities being shadows (cf., 1 Cor 10:1-4). The danger, however, is looking for "word pictures" and "images" where there a none.

There are two easy ways to tell if someone is overstepping their bounds when it comes to allegories:

a) Is the passage confirmed elsewhere in scripture as an allegory or shadow? For example, the previously cited passage in 1 Corinthians confirms that the Old Testament account of the rock and the water was a foreshadow of Christ.

b) Is the passage being spoken of as an allegory of Christ and salvation, or us?

This last part is especially important, as many times people will transform Biblical passages into commands for us to do something, or turn it into something about us. Even if the intent is to glorify God, it is still a very man-centered view of scripture, because it is transforming the focus onto something about us and what we have to do.

In this particular example we are examining, do we see the focus of the supposed allegory being one centered around Christ and our salvation? On the contrary, it is about us and what we have to do - in this case, "discipling different spheres of society" through a "prayer-based culture" (ie., the 24-7 prayer and intercession modeled at IHOP-KC). There is, however, not a single sign that such a command is present in this passage; again, that has been completely read into it by Daniel Lim and Linda Fields. As we saw before, the passage is about Christ and the messianic status which Christ confirmed before his top three disciples - it has nothing to do about us, even in the context of worship.

Certainly no one throughout all of church history has interpreted this passage to mean that we are to "disciple different spheres of society" within the context of a "prayer-based culture." No one had any such notion until IHOP-KC and the personal revelations supposedly given to Mike Bickle and his peers by God. What Daniel Lim and Linda Fields are bringing forward is, historically speaking, coming out of a exegetical vacuum. Even the apostle Peter, when writing on the incident that he himself witnessed (2 Pet 1:16-21), makes absolutely no mention of the moment being about discipling different spheres of society through prayer-based cultures. Again, the leadership of IHOP-KC is alone in their interpretation of this passage, both from history and biblical authorship.

4) In the passage, Jesus is inviting us "go higher," and hence "get nearer" to God, in order to "receive revelation" and "refreshing."

Let us ask this very important question, related to our previous point: is there anything in this account in which we are told to do something? As we said before, the answer is no. Not a single part of this passage is about us, or something we must do in our spiritual state. This episode was a specific moment in Christ's earthly ministry, and was meant to point towards his divinity and glory, and his status as Messiah. Peter, James, and John were there as witnesses, not as allegories for what we are supposed to do today within the prayer/prophetic movement.

We must be very careful when someone takes a passage of scripture that is descriptive in nature, and then turns it into a prescriptive passage. Just because something is done in scripture does not necessarily mean it must be done by us. Furthermore, when a teacher or leader begins to call things "word images" for us to follow, and interprets it as something we have to do, we must recognize that they are warping the text to fit it into some doctrine or prescription which they themselves are desiring the people of God to do. The unfortunate thing is that this is what is being done at IHOP-KC...in fact, this is a common thing at IHOP-KC. The scriptural text is being warped to suit the needs of the IHOP-KC teachers, and to try to tell their followers that what they are doing has biblical significance, when really it has absolutely no biblical precedent whatsoever.

From this example, we unfortunately see yet another moment where passages of scripture are warped and misconstrued by IHOP-KC leadership to confirm their doctrines. They believe that they are glorifying God, but in actuality they are, through their mishandling of God's word, placing burdens upon the shoulders of their followers. Those at IHOP-KC truly need our prayers to see through the eisegesis brought about by Daniel Lim, Linda Fields, and others, and to come to a true knowledge of who Christ is, and what God's word says. They do not need a greater revelation to understand the Bible - God has placed it all right there.

Application Versus Interpretation

Some time ago, I got in a discussion on Twitter regarding someone's twisting of a scriptural verse based on a dream they had. When I pointed out that they had misused it, someone from their staff came up and said, "To use in application is NOT to interpret. Big difference. Application is NOT deriving doctrine."

The biggest problem I can see with this argument is that application implies interpretation. That is, application comes from your method of interpretation. Let me try to explain with this example:

A long time ago, I discussed context by citing a college friend playing his character in the video game Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and saying, "I could kill the whole world if I wanted to." Now, there are various modes of application that can come from various modes of interpretation, and two big ones are (with their interpretations):

The Contextual Approach
"When he says 'whole world,' he's clearly referring to the in game world, meaning the world in the game. He's not saying he wants to kill literally everybody in the whole wide world in real life."

The Experiential Approach
"I had a dream that he was going to go to a planet on the far end of the universe and kill all the alien mutants he found on it. That's what he was talking about."

In the former approach, the context of the citation is looked at. What do the words mean? Under what settings were they said? Why were they said? What led to them being said? What were they trying to convey? This is how most serious students of the Bible attempt to read it.

In the latter approach, the individual's personal experiences trump the plain meaning. The context of how it was said - including who, what, when, where, why, and how - is thrown out the window. Instead, the individual's personal experiences, dreams, and revelations are used as the guide for interpreting the original words. That those words were said under certain circumstances and speaking on certain subjects is no longer important; those words are understood in a whole new way, with a whole new application derived from the method of interpretation.

The funny thing is I'm sure most people who heard someone interpret my college friend with the experiential approach would think the individual was crazy. They'd probably say, "Dude, that's not what the guy meant. Don't mess with the context of what he said." Yet when it comes to the words of scripture, that sort of common sense gets thrown out the window. Suddenly, scripture can mean anything we want it to, for whatever reasons. Whether you're spiritualizing a verse never meant to be allegory, or you're basing your interpretation off of dreams and so-called prophetic words you've experienced, you're no longer letting the context of the words guide your understanding. The words I've cited before are the words of mortal men. Scripture is not. Scripture consists of the very words of God. Shouldn't we be even more careful not to abuse their context?

The fact is, as I wrote before, our application comes from our method of interpretation. If our method of interpretation does not have the plain meaning of scripture as its primary authority, then we have another authority besides God's word.

The Unwritten "Word of God"

The following quote comes from the blog of Julie Meyer, a singer and speaker at the International House of Prayer in Kansas City. It can be found in her recent post 28 Years In the Prayer Room:

I remember being there the day Bob Jones came up and said, ‘24/7 House Of Prayer’. The singing will never stop round the clock. God is releasing the song birds’ At that time I could not imagine doing anything else. A small group of us would talk about this over coffee frequently. ‘What would this look like? How could this be? 24/7 worship? Will I get to do this full-time? Will this be my job?” [sic]

I think it is an awesome thing to watch the spoken prophetic Word of God become a reality. That is exactly what I have watched these past 11 years. I literally saw the Prophetic Word become a reality of which I am actively involved in. I have watched my children grow up in the House Of Prayer. I have watched their hearts awakened to His Love at young ages. I have watched them become excellent in the Word of God and also excellent in their skill as prophetic musicians.

Now I am watching for the 2nd half of the prophetic word to become a reality. For I remember the day Bob Jones stood up and said ‘Out of this 24/7 House of Prayer will come the day when ‘No disease known to man will stand’. We are so close to this. I can feel it. I can see it in the distance but it is getting closer and closer. I tell myself, ‘I am so blessed that I get to do what I do. I get to praise my Bridegroom. I get to sing to my Father and experience the touch of the Holy Spirit. This is my calling. This is my heart and this is my Glory to awaken the dawn with my song. To sing, to praise, to prophesy that which is on the Lord’s heart.

Those who listen to my podcast might remember that when I reviewed Mike Bickle's message about the founding of IHOP-KC, I played a clip where Mike Bickle was speaking to Bob Jones about a revelation he discovered, and Bob Jones replies, "That's just as good, it's the Word of the Lord." Here we have Julie Meyer talking about the "spoken prophetic Word of God," as given by Bob Jones, and this is mentioned alongside the regular "Word of God" (which we'll assume is scripture).

Those who have studied the teachings of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the like, will know that there are often two authorities spoken of: the written word of God, and the unwritten word of God (most commonly called Holy Tradition or the teachings of the Church). Our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends, of course, would never argue that Holy Tradition supersedes or takes priority over scripture, only that it be seen with the same light and authority as written scripture. They argue that, since both come from the same source (namely, God), and were given to the church, then they are to be treated as equals. Of course, this boils down to whose authority you believe and who decides to discern what is and isn't infallible tradition (as there are major differences between Rome and the East), but that is another blog post for another time. For now, let's recognize that Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and many other so-called "apostolic" churches establish two sources of authority for their followers: the written Word of God, and the spoken or unwritten Word of God.

With this in mind, we realize two things regarding IHOP-KC, their opinion regarding the authority of scripture, and the role of their leaders:

1) In regards to the authority of scripture, IHOP-KC is no different than Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. They believe not only in the authority of the written word, but in the authority of the unwritten word, spoken by their prophets and leaders. This is something I've brought up before, asking whether or not IHOP-KC and its leaders are truly adherents to the doctrine of sola scriptura. While they claim on their website and in public statements that they hold everything up to the light of scripture, there are plenty of examples where scripture was read through the lens of the personal revelation and so-called prophetic experiences of their leaders (for example, Mike Bickle's treatment of Haggai 1:2 in the previously linked post).

2) We see yet again a confirmation that the interpretation of scripture and the guidance of the church, for those in these Houses of Prayer and Hyper-Charismatic movements, is not the plain meaning or historical interpretation of scripture, but rather the interpretations and personal revelations of their leaders. While they may deny this, if they were intellectually honest, they would realize this is the case. If Mike Bickle and Bob Jones had never existed, the interpretation of scripture as taught at IHOP-KC - especially in regards to the end times - would have never been reached. No one until the past few decades believed that there would be a group of "forerunners" preceding the end times. Again, the interpretation of scripture and the guidance of the church is dependent upon the leaders of the movement and their supposed connection to God.

This is, as I've discussed before, one of the traits of a cult, but more importantly it is simply another affirmation that scripture is not the final authority in these movements. The Houses of Prayer are not founded upon the word of God, but the word of their leaders, which interprets the word of God for their members and gives additional input for their theology. In the end, this separates them from the orthodox, universal church, and makes them very dangerous for unwary Christians.

MacArthur: How Should We Interpret the Bible?

A John MacArthur sermon about...well...read the title of the post.

How Should We Interpret the Bible?

Comparison of the Canon

This is something I dug up from the archives in my old blog. It's a comparison between the canon as recognized by the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Here's the link.

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?

Is the International House of Prayer truly Sola Scriptura?

Over and over again, faculty and staff at the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC) state that they hold scripture up to its highest standard. The Statement of Faith on IHOP-KC's website states: "The Bible is the final authority for all we believe and for how we are to live" (source). Another section of the website likewise states:

We deny that subjective prophetic experiences are equal to the inspired Word of God. In other words, all personal prophecy must uphold and honor the Scripture. [source]

Mike Bickle stated at Session 8 of the 2013 Prayer and Prophetic Conference that IHOP-KC doesn't "honor a dream or vision that doesn't honor the written word of God" (source). In his book on the prophetic movement, Mike Bickle likewise writes:

We value seeing ministry of the gifts of the Holy Spirit operate in relation to the written Word of God. This is a nonnegotiable aspect of the IHOP Missions Base quest to grow in the prophetic. [pg. 4, Prophetic]

The question we must ask, however, is if this is true. It is one thing to say you hold scripture up to a high standard, and another to actually follow this statement in application. For example, Roman Catholics might argue that they honor the word of God, but this is only in accordance with the teachings of their church. If a doctrine taught by their church is either completely absent from scripture, or is actually contradicted by scripture, then the authority of the church gets the upper hand over and against scripture.

The question must thus be asked: upon what does IHOP-KC base not only its existence, but the vast majority of its theology? As I demonstrated in a previous post, everything that IHOP-KC does and believes is based on personal revelation. IHOP-KC exists because Mike Bickle claims that God spoke to him in Cairo in 1982, and instructed him about what he was going to do with Christianity in the coming generation. IHOP-KC's vision of the end times - which fuels the theology, actions and purpose of the prayer room - comes from a direct revelation from God. Even the acronym "IHOP" is claimed by Bickle and others to have come directly from God.

Even more alarming is that interpretation of scripture is read not from an understanding of its original context, but rather through the lens of the personal revelation given. One big example of this, which I've given before, was Bickle's handling of Acts 2, where he cut up verses in half, ignored the larger context, and applied it to what IHOP-KC was doing. Another example, and one very telling, is found in a presentation given by Mike Bickle regarding the founding of IHOP-KC:

Sixteen years go by, it is now January 1999. Again, we have got more detail on the notes here. A man came to me on Sunday morning, on January 24, 1999, and he gave me Haggai 1:2. Let’s read it:

“This people says, ‘The time has not come, the time that the Lord’s house should be built.’” It says: these people say in their heart that the time has not yet come that the house of the Lord should be built.

He looked at me, and he said, “Don’t say in your heart, from Haggai 1:2, do not say . . .” He opened the Bible, pointed, and he said, “Don’t say it is not time to build this twenty-four-hour house of prayer.”

I said, “Well, I don’t think it is time.”

He said, “Yes, but you are not supposed to say that.”

I said, “Well, it doesn’t really work that way, though I appreciate your sincerity.” I was thinking of just the immense amount of work, labor, and I decided to say no. “In the future for sure, we are going to do it.” We had a sign on the wall for most of the sixteen years that said “24-hour prayer in the spirit of the tabernacle of David.” We had it on the wall, and everybody saw it for years and years. He said, “It is time to build it.”

I said, “I don’t know. I don’t think so.” Then, I got on the airplane that day and went to Colorado Springs, and there was a prophetic conference. On Wednesday in Colorado Springs, a man named Kingsley Fletcher came to me. I did not know him. I had heard of him, but had never met him. He came up to me, and I was with a group of guys talking. He points his finger at me, and he is smiling at me as if he knows something I do not know. I know that he is prophetic, and I am smiling, as he is smiling. He closed his eyes; he says, “Do not say in your heart it is not time to build the house of the Lord, Haggai 1:2.”

Let's pause here a moment: has anyone in Christian history, up until this moment, interpreted Haggai 1:2 as referencing the founding of the International House of Prayer? On the contrary, Haggai is speaking of the reconstruction of the Second Temple - any one who simply reads the book of Haggai would understand that. Avoiding any complicated discussion on the original Hebrew, systematic theology, etc., let's simply read the previous verse:

In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came by the hand of Haggai the prophet to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest [Haggai 1:1]

Was the International House of Prayer founded in the second year of Darius [Hystaspis] the king, in the sixth month (Elul, roughly our July or August), on the first day of the month? Is Mike Bickle the prophet Haggai? Did he speak these words to Zerubbabel and Joshua? Did Mike Bickle speak to ancient Jews (the "these people" of verse 2)? If we answered no to any of these questions, then this verse is not about the International House of Prayer and its founding. Some might contend that the apostles often found dual fulfillment in ancient prophecies - however, the apostles had been granted the special ability by Christ to see him in the scriptures (Lk 24:44-47). Therefore, if we are attempting to grant Mike Bickle and his associates this ability, we are putting them on equals with the apostles, and granting them the same ability. The fact is, Bickle abused God's word, and distorted its context to substantiate the supposed revelation. He interpreted God's word not from the immediate context or how scripture itself interpreted it, but how his so-called "prophetic" experiences interpreted it.

Contrary to Bickle's earlier quoted assurances, all this is not "upholding and honoring" scripture, but twisting scripture to suit the "subjective prophetic experiences" which you claim were given to you by God. In other words, you're placing something else as a higher authority than scripture. When one says "scripture defines scripture," what they mean is that the ultimate meaning of God's word is understood by how God, the author of Holy Writ, explains it himself. Any time you give someone other than God that authority - whether it's a church, a single person, or personal experiences - then you are superseding God's authority, and raising an authority higher than His word.

From all this, we can see that, as a matter of fact, IHOP-KC's final authority is not scripture, and they do not uphold the historical doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
---------------------------------
Bickle, Mike. Growing in the Prophetic. Lake Mary: Charisma House, 2008.

Isaiah 14:27 and Therapeutic Theology

I saw the image on the left shared on Facebook. As those who read my blog post know, I have a great distaste for theology which seeks to turn God into something therapeutic or "feel good." For further reading, read how I feel about Jeremiah 29:11 (and see this image about it for good measure). So when I came across this image, I had a feeling that more therapeutic theology was being pushed upon people, sacrificing the original meaning of God's word for a few seconds of heart tugging, feel good nonsense.

Let's first tackle the question: is this actually what Isaiah 14:27 says? Here's the original quote:

For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? [Isaiah 14:27]

All right, so our immediate problem is that it says nothing about God's plan for my life. Yes, it talks of what God "has purposed," and his hand being "stretched out," but this could be about anything. I checked a few translations to see if any worded the verse differently, but even The Message managed to get it fairly correct (amazingly enough as that is).

So here's the immediate question: what's the full context of the verse? Let's take a look and find out:

The LORD of hosts has sworn: “As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand, that I will break the Assyrian in my land, and on my mountains trample him underfoot; and his yoke shall depart from them, and his burden from their shoulder.” This is the purpose that is purposed concerning the whole earth, and this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? [Isaiah 14:24-27]

Um...wow. Is this at all about God's plan for my life? Actually no, it's about God's judgment upon Assyria. This image has removed the verse as far away from the original context as possible. You could have picked any verse out of the Bible and slapped it under the text, and it would have made about as much sense.

This is yet another example where context and the true meaning of God's word is sacrificed for emotionalism and therapeutic theology.

Does God give new revelation?

Special H/T to Apprising Ministries for this tidbit from Charles Spurgeon.

Now there are some persons who make a great mistake about the influence of the Holy Spirit. A foolish man, who had fancy to preach in a certain pulpit, though in truth he was quite incapable of the duty, called upon the minister, and assured him solemnly that it had been revealed to him by the Holy Ghost, that he was to preach in his pulpit.

“Very well,” said the minister, “I suppose I must not doubt your assertion, but as it has not been revealed to me that I am to let you preach, you must go your way until it is.” I have heard many fanatical persons say the Holy Spirit revealed this and that to them. Now that is very generally revealed nonsense.

The Holy Ghost does not reveal anything fresh now. He brings old things to our remembrance. “He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have told you.” The canon of revelation is closed; there is no more to be added.

God does not give a fresh revelation, but he rivets the old one. When it has been forgotten, and laid in the dusty chamber of our memory, he fetches it out and cleans the picture, but does not paint a new one.

There are no new doctrines, but the old ones are often revived. It is not, I say, by any new revelation that the Spirit comforts. He does so by telling us old things over again; he brings a fresh lamp to manifest the treasures hidden in Scripture; he unlocks the strong chests in which the truth had long lain, and he points to secret chambers filled with untold riches; but he comes no more, for enough is done.

Believer! there is enough in the Bible for thee to live upon for ever. If thou shouldst outnumber the years of Methusaleh, there would be no need for a fresh revelation; if thou shouldst live till Christ should come upon the earth, there would be no necessity for the addition of a single word.

If thou shouldst go down as deep as Jonah, or even descend as David said he did, into the belly of hell, still there would be enough in the Bible to comfort thee without a supplementary sentence.

But Christ says, “He shall take of mine and shall show it unto you.”

An Examination of Purgatory Prooftexts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One verse that demonstrates this:

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

And again:

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

And again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also the response to Hebrews 12:14 above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Jews ever consider the apocrypha scripture?

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

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

The "That's Your Interpretation" Fallacy

Oftentimes when someone quotes scripture to demonstrate their point, someone will contend it with the counterargument: "That's your interpretation." There are other versions of this, including "That's just your opinion" and similar wording. The problem is that if this is said simply as a blanket statement rather as the introduction to an argument which will demonstrate the point, then it is simply a fallacious response.

In my experience, the people who make such argumentation have one thing in common: they can never follow it up. They will tell you "That's just your interpretation" or "That's just how you see the verse," but when you ask them to demonstrate how you might be misrepresenting the verse, or you ask them to examine the verse, they almost always will refuse to do so.

Brothers and sisters, if anyone pulls this fallacy with you, do not permit it to them. If one wishes to suggest you have misused God's word, ask them to answer for it. Explain it. Demonstrate it. If they cannot, or they simply repeat themselves, or they present a very shallow response, then they will have shown themselves to be full of nothing but hot air. Stick to the word of God, show that the truth is there in the plain wording, and they will have nowhere else to go.

Your Moment of Zen

Jeremiah 29:11 is NOT ABOUT YOU!

Recently on Facebook I came across the image on the left, which someone had placed up as their profile cover. I asked the person: "Are you an ancient Jew living in Babylon?" My comment got deleted and I was told not to post it again. I explained my position in a detailed, respectful post, in which I went over the context, as seen in the very image itself. You can see in verse 10 that the Lord, through the prophet Jeremiah, states: "You will be in Babylon for seventy years. But then I will come and do for you all the good things I have promised, and I will bring you home again." Immediately, what is the context? Who is being spoken of in this verse? The Jews who would live in the Babylonian Captivity, which was to last seventy years. They're the subject of discussion. We then go to verse 11: "For I know the plans I have for you"...now let's stop here - who is the you here? It's still the same context; that is, it's the Jews of verse 10. God is saying: "For I know the plans I have for you [the ancient Jews enduring the Babylonian Captivity], plans for good and not for disaster [that is, the nation would be restored], to give you a future and a hope [that is, that their nation and Temple would be rebuilt]." It isn't about people living in the year 2012, and the "good," "future" and "hope" are all specific. You can especially see this latter point later on in verse 14, where the Lord says, "I will end your captivity and restore your fortunes. I will gather you out of the nations where I sent you and will bring you home again to your own land." Again, I'm demonstrating this from the very image itself: it shows that the highlighted verse is being taken out of context. All this was what I wrote the individual - and my post was, of course, immediately deleted, as was any evidence a conversation had taken place. Social media is, for many, a chance to "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18).

I have been told that people will read the Bible and see the context any way, but I don't believe people really do. How many times have we heard this verse uttered on K-LOVE? How many times have we seen bumper stickers of this? How many times have we seen this sold on goofy business cards at Christian bookstores? How many times has this been shared on social media like Facebook? If people as a whole understood the context of the verse, they wouldn't abuse it so frequently. I've beaten this dead horse before, I know. Some might be sick of hearing about it, or wonder why I spend so much time on it. Why is it such a pet peeve for me? I'll tell you why. It's because this kind of thing teaches "feel good" theology. It teaches a sappy world where God just wants you to be happy. It tells you good things will only get better, because that's what God wants.

Folks, you don't need to be the love child of Jonathan Edwards and J. Gresham Machen to understand how bad a theology that is. Even an extreme atheist will tell you life is not like that. Sometimes life just stinks. Only too recently I experienced some of the worst years of my life. By God's grace, my life is doing better now, but who am I to suppose the circumstances around the end of my life will be happy? The fact is, the "plans" God may have for your life, especially near the end, may not be "good" or "hopeful" with a great "future" ahead. As I've brought up before, you might end your life peacefully, or you might end it like Paul, Ignatius, Tyndale, or Bonhoeffer - killed for your faith in an embarrassing or violent way.

So why do I hate the abuse of Jeremiah 29:11? I hate it because it's an abuse of God's word. I hate it because it's a sacrifice of context for "Evan-jellyfish" theology. I hate it because it teaches people to look for emotional kicks in the Bible rather than God's truth. I hate it because it gives a distorted presentation of what God's word says on how our lives will be. I hate it because it's a smack in the face to every Christian whose life ended because he was torched by Hindu radicals, or shot by Muslim extremists, or executed by atheists. I hate it because it's insulting to God, as if we're trying to tell Him that we're expecting hope and good despite His actual plans for us. I hate it because I have seen people abuse this verse and turn it into an idol, and respond harshly to those who dare question the power of this idol.

What will you do, dear Christian, if God does not desire hope and goodness for your future? What if He desires suffering, as many early Christians endured? What if He desires that you shall lose your high paying job (as the apostle Paul did), or lose a beloved one (as the prophet Ezekiel did), or find yourself hated by most within your society (as the prophets Elijah and Jeremiah did)? Where will be your faith then? What drove the early Christians on as they endured three hundred years of persecution? Was it the silly idea that eventually they would find greener pastures because of eisegeting an Old Testament passage? Or was it because, as the apostle Paul wrote, they considered "the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us" (Rom 8:18). Do you truly have this mindset, dear Christian? Are you ready to endure pain and anguish in this life knowing that God has provided the one thing you truly need? That is, your very redemption. Are you ready to be like the blind man in John 9 who, after persecution and banishment, still desired to see and worship Christ? Do you have such a heart?

Consider these things prayerfully. God bless.

Authority of Exposition

The following is from Adam Clarke's commentary on the Song of Solomon. Although he was referring specifically to that book, I think it pays to remember these words when attempting to over-allegorize any book of scripture.

In the preceding notes I have carefully avoided all attempts to spiritualize this song. My reasons I have already given in the introduction; and in the course of writing these short notes I have seen no cause to alter my opinion. Any man may allegorize it; that is an easy matter; for when he once considers it to be an allegory, his own creed will furnish him with enough to say, write, or preach, upon the spiritual meanings of every part, which will be an exhibition of his own confession of faith! But when he has finished his work, the question will recur, By what authority do you give it these meanings? And till the day of judgment none shall be able to say, "I have the authority of God for my exposition."

Jeremiah 29:11

The following I've touched on before in this post.

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]

Does Genesis 49:27 Teach Paul was Evil?

"Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil." [Genesis 49:27]

Does this verse warn us to avoid Paul of Tarsus as a false apostle and evil man? The reasoning behind this is that Paul was a member of the tribe of Benjamin. Paul said this himself in his epistles:

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. [Romans 11:1]

If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. [Philippians 3:4b-6]

A conclusion is taken from this: Paul must have been "a ravenous wolf" - a false apostle - who "devoured the prey" of the Gospel, and "divided the spoils" in evil. I am not making this up - someone recently presented this to me as an argument against Paul's apostleship.

Of course, Paul isn't the only descendant of Benjamin in scripture. Who else is? The judge Ehud (Judg 3:15), the king Saul and his son Jonathan (1 Sam 9:21), and Mordecai the helper of Esther (Est 2:5) were all descendants of Benjamin. While one might make a case for Saul, are we to say that Ehud, Jonathan and Mordecai were all wicked men who could not be trusted? In fact, let's go a step further - should any ethnic Jew who descends from the tribe of Benjamin be considered evil? Why does the application of Genesis 49:27 only deal with the apostle Paul? Why isn't it about Ehud? Why isn't it about Jonathan? Why isn't it about Mordecai? Why isn't it about that nice Jewish man you met on the train?

Plus, this isn't the only verse in the Bible about Benjamin. We find Moses speaking in the Law with:

Of Benjamin he said, "The beloved of the LORD dwells in safety. The High God surrounds him all day long, and dwells between his shoulders." [Deuteronomy 33:12]

Wait a minute...in one verse Benjamin is a "ravenous wolf," but in another verse Benjamin is a "beloved of the Lord" and is surrounded by God, and God dwells between his shoulders? Is this a contradiction? Should we trust Paul now, since it is now said that God has surrounded him and dwells between his shoulders? But I thought Paul was a ravenous wolf - now God dwells inside him? As a wise man once said, "This done confuse my thinkin'!" There has to be a contradiction here!

On the contrary, there is no contradiction, because those who use Genesis 49:27 in the manner our diatribe does are misusing it completely. Turn to Genesis 49 and look at the entire context of the chapter - you will find that it is Jacob blessing his sons, and telling them what their descendants will be like. When he calls Benjamin a "ravenous wolf," it is actually meant as something of a compliment, because the descendants of Benjamin (such as Ehud and Jonathan) became skilled at war. Some commentators who discuss this topic:

But [the verse] respects the tribe itself, compared to a wolf for its fortitude, courage, and valour, as well as for its rapaciousness, it being a warlike tribe; and the Jewish writers say, that it is compared to a wolf, because of its strength. [John Gill; from his commentaries]

...he only foresees and foretels this, that his posterity should be a warlike tribe, strong and daring, and that they should enrich themselves with the spoils of their enemies... Ehud the second judge, and Saul the first king, were of this tribe; and so also in the last times Esther and Mordecai, by whom the enemies of the Jews were destroyed, were of this tribe. [Matthew Henry; from his commentaries]

Benjamin is described as a wolf who is engaged morning and evening, that is, all day long, in hunting after prey. He was warlike by character and conduct (Judges 20-21), and among his descendants are Ehud, Saul, and Jonathan. [Albert Barnes, from his commentaries]

This is how the verse has been interpreted during the span of the 2000 years of the Christian church, therefore anyone who argues contrary to this has clearly been given a new revelation no one else has ever received. For certain John Calvin writes of interpreters who wrongfully applied verse 27 to Paul, saying that he went from being a wolf to an apostle, and Matthew Henry does similar as those interpreters when he says that Paul did "in the morning of his day, devour the prey as a persecutor, but, in the evening, divided the spoil as a preacher." In such a case, however, it interprets it as referring to Paul in a positive light, not a negative one. Again, the idea that this verse refers specifically to Paul, and in a negative light, is brand new to the history of Christianity.

Of course, there lies here a bigger problem than the misuse of a single verse, and that is a flawed methodology in reading the scriptures. Rather than reading God's word in context and as a flow of thought, it is read like ancient hieroglyphics, or a system of cryptic messages from which some secret message has to be decoded. Like some Omega Code nonsense, people go through God's word, picking a verse here and applying it to an unrelated verse here, trying to discover some undiscovered conspiracy that will reveal some unknown truth. Consistency seems to not be a concern - one cannot, after all, declare one book of the Bible corrupt but at the same time take their evidence from it. Furthermore, if we confess scripture to be God's divine word, we cannot at the same time declare him a victim of fatalism by saying that bits and pieces (if not outright chunks) of lies have been inserted into His divine truth with God being unable to do anything in the way of preservation. The former is the habit of atheists and Muslims seeking to refute Christianity, while the latter is the habit of liberal Christians seeking to minimize God's authority. In the end, such methodology is opposed to God, not supportive.

The fact is, God has not hidden truths in scripture that we have to search out and unscramble like a kind of divine cryptogram. God's truth has been made plain to us, so that everyone from the theologian with a ThD to the layman sitting in church taking notes may hear it and be edified, if not saved. As the apostle John wrote: "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). God uses the preaching of the written word to give His general call for salvation, just as the apostle Paul wrote: "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" (Rom 10:14) Our salvation does not come from looking for Gnostic-like truth hidden deep within scripture, waiting to be discovered and opened up like a Hellraiser puzzle box. Our salvation comes from the preaching of God's word, which is available to all to be heard by all.

If any one treats God's word in the manner I have described previously - looking through it like a hyper-dispensationalist trying to find some secret message to reveal to believers - I seriously suggest that you reevaluate how you read God's word. Meditate on these things, and by God's grace you will realize that scripture is not a magical puzzle box, but the single narrative of God's bringing about salvation for His people. When you discover this, you will truly enjoy the word of God for what it is. God bless.

The Story of a Christian II

Gather round, chil'ren, it's story time again.

Once upon a time there was a Christian. He ran a ministry and was well known for his preaching, which was scriptural and on the level. All this changed when our Christian started opposing someone else's ministry. In this ministry, there were some signs and wonders that were amazing people and leading many to believe. There were even supposed healings in this ministry. People were flocking to these signs and wonders, believing they to be the work of God. Many made a profession of faith because of it.

Well, our Christian was worried by all this. He was worried about the false teachings and contrary theology that came with these signs and wonders. He began to protest it, telling those within the church that they didn't need to seek for signs and wonders, but they just had to turn to the holy scriptures for guidance from God. Unfortunately, this was not met well. Layman and church leader alike condemned our Christian as an agitator, a Pharisee and a heretic. He was soon removed from his position in the city, and forced to minister outside in the country. Eventually he was even arrested and executed for his beliefs. Those who carried this out believed that they did the church a favor and that they were better off without him.

Who was this Christian? It was Jan Hus, the fifteenth century Bohemian theologian. The "signs and wonders" were a red wafer that the Roman church claimed was a Eucharistic host covered in the blood of Christ himself. It was declared a miracle and pilgrims were coming from all over to see the wafer in Brandenburg. Jan Hus openly denounced the supposed miracles, saying that it was the word of God by which Christians were to live, and from there his life spiraled downward until finally he was condemned and ordered to be burned at the stake at the Council of Constance. A year later, Martin Luther and many others would arise in the Reformation, and the truth Jan Hus had professed would finally take root, by the grace of God.

This day and age, many people want to forgo the authority of scripture, or even doctrinal purity for the sake of signs and wonders. As I said during last story time, if many so-called Christians today were consistent with their own positions, they would be against the greatest Christian teachers in history. Those staunchly condemning those who speak against the "signs and wonders" ministries in favor of the complete, and just preliminary, authority of scripture, would be like those who long ago opposed Jan Hus for his own opposition to "signs and wonders" ministries in his day. Yet it wasn't because of Jan Hus's person that his position was the correct one - it was because all that he protested worked against the authority of scripture, while his own authority came from the inspired word of God.