Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts

Friday, February 7, 2014

The Mainstreaming of IHOP-KC

Here's a question: what do the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the International House of Prayer in Kansas City have in common? I mean besides from both having founders who claimed to have spoken directly to God, claimed to have received special direction from God regarding how the church was to go, claimed to have received special insight into the true meaning of scriptural passages from God, and claimed to have received a special commission from God on how to handle and lead the current state of the church. Besides all that, what do they have in common?

Over the past few decades, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (more popularly known as Mormonism) has begun to attempt to mainstream itself. Whereas in the olden times they taught that there were two churches - the church of the devil and the Mormon church - nowadays they attempt to pass themselves off as just another denomination, like the PCA, LCMS, Reformed Baptist churches, etc. They do this by softening their language to sound more and more orthodox, while leaving out all the questionable theology, or the theology unique to the teachings of their founder. For example, they will tell you that they believe this God to be "the God of this world," which sounds harmless...until you realize that Mormonism teaches God is quite literally the God of this world, and that all other worlds have their own gods.

I couldn't help but notice, in the past few years, that IHOP-KC has begun to do likewise. I've written before about what Francis Chan's visit to IHOP-KC's 2013 OneThing Conference meant - namely, getting a big name in the Evangelical community to come out and declare publicly "I love Mike Bickle" and "I love IHOP-KC" (which Francis Chan, unfortunately, did). I've mentioned that those within IHOP-KC have heard Mike Bickle admit that the "vision for IHOP is at its lowest point," and they "need people to buy into the movement." One way they seem to be going about this, aside from getting big names to support them, is by attempting to soften their theological rhetoric when discussing prayer, missions, and the like.

A recent article in Charisma magazine, and about the 2013 OneThing Conference, showcases this. It discusses the issues of prayer and worship at IHOP-KC, but just from this one article, one would never have assumed the deeper implications believed about these subjects at IHOP-KC. Take, for example, this part at the beginning (quotes from the article will be in purple):
"We want to see the gospel preached and 24/7 worship and prayer in every tribe and tongue," said Mike Bickle, founder of IHOPKC, in the opening session.

Bickle added, "We're believing for 10,000 prayer chains or prayer ministries across the earth. We're hosting the first meeting, bringing together the movements in church planting, missions, prayer and Bible translation. There's one movement in God's heart, and some people think a call to prayer and fasting is a call to isolation and [to] disengage. The missions movement needs the prayer movement, and the local church needs to be filled with the glory of God."

More than 500 leaders from around the world met for the first Onething Leadership Summit.

"We sent letters to 200 leaders, inviting them to this summit six weeks ago," says Daniel Lim, CEO of IHOPKC. "Over 80 percent of the leaders we invited said yes. This is such a unique meeting because we have a common urgency that we need to pray."
Reading this, you would think that IHOP-KC was just another movement desiring to evangelize, like many others out there. Why, however, do they believe in prayer and fasting? Why do those at IHOP-KC believe there is a "common urgency that we need to pray"? What does that entail? What is not mentioned in the article is that the "urgency" to pray comes from a belief that through prayer we grant God the permission to act on earth as He pleases. What also is not mentioned is that, according to IHOP-KC's end time beliefs, when enough prayer is offered up to God, then the vengeance against the antichrist and the powers of evil will begin.

And what of the fasting? As taught by Misty Edwards and many others (including Bickle himself), fasting and prayer brings about the ability to become more "in tune" with God...which at IHOP-KC means being able to receive the "secret things" of God's heart, namely end times revelations and special insight into the spiritual realm. The IHOP-KC view of the rewards of fasting is like a mix between Gnosticism and Christian eschatology.

Another example of what I'm talking about is seen later on in the article, and is written after a discussion on the need for Bible translations in missions:
Bickle sees the house of prayer movement as a catalyst for missions, evangelism and Bible translation.

"We're just hosting the dialogue and providing the platform for new relationships, new ideas and new plans every year in Kansas City," he says. "The house of prayer movement is the banner for all of these over movements."
Is that all it is? Why was Mike Bickle called to begin the International House of Prayer? According to Bob Jones, a proven false prophet but someone whom Bickle calls his good buddy, God raised up Mike Bickle to lead an end times movement among the youth to prepare the church for the return of Jesus. Teachers and preachers at IHOP-KC and its related movement continually use language in the vain of, "the Lord is doing this," "the Lord is raising up," etc. This is what all those "missions, evangelism, and Bible translation" ministries are getting involved with.

When you present people with this kind of watered down rhetoric, it's not hard to win supporters, or people who will at best have antipathy towards you. Such a person will encounter a critic of IHOP-KC and respond to them, "I don't get it, why do you dislike them so much? They just seem to enjoy prayer." It is similar to those who are ignorant of the errors of Mormonism and respond to Christian discernment with, "I don't get it, they believe in Jesus too, right? Why do you think they're not Christian?"

The unfortunate thing is that many who come across IHOP-KC through these kinds of articles may eventually have enough of an interest to sign up for the prayer room or at IHOPU, and so fall into the snare of the wolves in sheep's clothing. There they will be taught and fed the truly erroneous doctrines given by Bickle and his followers. We should pray and ask God that this does not happen, and that those currently at IHOP-KC would be awakened by the Spirit to the spiritual junk food being fed to them, and then freed from the yoke placed upon them by their Hyper-Charismatic leaders.

Friday, August 2, 2013

The Theological Humor of Mystery Science Theater 3000

One of my favorite shows of all time is Mystery Science Theater 3000. For those of you who have not been graced by this masterpiece of comedy, the show tells the story of a man and two robots who are stuck in space by a mad scientist, and are forced to watch real-life terrible movies in a sick experiment. Characters and voice actors changed throughout the show, but the main point always remained the same, which was to heckle horrible movies.

One thing I've noticed over time is that many of their jokes are theological or religious in nature. I thought for fun I would start to collect some together. Obviously this will take some time as I remember some or watch more episodes. If any fellow MSTie out there would like to help, feel free to email me (my address is on the right) and give me episode number, movie title, and a help as to context, and I'll try to add it here post-haste with some credit. Many thanks ahead of time.

Episode #301: Cave Dwellers

Ator: "Man's destiny is predetermined..."
Joel: "Oh, he's a Calvinist!"

Episode #411: The Magic Sword

[As a giant stone is moved aside]
Joel: "Why do you seek the living among the dead?"
Explanation: A reference to what the angel says to the women at the empty tomb (Luke 24:5).

Episode #514: Teenage Strangler

Betty: "I turned for just a second, and..."
Mike: "And you became a pillar of salt. What? What?"
Explanation: A reference to the fate of Lot's wife when she turned to look at burning Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:26).

Lieutenant: "What about you?"
Mike: "Surely not I, Lord!"
Explanation: What the disciples said when Christ revealed that one of them would turn traitor (Matt 26:22).

Mikey: "It's all my fault!"
Mike: "Well, only in the sense of original sin..."

Lieutenant: "Got a friend of yours with me..."
Mike: "Maybe it's Jesus!"
Tom Servo: "Probably not..."

Episode #603: The Dead Talk Back

Mike: "Fine! Fine! Everyone pick on the devil!"

Crow: "Hey look, the devil is my brother!"

Episode #904: Werewolf

Crow: "O God of Battles!"
Explanation: A reference to the prayer of Henry V before the Battle of Angicourt.

There are a couple of obvious references in this one, all of them a play on the main character's name of Paul.

Natalie: "Paul?"
Mike: "I enjoyed your letter to the Philippians."

Natalie: "So what do you think, Paul?"
Mike: "Could the Colossians stand another letter?"

Episode #908: The Touch of Satan

Crow: "Lay on him."
Explanation: Some fans believe this is a really, really, really obscure reference to Elijah's resurrection of the Zarephath widow's son (1 Kings 17:21-22).

Episode #1003: Merlin's Shop of Mystical Wonders

Old Woman: "All right...who's the wise guy?"
Tom Servo: [as lightning flashes] "I AM WHO AM the wise guy!"
Explanation: A reference to God's identification of Himself as "I AM WHO AM" (Exodus 3:14).

Episode #1004: Future War

The episode features a Roman Catholic nun having a crisis of faith and a Bible quoting, kung fu fighting human slave (no I'm NOT kidding). As you can tell, the jokes for theology and ecclesiastics abound. 

Hero: [while the female looks annoyed] "Better a neighbor near..."
Crow: "Heard it!"

[The alien robot breaks into the Catholic church]
Mike: "The Lutheran church builds a cyborg!"

Hero: "I want to be like that man..."
Tom Servo: "Jesus was a kickboxer, right?"

Episode #1008: Final Justice

[A mafioso dresses up as a monk and does the sign of the cross in a church, trying to play the part]
Mike: "Uh...Dominos...pizza delivery...whatever."

Saturday, March 16, 2013

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.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

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]

Monday, February 4, 2013

Madden Theology

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

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

Monergist

Synergist

Charismatic

Roman Catholic

Eastern Orthodox

Liberal Christian

Emergent

Dispensationalist

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Theology Fanboys: A Rant

If there is one thing that is a major stumbling block for me, it's fanboys. Ugh...fanboys. Just writing that word leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

Some of my readers may not be familiar with the term "fanboy." One of the definitions offered by the Urban Dictionary reads:
An extreme fan or follower of a particular medium or concept, whether it be sports, television, film directors, video games (the most common usage), etc.

Known for a complete lack of objectivity in relation to their preferred focus. Usually argue with circular logic that they refuse to acknowledge. Arguments or debates with such are usually futile. Every flaw is spun into semi-virtues and everything else, blown to comedic, complimentary proportions. [source]
The most common usage for the word "fanboy" generally revolves around science fiction universes, superheroes, anime, and video games.

For example: Star Wars. Some people just like Star Wars because it's entertaining; others like it because it's a fascinating universe from which to draw inspiration. Both of these are perfectly legitimate reasons to enjoy it. Yet there are those out there who will defend any criticism of the saga to the death. If you say something objective like, "You know, I didn't like Episode II all that much - the acting and pacing was just poorly done," they will react violently and defend against every small point you make. What's more, they'll attempt to turn it against you as if your dislike of something is a personal fault. Even if you say something reasonably harmless like "I don't hate it, I just dislike x, y and z," they'll react as if you just said "I really despise that movie and hope everyone involved in it and their immediate family dies." They might not even respond to your argument at all - they might throw a cliche, tired argument out that avoids everything and simply say something shallow like, "You just don't get the art!" Most of the time it's not even worth speaking to these people, because even if you clearly demonstrate your point to be valid or their arguments to be fallacious, they will nonetheless continue on with their shallow reasoning, much like the emperor adorned with his "new clothes" continuing the parade.

As suggested before, fanboys can be in many circles, not just science fiction or comic books. As one ventures into the realm of theology, they may find that, indeed, there are fanboys there as well. I might divide these into two groups:

Firstly, there are the cultic fanboys. These are the ones who basically equate disagreement with a minister or a ministry with disagreement with God Himself. This is pretty self-explanatory, I think.

Secondly, there are the passive-aggressive fanboys, who from now on shall be referred to as PAFs. Why do I call them passive-aggressive fanboys? These are the typical fanboys in denial. That is, they will often open up their responses with, "I don't think this ministry/this minister is infallible, but..." and proceed to treat the person as infallible. PAFs may deny that they are upholding a person or ministry as equal with the word of God so as to avoid falling into the trap of cultic fanboys, and yet their attitude and inability to accept any legitimate criticism says otherwise. A PAF may even argue "I'm not necessarily supporting this individual, but..." and proceed to not only support the person or ministry, but to support them to the death. Just like the PAFs mentioned before, such PAFs will refuse to listen to reason or give direct responses to your arguments, and holding discussions with them will end up simply debating in circles.

Let's now examine how an agreement avoiding fanboyism could play out between two brothers in Christ:
Christian A: "Have you ever read Pilgrim's Progress? It's a classic."
Christian B: "I dunno, I couldn't really get into all the analogies Bunyan used. It's just not my thing."
Christian A: "Ah, I can understand that. I personally think he did an OK job, but then again I'm a sucker for that kind of thing."
See, wasn't that pleasant? Now let's see it through the lens of a cultic fanboy:
Christian A: "Have you ever read Pilgrim's Progress? It's a classic."
Christian B: "I dunno, I couldn't really get into all the analogies Bunyan used. It's just not my thing."
Christian A: "You're such a Pharisee. Don't you know how many people God saved with that book? You need to rethink your position, or you will face severe judgment for your attitude."
Wow, that went downhill quickly. Now let's look at it through the lens of a PAF.

Christian A: "Have you ever read Pilgrim's Progress? It's a classic."
Christian B: "I dunno, I couldn't really get into all the analogies Bunyan used. It's just not my thing."
Christian A: "What do you mean you couldn't get into the analogies?"
Christian B: "I dunno, just not my thing is all. The delivery was like a kid's book to me."
Christian A: "Christ used analogies. Are you saying his work was bad?"
Christian B: "No, not at all, I just mean the way Bunyan used them, I couldn't get into it."
Christian A: "Could you get into the parables? What's wrong with you."
Christian B: "Nothing's wrong with me! I'm just saying Pilgrim's Progress wasn't my cup of tea is all."
Christian A: "Bunyan is a well respected author. Who are you?"
All right, that's starting to get painful. I think I've clarified my position, any way. Now, least I cause anyone to stumble by confusing fanboyism with simple defense of a topic, let's review this situation again, but through the lens of someone attempting to defend John Bunyan but not in a fanboy-like way.

Christian A: "Have you ever read Pilgrim's Progress? It's a classic."
Christian B: "I dunno, I couldn't really get into all the analogies Bunyan used. It's just not my thing."
Christian A: "Really? I think they're pretty well done. I like them."
Christian B: "It just reads like a kid's book to me, I suppose."
Christian A: "Well, keep in mind Bunyan was trying to convey something child-like, so that even the layman could understand what he was trying to convey. However, if you don't care for that kind of use of analogy, I might suggest Bunyan's more straight theological work. They're work reading, and might be more up your alley."
See? Christian A defended Bunyan, but didn't treat Christian B's opinion like it was the result of some great personal fault. Now, just for good measure, let's see an example where accusing the other person of being a fanboy is actually itself wrong.

Christian A: "Have you ever read Pilgrim's Progress? It's a classic."
Christian B: "Yeah I did. It was the dumbest, stupidest, stinkiest thing I've ever read."
Christian A: "Uh...well I mean, Bunyan's not perfect, but I didn't think it was that bad..."
Christian B: "Quit being such a Bunyan fanboy!"
In this example we see where accusing someone of fanboyism is actually incorrect. Having an appreciation for something - even to a high degree - does not by itself make you fanboy. The reader might refer back to my original example with Star Wars: some like it, maybe even love it, for specific reasons that are perfectly legitimate, but do not sink to the level of fanboyism. Merely liking something does not equate to being a fanboy of it.

At this point I think I'm starting to have too much fun with the topic. End of rant.

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Do Calvinists worship a monster?

Recently I had an online exchange with a gentleman who was offering protests against the doctrines of Reformed theology. Many of these contentions are based on simple misconceptions that are fairly commonplace, but I thought it would be worth going over for the benefit of those who perhaps have never seen this arguments addressed or perhaps have never experienced them used. I'm going to post the entire thing just to give the full context, and then respond to it piecemeal:
And I still feel that the only conclusion, based on Reformed thinking, is that God is not only unfair but somewhat monstrous. He creates a massive planet of millions of people concocting a pre-determined list of people he wants to save and others he plans on casting to the fires of hell making it so some CANNOT receive His love, and some who CANNOT HELP it!? Can you fathom doing that to someone? It flies in the face of common sense.

I'm a sixth grade teacher, as you know. In about 3 weeks, 30 kids are going to enter my room. Imagine if, before meeting all 30, I look at their pictures on their pink and blue cards, read their names, and think, "I'm going to make sure, double sure, that 22 of them fail my class. I'll pick on them, make them hate learning, ignore their questions, make things unclear to them, pair them up with the worst students, and generally not teach them well. I'll make sure this other 8 kids are treated with royalty, given the full treatment, paired right, given extra help, favored and adored. They WILL pass!"

the truth is, they have free will. All 30 I plan for 100% success. I plan for every single kid to pass and thrive. The kids make the decision to care, work hard, and excel. Realistically about 6 of them won't give a damn, about 15 of them will be part-timers with caring and up and down in the middle, and about 9 will kick total butt and perform like champs. But my plan is all thirty being winners!

Same with my own kids. I have 3 kids. Imagine me planning on loving one and screwing the other 2? Weird.

If I'm this caring and loving toward my home and school children, what MORE care and love has Almighty God for us as his children!

God does indeed "know" who will be saved and who will perish. If He didn't, then He wouldn't be sovereign and almighty and omnipotent. But that doesn't mean He doesn't desire and give us every lifeline to be saved. Jesus died for the sins of the world, not just a chosen little clan. But will the whole world accept His love? Will the whole world react positively to the Gospel? Will the whole world embrace the cross? No way. Just because Jesus died for us all doesn't mean all will take up His offer. To not offer it to all his children would make God a monster. That is not a God I can worship. I don't believe in that God. Our God is a God of second chances, a fisher of men who goes after lost sheep. Jesus talks a lot about lost sheep and the stray and "other sheep not of this fold," and I'm not talking Mormon thinking here!
Now let's answer this in individual parts:
And I still feel that the only conclusion, based on Reformed thinking, is that God is not only unfair but somewhat monstrous. He creates a massive planet of millions of people concocting a pre-determined list of people he wants to save and others he plans on casting to the fires of hell making it so some CANNOT receive His love, and some who CANNOT HELP it!? Can you fathom doing that to someone? It flies in the face of common sense.
This contention contains a few presuppositions we should quickly identify and address:

1) God created a planet to send people to hell. The goal of God in creation was not to send people to hell, and no Reformed church believes this, as everything from the Reformers to the 1689 London Baptist Confession will demonstrate. Likewise, God does not send anyone to hell for an arbitrary reason. What we should establish early on is this: men are sent to hell for no other reason but their sins. Hell is judgment upon them. There is no one in hell who does not deserve to be there...and there is only one person in heaven who deserves to be there.

2) God will make it so some cannot receive His love. This forgets that man, by his nature, does not desire God's love. Paul, quoting from the psalms, said: "There is none who seeks after God" (Rom 3:11). Our Lord, in one of the greatest expositions of salvation, said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). God has not "made it" so that man cannot receive His love...it already is that way. This biblical fact is something that most synergists recognize as well, and so Calvinists are not alone in their belief of this.

The gentleman who sent me this message had earlier made the question: "Is humanity so depraved that it cannot with free will accept God and change?" The idea that man is able, by his individual nature, to freely choose salvation or damnation - and then change on his own accord - breaks away from the opinions of most monergists or orthodox synergists, as well as the general teachings of scripture. In fact, it draws closer to Pelagianism (man is able to save himself) and semi-Pelagianism (man is able to save himself with a little help from God), both of which are considered heresies. When Christ says "no one can come to Me...", the original Greek literally translates into: "no one has the power" or "no one is able." Man cannot, by any power of his own with no help from God, come to know and believe in God.

3) God will make some who cannot help whether or not they receive His love. Again, this forgets that man by his nature does not want to have God's love. Likewise, logically speaking, this situation is not exclusive to monergism. In a synergistic world, you still have people (isolated tribes in the Amazon, etc.) who are in a situation where they cannot help whether or not they receive God's love. This is why inclusivists have to come up with the extra-biblical beliefs they do regarding how one is saved by circumventing the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

So when it's said that this scenario that "flies in the face of common sense," I fully agree. The problem is, no Reformed church believes in such a scenario.
I'm a sixth grade teacher, as you know. In about 3 weeks, 30 kids are going to enter my room. Imagine if, before meeting all 30, I look at their pictures on their pink and blue cards, read their names, and think, "I'm going to make sure, double sure, that 22 of them fail my class. I'll pick on them, make them hate learning, ignore their questions, make things unclear to them, pair them up with the worst students, and generally not teach them well. I'll make sure this other 8 kids are treated with royalty, given the full treatment, paired right, given extra help, favored and adored. They WILL pass!" 
This isn't the scenario in Reformed theology. Permit me to present an alternative:

You, a teacher, have thirty children. They all hate education. They all hate learning. Most of all, they all hate you. They want nothing to do with their lessons. You don't need to "ignore their questions, make things unclear to them, pair them up with the worst students," etc. - left on their own, they will fail on their own accord. Some of them might be kinda funny, and some of them might be kinda cute, but when it comes to education, they'd sooner tear up their textbooks and throw them at you. You could try to be nice and offer them education, but they would just laugh at you, and encourage those who laugh with them. They deserve to fail, and you would have every right to fail them. If you failed the entire class, you would be acting rightly and the fault for failure would be on them. All of this which I have described is the situation of the world seen in Romans 1:18-32.

Now imagine if, by some power on your part, you could change the hearts of an unknown number of students so that instead of hating learning...they will love it. They will love learning and love you. In the end, they will pass and all glory will go to you, and those whom you fail will have failed for proper reasons. You have no reason to help any of them pass, and indeed anyone should be shocked you helped any pass. This scenario is far closer to the Reformed (and biblical) interpretation of the situation between God and man, and how by grace we are saved.
Same with my own kids. I have 3 kids. Imagine me planning on loving one and screwing the other 2? Weird.
Again, this is a misunderstanding of the real scenario. God's choice and purpose is not based on some arbitrary cruelness. God does not line up a bunch of photographs and throw darts, and whichever dart lands on whichever picture, that person gets saved. It also again presupposes that God causes the destruction of some when they are already on their own path to destruction.
If I'm this caring and loving toward my home and school children, what MORE care and love has Almighty God for us as his children!
What is the definition of "God's children"? It's popular in our modern world to say "We are all God's children!", but what does scripture teach? As Luke 20:36, John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Galatians 3:26 and many other verses demonstrate, God's children are those who are in Christ. They are believers. God indeed has love for His children, but it is those in Christ for whom God will truly care and nurture.
God does indeed "know" who will be saved and who will perish. If He didn't, then He wouldn't be sovereign and almighty and omnipotent. But that doesn't mean He doesn't desire and give us every lifeline to be saved. 
If God knows who will be saved and who will perish, why would He bother to "give us every lifeline to be saved"? That is, if God knows that Person A will accept the gospel and Person B will not, why bother giving Person B "every lifeline"? Evangelists - Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike - do not know who will be saved and who will not, and so can give their 110% and not worry about the results, knowing it is in God's will. However, the line of reasoning presented in this section turns God into an evangelist who gives 110% for an effort that He knows ahead of time will end in failure.

Many might say that the rejection of God's "lifeline" is given to all in that part of a person's judgment will be the fact they rejected it. Here we must make two points, however:

1) The danger in this argument. Many might interpret that this argument says this is the only reason someone will be sent to hell. Hence many inclusivists will say that if a person hasn't rejected the "lifeline" because it has not been offered to them, then they will get a free pass and be allowed into the company of the Lord.

2) Reformed Christians believe this as well. Reformed Christians believe that God gives a general call through evangelism, but gives an effectual call for His sheep. This is the key behind "many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14) - the "called" used here (κλητός) is not the same Greek word used for "called" in Romans 8:30 (καλέω). κλητός is simply an invitation, whereas the word translated in the same verse as "chosen" (ἐκλεκτός) means a much more effectual calling, and is translated by some to mean "the called of the called."
Jesus died for the sins of the world, not just a chosen little clan. But will the whole world accept His love? Will the whole world react positively to the Gospel? Will the whole world embrace the cross? No way. Just because Jesus died for us all doesn't mean all will take up His offer.
Did Jesus die for literally everyone? Reformed theology of course disagrees, pointing instead from general atonement to limited atonement. Scripture says that He saves His people from their sins (Matt 1:21), that He laid down His life for His sheep (John 10:11), that His blood purchased the church (Acts 20:28), that He was delivered for His elect and justifies them (Rom 8:32-33), and that He gave Himself up for the church (Eph 5:25). This is just a sampling of examples that many go to in regards to limited atonement.

I might ask the person who posed these contentions a question in regards to their statement that "just because Jesus died for us all doesn't mean all will take up His offer." What, then, did Christ's death do? Was it just an example? Was it just a beginning phase of salvation? Was it just a minor thing in God's plan? When Christ, bleeding profusely on the cross, said to the Father "It is finished" and gave up His spirit, what did that mean?
To not offer it to all his children would make God a monster. That is not a God I can worship. I don't believe in that God. Our God is a God of second chances, a fisher of men who goes after lost sheep. Jesus talks a lot about lost sheep and the stray and "other sheep not of this fold," and I'm not talking Mormon thinking here!
Here we have the reason that Calvinists worship a God who is a monster: because He does not "offer" His love to "all His children." Yet we've already established that God's "children" are believers. We've also established that if God simply threw out an "offer" to mankind with no grace involved, mankind in toto would reject it. We are calling God a monster based on faulty definitions and expecting God to do something that would ensure absolute failure.

It's common for people to believe Reformed Christians "worship a monster" when they have false presuppositions that are based on misunderstandings or a poor knowledge of the topic. This is not a fault on themselves, as many who teach comparative theology fail in accurately defining or representing another side, and so misunderstandings multiply. That is why these discussions are good - for the edification of all parties involved: one party understanding where the other side is coming from, and the other learning what their brothers really believe. The important thing from this is that the brethren are edified and lessons are learned. If we continue to teach error after that error has been addressed, and do not even attempt to give an address to this error, then we are simply committing willful ignorance. Men cannot be held guilty for ignorance - they can be held guilty for willful ignorance.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Mere Spirituality or Mere Theology?

Recently I was listening to a pastor talk about the great problem of universalism and liberalism within modern Christianity, especially among the youth. At one moment in his sermon he made the point that people today value spiritual feelings over basic theology. I was thinking on that later, and realized that truly, that is perhaps one of the greater problems facing the Church today: importance is put on mere spiritual feelings rather than true Christian orthodox theology. Before we continue, let's define these two terms.

When I say true Christian orthodox theology, I refer to the basic beliefs that designate Christianity from everything else. That is: salvation through Christ alone (John 14:6); salvation by grace alone through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8); the traditional morals as taught in scripture, and commands of God given to mankind (Ten Commandments); and so on and so forth. The entire written word can therefore fit into this mindset, and anything that goes against the written word must be considered heresy and acting against the word of God, given to us first by the God-breathed words of the prophets and then the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. The entirety of scripture and its teachings is therefore the "mere theology" we speak of.

When I say mere spiritual feelings, I refer to what many call the "spiritual high" coming from religious beliefs, and in particular during worship. The people who experience this or seek after it fall into various camps: (1) they get the previously mentioned "spiritual high" going to church, either through dance, song, the "gifts of the spirit," or a powerful sermon, but it has no long-standing effects, and therefore amounts to something like a drug high; (2) they go to church for social or traditional reasons (ie., their family goes, or they grew up in this particular denomination); (3) they go because they believe that this will somehow make them better than others - a very works-minded interpretation of worship. While any of these can lead to high emotions or feelings of closeness to God, they are superficial at best and temporary in the least. The emphasis is on the basic feeling received from worship, not the entirety of the worship itself. It is, at it's core, "mere spirituality."

It must be noted that spirituality in and of itself is not bad, but to isolate spirituality from instructions of the Church is to in essence nullify the word of God into a superficial and inconsistent emotion. It raises the emotion of worship above the limit it is meant to reach, and replaces it with the extreme version of emotionalism. From this stems our theology, because by this we live our worship. God endowed man with a thinking mind and a reacting heart, but the one who follows a mere spirituality not only does away with the mind, but the God who endowed both mind and heart as well. The commands of God are downplayed to the slavery of this emotionalism, and anything that contradicts this man-made theology is either thrown away, ignored, or twisted.

This is especially true in many Charismatic churches. People are so driven by the emotionalism of their worship that they begin to forsake sound doctrine not only as taught within their individual church or much larger denomination but within the entirety of scripture and orthodoxy itself. Subjective experience is placed above sound reason. This was best exemplified by an incident recounted by John MacArthur:
A woman wrote to me, seething. "You resort to Greek translations and fancy words to explain away what the Holy Spirit is doing in the church today. Let me give you a piece of advice that might just save you from the wrath of almighty God: put away your Bible and your books and stop studying. Ask the Holy Ghost to come upon you and give you the gift of tongues. You have no right to question something you have never experienced." [Charismatic Chaos, pg. 25, 1992; emphasis in original]
I can relate to this from personal experience. A woman at a church I used to attend defended the Trinity Broadcast Network regular Benny Hinn. Despite the fact that his "healing services" have been proven fraudulent by almost every news network in the western world and various heretical teachings have been identified and verified with recordings and video...she still defended him on the basis that: "You don't know what it's like to be under the Holy Spirit." This was her basis of orthodoxy - not the words of scripture which Hinn so often contradicted, not the recorded and documented instances of lies and distortions and deceiving, but rather the defense that a person who had never been "under the Holy Spirit" could not judge someone who supposedly had. Upon what basis is there for this kind of thinking in scripture!

Although this could unwittingly turn into an anti-Charismatic post, it would only be consistent to turn to other instances of this "mere spirituality" elsewhere, such as in liberal Churches. Spirituality is seen as a superficial thing, and mere belief (the kind of belief the apostle James identified as the belief of demons in James 2:19) is enough to win salvation. If we want, we can perform good works and from this we will earn our salvation (something Paul criticizes in Romans 4:4-5 and identifies the opposite as being true in Romans 3:27-28 and Ephesians 2:8-9). Many from this circle fall into universalism or "cafeteria Christianity," and no longer is orthodoxy adhered to but rather the personal philosophies and sentiments of the believers placed on the pulpit. Truly, how many times have we heard someone call themselves "Christian," when what they really meant was: "I have my personal beliefs and I stick Jesus in there somewhere." God is thrown down from His throne - He has no place there, these people say. Man, with his flawed sentiments, shall take over, for in his depraved state he knows much more than a righteous God. The realities presented by our Lord are done away with for the revisionist history of the post-modern church, which seeks to throw out all that came before, even if the baby Jesus is in that bathwater.

One would think that we should then introduce orthodoxy, but to the words "dogma" and "theology" many become reactionaries. Images of inquisitions and theocratic tyrannies are conjured up and used to scare people away. "People are not won by dogmas or theological treatises," some say, "you have to strike at emotions and how they feel." Isn't it ironic, then, that the apostle Paul - the greatest preacher to ever live - spent so many of his epistles dealing with theology and orthodox thought? His epistle to the Romans is, in essence, a giant theological manual. Entire sections of Colossians and Ephesians deal with theological matters and orthodox thought. Galatians was written to condemn believers going astray and to call them back to sound thinking. Why, then, are so many modern Christians scared of the words "dogma" and "theology"? Due to their abuse of certain historical powers? Yet we cannot say that "love" was never abused, if not by powers then by individuals, yet we would not cast "love" away. So therefore there is just as much a place for theology in the Church as there is for love.

That is truly the great marriage found in our spirituality - a true spirituality, given by God as a gift for the believer. It is not the memorization of a text, but the fulfillment of what that text means in our life. It is not the memorization of rules, but an understanding of by what spirit those rules came. The historical confessions - Nicaea, Westminster, London Baptist - never saved anyone, because they were by themselves not salvific. It was not what they said that saved, but from whence they taught that rendered them usable for men - that is, the word of God. By themselves they are but cold words on paper like those worshiped by the Pharisees, but in practice and with acknowledgment of their source they are spiritual food for the religious young and old alike.

Emotionalism is by contrast a cancer that destroys a believer by allowing the deceitful heart (cf. Jer 17:9) to rule the conscious intended to serve God's will and no one else's. From this harlot comes the children of universalism, spiritualism, and liberal theology, all within the family of heresy. The mission of these falsehoods is to deceive the believer into a false sense of individualism and easy believing, so that in seeking freedom they might become slaves. The cloak shrouded in these falsehoods is that product of emotionalism in which the person thinks that they are righteous by mere emotion alone. Theology has no place in their system because the minute they introduce true theology their man-made system falls apart. This is why such superficial standards as "You have to experience the Holy Spirit first" are devised. Paul did not condemn the false teachers of Galatia because they did not experience the Holy Spirit; he condemned them because they taught false doctrine contrary to that given by Christ. Yes, he condemned their theology.

Theology is the center of our worship. From our understanding of God and how He works comes our understanding of worship, of love, of grace, of mercy and the works of the spirit. It is by this theology that we love our neighbor, our enemy, and turn to repentance. This is where, as stated before, there is a great connection between our spirituality and our theology, because theology without the grace of God is simply dead religious thought. Yet our theology comes from a living God and a risen Savior, and it is this theology which we defend from all who would wish to assail or adulterate her. This theology keeps us from error and from false doctrine, and from its fountain, the word of God, we find the water of eternal life - Jesus Christ.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Induction and Theology

The following is from Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology.
In the fourth place, in theology as in natural science, principles are derived from facts, and not impressed upon them. The properties of matter, the laws of motion, of magnetism, of light, etc., are not framed by the mind. They are not laws of thought. They are deductions from facts. The investigator sees, or ascertains by observation, what are the laws which determine material phenomena; he does not invent those laws. His speculations on matters of science unless sustained by facts, are worthless. It is no less unscientific for the theologian to assume a theory as to the nature of virtue, of sin, of liberty, of moral obligation, and then explain the facts of Scripture in accordance with his theories. His only proper course is to derive his theory of virtue, of sin, of liberty, of obligation from the facts of the Bible. He should remember that his business is not to set forth his system of truth (that is of no account), but to ascertain and exhibit what is God's system, which is a matter of the greatest moment. If he cannot believe what the facts of the Bible assume to be true, let him say so. Let the sacred writers have their doctrine, while he has his own. To this ground a large class of modern exegetes and theologians, after a long struggle, have actually come. They give what they regard as the doctrines of the Old Testament; then those of the Evangelists; then those of the Apostles; and then of their own. This is fair. So long, however, as the binding authority of Scripture is acknowledged, the temptation is very strong to press the facts of the Bible into accordance with our preconceived theories. If a man be persuaded that certainty in acting is inconsistent with liberty of action; that a free agent can always act contrary to any amount of influence (not destructive of his liberty) brought to bear upon him, he will inevitably deny that the Scriptures teach the contrary, and thus be forced to explain away all facts which prove the absolute control of God over the will and volitions of man. If he hold that sinfulness can be predicated only of intelligent, voluntary action in contravention of law, he must deny that men are born in sin, let the Bible teach what it may. If he believes that ability limits obligation, he must believe independently of the scriptures, or in opposition to them, it matters not which, that men are able to repent, believe, love God perfectly, to live without sin, at any, and all times, without the least assistance from the Spirit of God. If he deny that the innocent may justly suffer penal evil for the guilty, he must deny that Christ bore our sins. If he deny that the merit of one man can be the judicial ground of the pardon and salvation of other men, he must reject the Scriptural doctrine of justification. It is plain that complete havoc must me made of the whole system of revealed truth, unless we consent to derive our philosophy from the Bible, instead of explaining the Bible by our philosophy...As natural science was a chaos until the principal of induction was admitted and faithfully carried out, so theology is a jumble of human speculations, not worth a straw, when men refuse to apply the same principle to the study of the Word of God. [Vol. I, pg. 13-15]