My father John Singleton
As I read Ehrman's biography I could not help notticing that He had attended Moody Bible Institute. My father attended school there as did my grandfather and a few other relatives. In fact ehrman, had attended moody at the exact same time period. looking at Ehrman biography he is the father of two. As my father is as well.
John Singleton went to Moody to pursue ministry. Unfortunately while away at school his wife at the time divorced him. Which in those days was unacceptable. He would do some time as a youth minister. He went on to Campbellsville university and met my mother. he considered going to Boyce college but instead married my mother and focused on getting employment. I was born a year later. My father would raise me and later my brother. My mother became a school teacher and they are together to this day. my father got active at church and helps lead in several ministries. Including ministry to the elderly, youth and foreign exchange students. Me and my brother have dedicated our lives to ministry.
What is true saving faith?
One issue that must be addressed here above all is the scriptures teaching concerning the perseverence of the saints. WHile I may deal with Ehrman's liberalism. The largest issue is surroundingthe doctrine of perseverance of the saints. Ehrman claimed he was a believer, yet he left the faith. Did Ehrman truly believe?
If one believes then they will be born again. leading to the fruits of the spirit.
Titus 3:5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Romans 8:9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
galatians 5:22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
So after one is born again faith is a product of the Holy Spirit. So if his faith were the product of God one may assume Ehrman would not lose either faith or salvation.
John 10:28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
This would also lead to spiritual discernment
1Corinthians 2:14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
"I prayed (lots) about it. I wrestled (strenuously) with it. I resisted it with all my might. But at the same time I thought that if I was truly committed to God, I also had to be committed to the truth. And it became clear to me over a long period of time that my former views of the bible as the innerrant revelation from God were flat out wrong. My choice was to either hold on to views that I had come to realizewere in error or to follow where I believed the truth was leading me. in the end it was no choice. If something was true, it was true; if not, not." preface xi
Now my basic instincts when I read this is "bologna". But I do not read minds. So I must assess his philosophy. Here Ehrman concludes the scriptures to be "flat out wrong". Could this be a sign that he did not possess illumination of the Holy Spirit?
If you hold to sola scriptura then why do you reject the Bible?
If Ehrman was truly a conservative Bible believing Christian. He would hold that the only way to know God was through the scriptures. If this is the case then to reject the Bible is the equivalent to rejecting God altogether. Ehrman eventually does denounce Christ and God. So ehrman never truly understands christ as lord.
If he did, he would know the Bibles teaching on truth and not be decieved.
8:32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
matt 5:18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Here we see in order to have a basic understanding of truth we must understand that god is the truth and this truth is understood through the mediation of jesus Christ. Once He sets up the parameters that the bible is infallible in it's authority, then that is the truth and it is never a lie.
19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
So If ehrman was a believer he would know that Christ was the truth. That he taught the scriptures to be true and that man's wisdom is inferior to God's Wisdom. So whenever science or philosophy contradict the scriptures science and philosophy are at fault.
But this is not the faith of ehrman. In fact the power of so-called "science" and "rationalism" seem to have a tyrannical rule over his heart. Yet how can man truly have superior information than God? Does man have authority that is infallible, and indeed authoritative than God?
The questioning of God lead to ehrman's apostasy
2 samuel 13:8And he tarried seven days, according to the set time that Samuel had appointed: but Samuel came not to Gilgal; and the people were scattered from him.
9And Saul said, Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace offerings. And he offered the burnt offering.
10And it came to pass, that as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him, that he might salute him.
11And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash;
12Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the LORD: I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering.
13And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.
14But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee.
Now what does this passage have to do with Ehrman?
Like Saul, Ehrman had good intentions to question the scriptures in search of truth. Just as Saul performed a good deed of making a sacrifice to the Lord. However, He questioned the authority of the very God He worshipped. Much like Erhman who decided that he would find the truth which would be contrary to God. In the end Saul was really betraying his kingdom and his worship was nothing more than sin. In the end Erhman betrayed his God and his biblical scholarship was nothing more than sin. So while Ehrman partnered with the Holy spirit and likely made a covenant with God in Baptism. He did not have the personal relationship with Christ because he had not recieved the Holy Ghost and would as a result not keep the faith and will not recieve the inheretance of the kingdom that he signed up for.
Now Ehrman does not want his method of skepticism to be seen as an upfront assault on the faith he tries to claim that His apostasy was for different reasons.
"And so I did not leave the christian faith because of the inherent problems of the faith per se, or because I came to realize that the Bible was a human book, or that Christianity was a human religion. All of which are true-but it was not what dismantled my acceptance of the christian myth. I left the faith for what I took to be (and still take to be) an unrelated reason: the problem of suffering in the world."pg.277
The problem with this is he had no christian faith at all. Instead he was an existentialist who became an agnostic. Existentialism has a weakness when it comes to the problem of evil. Not christianity.
Christianity teaches that God is a good God and he created a good world. That sin was an invention collaborated between satan and mankind. that evil is the original cause for all death and suffering That evil will all be dealt with in the end. Not to mention that you could join the cause of christ and make a positive difference in the world. Agnosticism is defeated by the problem of suffering because their is no meaning to it. It must assume that it is only a biological mechanism. The result is the massive amount of wrecked lives that we see as a result of drug abuse. So secularism can not answer the problem of evil, nor does it help it.
The crack started by thomism
What we see early in philosophy is a misunderstanding of biblical belief. Thomas Aquinas divides up two categories upon which to understand belief: reason and faith. This would lead philosophy to become devoid of biblical faith and Faith to become devoid of reason. As an existentialist, Ehrman would agree with a faithless skepticism accompanied by an irrational faith. And so We see Ehrman eventually rejects his irrational faith.
The faith of skepticism
Skepticism ultimately leaves itself in the worldview of nihilism. Most skeptics try not go this far down the road and stay simply evolutionist liberals. But if consistent there is no form of assurance in anything. not even in common sense morals or logic. It desolves into insanity.
Because skepticism is an incomplete mental process. It is the act of denial until there is nothing left to deny. There is no such thing as postitively affirming or believing anything! Only temporarily not denying until doubt is once again obtained.
So we are left again with barth slowly losing ground from fundamentalism all the way to agnosticism. Barth's education is in dealing with the Bible so on a professional level his studies have to stop there. Yet if he were a philosopher he leap into the bottumless pit that we call nihilism.
The flaws of empiricism
ehrman's studies are broadly based on an empiricist epistemology. This theory assumes that we are able to obtain all the assurance and knowledge we need based upon evidence in the world.
Now historically both Rene descarte(father of rationalism) and John locke (the father of empiricism) rested their epistemological theories upon theism. An All knowing God who would allow man to obtain knowledge. But without theism and revelation the assurance of either system simply falls apart.
We see ehrman's worldview fall apart in just this way. after he denies revelation he eventually becomes an agnostic.
Empiricism falls apart because we can not verify reality as ultimately true. How do we know with absolute certainty that what we sense is truth and not illusion?
All we know is what we obtain which is not exhaustive of all the facts that are out there.
You can find doctors in every world view. So you could be well educated or a genius and still incapable of coming to a consensus on the truth.
The data of life is so massive that it is easy to pick and choose what evidence you want to rely on.
Not to mention the fact the are never certain if the data you collect is necessarily accurate. People are misled all the time. maybe you had poor perception, missed a key point. Or mayber their is a conspiracy against you being fully every aware.
The inability to interpret due to skepticism
Because skepticism has an inability to make positive affirmations bart finds descrepencies too easily. Never ceasing to treat the author as a rational human being with a rational theme to deliver. Much less the all-knowing God and Lord breathing out the text. Here is his illustration.
"One of my favorite apparent discrepencies-I read john for years without realizing how strange this one is_comes in Jesus' "Farewell Discourse," the last address that Jesus delivers to his disciples, at his last meal with them, which takes up all of chapters 13 to 17 in the Gospel according to John. In john 13:36, Peter says to Jesus, Lord where are you going" (14:5). And then, a few minutes later, at the same meal Jesus upbraids his disciples. saying "Now I am going to the one who sent me, yet none of you asks me, "Where are you going?" (john 16:5) Either Jesus had a very short attention span or there is something strange going on with the sources for these chapters, creating an odd kind of disconnect." pg. 9
John 13:36-16:6
john 13:36
36Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.
37Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.
38Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.
Peter wants to follow Christ in death. Yet Christ knows Peter will not be faithful and denouces him.
14:1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
4And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
5Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
Knowing that Christ is the Son of God it is obvious that jesus is speaking about heaven.
John 16
1These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
4But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.
5But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?
6But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart.
Obviously if you have your Bible open, time has elapsed and more importantly Jesus is speaking ironicly. In otherwords jesus notticed that they stopped asking him. indicating their fear of death. So there is no real contradiction in the discreppancy.
What is amazing is how little effort was requird to explain his favorite apparent discrepency. Ehrman obviously wants to assume the Bible to be irreconcileable. As if the authors were not simply fallible, but incoherent.
How do we stop making more ehrlman's
On one level there will always be those who join the christian faith, yet leave. But church should strive to be more proficient in determining if a new disciple has truly believed. We need to be careful of whom we in the local church baptize. In the early church disciples had to wait at least 3 yrs to join by baptism. Also churches need to reinstate church discipline for those who obviously have not been born again.
As far as schools, schools which teach liberalism as truth should be black listed. Those who are to train in ministry should not go there. If a minister is already well accomplished then he can study under liberals. I took classes in higher criticism and my theology moved to the right. i have a minister freind who did the same. But those who are initialy starting their training need to be brought up in the faith with men with answers. If you should not go to a liberal church why would you go to a liberal school?
Finally schools need to be more consistant. moody though "fundamentalist" taught criticism on a light level denying the preservation of scripture. Once it was agreed that we do not have the original manuscrits then it took ehrman on his down hill slope.
If barth was inculcated with the scriptures concerning preservation. Then shown the agreement of the byzantine manuscripts alongs the 3,000 contradictions among alexandrine manuscripts, could things have been different?
The fruit of my father
My father never desired to be a scholar and never recieved a bachelorette.
My father never acquired Ehrman's fame nor his money. My father has treasure in heaven. And although he probably wishes sometimes that he could borrow some of that treasure to pay off the mortgage, through it all he is a happy man.
Theologically my dad said His views have not fundamentally changed. He said over the years secular systems like evolution have basically fallen apart.
Meanwhile He was exposed to source criticism at campbellsville university. He found that all of the supposed contradictions did not really make the Bible contradict. The variants in the gospels appeared to simply be differences in the style of the authors.
Ultimately Faith though it does not consist of works will produce them. The works of source criticism have led to secularism. It is not a coincidence that Germany"s higher criticism preceded the rise of hitler and his nazis. Indeed
Monday, December 19, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
mysticism: The alternative to the evangelical gospel
Mysticism, the word is one of those words that has a taboo sound. Like mystery. It doesn't sound common. And yet the ideas of mysticims are all too common in religion philosophy and theology. It is not exclusive to pagan or christian circles, it is not well known and yet has pervaded our world system. Let's us understand what is not to be understood.
History:
colossians 2:8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
In many ways Mysticism is a philosophy of religion which works itself out in religion as well as philosophy. This article is focused upon it's outworking in Christian living But we must first explore it's pagan origins to truly understand it's nature.
"... the deepest level of communication is not communication, but communion. It is wordless. It is beyond words. and it is beyond speech, and it is beyond concept" Thomas Merton (The asian journal of Thomas Merton, 1975edit. p. 308)Isaiah 1:18Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
paganism
mysticism is a form of spirituality That pervades the majority of religion.
It is typically irrational or skeptical of logic. It emphasizes emotional experiences.
"Underlying it is a philosophy exemplified by the neo-Platonists and especially Plotinus. God is pure being, one,indivisible, unchangeable, and is utterly opposite to this finite and changing world. There is in man a divine spark, a bit of reason, an "apex" or "fund" or center of the soul opposed to this world in which it is immersed and belonging to God. The mystical experience is "the flight of the alone to the Alone." the soul leaving the world of sense, of time and change, of thought and effort, of human relations, to lose its individual being inunity with God." Harris Franklin Rall Christianity:chapter 9:The way of mysticism pg.167-168
colossians 2:18Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
1 corinthians 14:29Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Now mysticism is not just a doorway from paganism to christianity but it opens the opposite way as well.
Thomas merton
"Merton had encountered Zen Buddhism, Sufism, Taoism and vendanta many years prior to his asian journey. Merton was able to uncover the stream where wisdom of East and west merge and flow together beyond Dogma, in the depths of inner experience.... Merton embraced the spiritual philosophies of the East and integrated this wisdom into (hi) own life through direct practice." (Yoga Journal, Jan-Feb. 199. quoted from Lighthouse Trails web site)
gnosticism
gnosticism was basically a form of neo-platonism that infected the religions of the first centuries of christianity.
1 Corinthians 9:16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
In other words we are not mix other peoples faiths with our own. An elder at my former church Doug Pope put it this way "Jesus plus anything, just doesn't add up!"
monasticism
"The appellation "Father of Monasticism" might be considered misleading, as Christian monasticism was already being practiced in the deserts of Egypt. Ascetics commonly retired to isolated locations on the outskirts of cities. By the 2nd century there were also famous Christian ascetics, such as Saint Thecla.
Also note that the Therapeutae, pagan ascetic hermits and loosely organized cenobitic communities described by the Hellenized Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria in the first century, were long established in the harsh environments by the Lake Mareotis close to Alexandria, and in other less-accessible regions. Philo noted that "this class of persons may be met with in many places, for both Greece and barbarian countries want to enjoy whatever is perfectly good."[9]" Anthony the great Wikipedia
Colossians 2:21(Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
2:23Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
Man's worship is very seductive in that it appears moral but is fleeting and artificial.
"Before the emergence of the Western monastic communities, a key contribution to the foundation of Lectio divina came from Origen in the 3rd century, with his view of "Scripture as a sacrament".[6] In a letter to Gregory of Neocaesarea Origen wrote: "when you devote yourself to the divine reading ... seek the meaning of divine words which is hidden from most people".[6]
Origen believed that The Word (i.e. Logos) was incarnate in Scripture and could therefore touch and teach readers and hearers. Origen taught that the reading of Scripture could help move beyond elementary thoughts and discover the higher wisdom hidden in the "Word of God".[6]
In Origen's approach the major interpretive element of Scripture is Christ. In his view all Scriptural texts are secondary to Christ and are only revelations in as much as they refer to Christ as The Word of God.[6] In this view, using Christ as the "interpretive key" unlocks the message in Scriptural texts.[6]
The "primordial role" of Origen in interpreting Scripture was acknowledged by Pope Benedict XVI.[7][8] Origen's methods were then learned by Ambrose of Milan, who towards the end of the 4th century taught them to Saint Augustine, thereby introducing them into the monastic traditions of the Western Church thereafter.[7][8]
Early models of Christian monastic life also emerged in the 4th century, as the Desert Fathers began to seek God in the deserts of Palestine and Egypt.[9][10] These early communities gave rise to the tradition of a Christian life of "constant prayer" in a monastic setting.[10]" Wikipedia lectio Divina
Here we see Origen, instituting a mystical prayer and worship and hermeneutic. Origen is well known as a neo-platonist. This idea of not expositing the meaning of the text but instead finding a spiritual meaning is irrational. This a clear example of a philosophy that supports isogesis.(isogesis: basically to isolate a passage and get the meaning from outside of the context.)
Isaiah 28:9-10
9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
The Bible teaches in a logical straightforward pattern and must be interpreted literally.
Monasticism borrows from the practices of the gnostics. Who blended platnism with Christianity. The dicotomy between flesh/matter and spirit is emphasized and so the monks will punish there bodies with deprivation of food, and sleep speech shelter etc. Other gnostic practices were incoporated as well with mystic philosophy.
"A "mystikos" was an initiate of a mystery religion. The Eleusinian Mysteries, (Greek: Ἐλευσίνια Μυστήρια) were annual initiation ceremonies in the cults of the goddesses Demeter and Persephone, held in secret at Eleusis (near Athens) in ancient Greece.[1] The mysteries began in about 1600 B.C. in the Mycenean period and continued for two thousand years, becoming a major festival during the Hellenic era, and later spreading to Rome.[2]" Wikipedia mysticism
matthew 6:7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
monasticism would dominate the medieval church. The monks and nuns were not only tolerated but a force for the roman catholic empire. All clergy would eventually be forced into monastc vows.
" 1599 In the latin church the sacrament of Holy Orders for the presbyterate is normally conferred only on candidates who are ready to embrace celebacy freely and who publicly manifest there intention of staying celibate for the love of God's Kingdom and the service of men." 1996 Catechism of the catholic church
The theology of the church under the monks would enforce a strict sacramentalism.
monasticsm would eventually become one of the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. also recognized in eastern orthodoxy.
epistemology) mysticism sees a direct yet irrational contact with God
This is a claim of inspiration on the same level of scripture. yet with out logic. purely chaotic. This effectively ruins the whole concept of inspiration and revelation. Now to be clear this is a more intense doctrine than the gifts of the spirit as taught by charasmatics.
"Neither is mysticism to be confounded with the doctrine of spiritual guidance. Evangelical Christians admit that the children of God are led by the Spirit of God, that their convictions as to the truth and duty, their inward character and outward conduct, are moulded by His influence. They are children unable to guide themselves, who are led by an ever present Father of infinite wisdom of love. This guidance is partially providential, ordering their external circumstances; partly through the Word which is a lamp to their feet; and partly by the inward influence of the Holy Spirit on the mind. This last, however is also through the Word, making it intelligible and effectual, bringing it suitably to remembrance. God leads his people by the cords of a man i.e., in accordance with the laws of nature. this is very different from the doctrine that the soul, by yielding itself passively to God, is filled with all truth and goodness, or that in special emergencies it is controlled by blind, irrational impulses." Charles Hodge systematic theology abridged edition.pg66
It is important to nottice that this was written prior to the modern pentecostal and charasmatic movements. Which is good as it shows us evangelical understand verses mystical understanding of experiencing God. Now many charasmatics are by nature mystics. But this is not necesarily universal. I am one who holds that the gifts of the spirit even "prophecy" have not ceased. Yet I do not believe in mysticism. This would take place as Hodge defined "the inward influence of the Holy Spirit on the mind". I have no problem accepting the Holy Spirit placing information in our minds as longs it is consistent with the famous solas of the reformation. sola fide and sola scriptura. I will not recieve a doctrine contrary or even alien to the scripture. Also I will not recieve any information if I am not first justified by Faith alone and indwelt by the Holy spirit through regeneration. Also in accordance with Sola Gloria deo I can never acquire any information by any other means than God alone.
justification
The key divide over the gospel in the catholic protestant debate intellectually sola scriptura. But spiritually it is Sola fide.
The Catholic advocates of justification argue for an infusion of Christ's righteousness. While Protestantism and New Testament christianity argues for imputation of Christ righteousness. In other words I am not righteous in and of my self. Nor am I going to become like god in any esoteric sense. I am sinner from my birth to my death. The Holy Spirit is sealed to my spirit and will work with me to live a more holy life. But never the less I am still just a man. In Catholic Justification the sinner still has to become self righteous. Only they have an infusion of Christ's righteousnes To help the process be attainable. Yet ultimately, with the exception of a few saints, this does not work and they are left to burn for possible millions of years in purgatory until they are ready for heaven.
Sacramental worship
In essence sacramental worship argues that grace is aquired through works. Whenever one is worshipping in this pattern they are attempting a form of self-righteousness. Because when they try to be Holy they are doing so to justified as well as sanctified. In evangelical theology we are justified by faith alone. and so we seek sanctification through our gratidude for Christ obtained salvation of our own free will.
This also becomes a form of pantheism. Christ is God. The alexandirne churches who introduced sacramentalism introduced apollinarian christologies which unified the divinity and the humanity so that in a mystical way a person could be deified in the ritual. In Eastern Orthodox Theology we still see this understanding of deification within sacramentalism. The followers are supposedly becoming more godlike in their worship. Thus paganizing their nominal christian faith. Even in the RCC though they stay away from calling their followers gods. Sainthood becomes confused with deification. The follower becomes a statue people would pray to. and they are still deeply connected by means of sacramentalism.
memorial view)
Essential to the memorial view is the idea of a forensic symbol. The scriptures are rational. Jesus was completely human. Therefore his blood never needed his body at this time.
Now the issue of transubstantiation has been dealt with in other articles. And more importantly is not essential to the doctrine of mysticism.
But what if Christ is only spiritually present in the taking of the lords supper?
"But what of the idea that Christ is spiritually present? This view arose from two historical sources. One was the desire of certain theologians to retain something of the traditional belief in Christ presence even as they sought to change it. Their approach to the reformation of the faith leaned more toward retaining whatever is not explicitly rejected by Scripture than toward starting from scratch, preserving only those tenets of the faith that are explicitly taught in scripture. Instead of totally rejecting tradition and constructing a completely new understanding, they chose to modify the old belief. The other source of the view that christ is spiritually present was a disposition towards mysticism. Some believers , having had a profound experience of encounter with Christ as they observed the Lord's Supper concluded that Christ must have been spiritually present. The doctrine served as an explanation of the experience." Christian Theology Millard Erickson Pg. 30
Christ is already spiritual present through faith alone.
17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
So what would be the purpose or use of elements? This view of sacramentalism is still mysticism.
If Christ is not in the elements then we must come to him through faith alone. If He is in the elements then he must be acquired through faith plus works. So in mysticism and sacramentalism, we may access the divine through rituals and good works. So the memorial view of the lord's supper is consistent with justification by grace through faith alone.
sancitifcation and worship
We must be justified by grace through faith alone If we are to move forward in sanctification. If our sins are not atoned for there is no way that we can truly please God.
So mystical worship is typically emotional and yet legalistic. This is not the proper way to approach God.
Luke 18:10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Now obviously both these men were emotional and emotions are healthy. But nottice How the pharisee had faith in his works. And also nottice how he was not justified.
New evangelicalism is falling in love with it's worship. It is pursuing God in mystical formats. As a result it is not being sanctified. Because it is not justified.
We use projectors and electric guitars using lyrics with less and less meaning. Sometimes not even giving proper titles to God. Yet even though the doctrinal content is growing less and less. We feel we are closer to God because we are more emotional. Our worship is less focused upon how we are relating to God and more focused upon how God makes us feel. Do we even focus on music that is discussing how we minister? Typically no. Our worship is self centered.
Even when the claim is made to be God centered. One may notice how self returns the subject. Revelation is not considered as much since scripture is less the topic of the worship. Scripture is ultimately rational and mysticism ultimately is not.
Jesus is ultimately the Logos/Word. logos means among other things, logic.
Mysticism is in opposition to logic and ultimately in opposition to Christ.
In Christ,
Matt
History:
colossians 2:8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
In many ways Mysticism is a philosophy of religion which works itself out in religion as well as philosophy. This article is focused upon it's outworking in Christian living But we must first explore it's pagan origins to truly understand it's nature.
"... the deepest level of communication is not communication, but communion. It is wordless. It is beyond words. and it is beyond speech, and it is beyond concept" Thomas Merton (The asian journal of Thomas Merton, 1975edit. p. 308)Isaiah 1:18Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
paganism
mysticism is a form of spirituality That pervades the majority of religion.
It is typically irrational or skeptical of logic. It emphasizes emotional experiences.
"Underlying it is a philosophy exemplified by the neo-Platonists and especially Plotinus. God is pure being, one,indivisible, unchangeable, and is utterly opposite to this finite and changing world. There is in man a divine spark, a bit of reason, an "apex" or "fund" or center of the soul opposed to this world in which it is immersed and belonging to God. The mystical experience is "the flight of the alone to the Alone." the soul leaving the world of sense, of time and change, of thought and effort, of human relations, to lose its individual being inunity with God." Harris Franklin Rall Christianity:chapter 9:The way of mysticism pg.167-168
colossians 2:18Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
1 corinthians 14:29Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Now mysticism is not just a doorway from paganism to christianity but it opens the opposite way as well.
Thomas merton
"Merton had encountered Zen Buddhism, Sufism, Taoism and vendanta many years prior to his asian journey. Merton was able to uncover the stream where wisdom of East and west merge and flow together beyond Dogma, in the depths of inner experience.... Merton embraced the spiritual philosophies of the East and integrated this wisdom into (hi) own life through direct practice." (Yoga Journal, Jan-Feb. 199. quoted from Lighthouse Trails web site)
gnosticism
gnosticism was basically a form of neo-platonism that infected the religions of the first centuries of christianity.
1 Corinthians 9:16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
In other words we are not mix other peoples faiths with our own. An elder at my former church Doug Pope put it this way "Jesus plus anything, just doesn't add up!"
monasticism
"The appellation "Father of Monasticism" might be considered misleading, as Christian monasticism was already being practiced in the deserts of Egypt. Ascetics commonly retired to isolated locations on the outskirts of cities. By the 2nd century there were also famous Christian ascetics, such as Saint Thecla.
Also note that the Therapeutae, pagan ascetic hermits and loosely organized cenobitic communities described by the Hellenized Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria in the first century, were long established in the harsh environments by the Lake Mareotis close to Alexandria, and in other less-accessible regions. Philo noted that "this class of persons may be met with in many places, for both Greece and barbarian countries want to enjoy whatever is perfectly good."[9]" Anthony the great Wikipedia
Colossians 2:21(Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
2:23Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
Man's worship is very seductive in that it appears moral but is fleeting and artificial.
"Before the emergence of the Western monastic communities, a key contribution to the foundation of Lectio divina came from Origen in the 3rd century, with his view of "Scripture as a sacrament".[6] In a letter to Gregory of Neocaesarea Origen wrote: "when you devote yourself to the divine reading ... seek the meaning of divine words which is hidden from most people".[6]
Origen believed that The Word (i.e. Logos) was incarnate in Scripture and could therefore touch and teach readers and hearers. Origen taught that the reading of Scripture could help move beyond elementary thoughts and discover the higher wisdom hidden in the "Word of God".[6]
In Origen's approach the major interpretive element of Scripture is Christ. In his view all Scriptural texts are secondary to Christ and are only revelations in as much as they refer to Christ as The Word of God.[6] In this view, using Christ as the "interpretive key" unlocks the message in Scriptural texts.[6]
The "primordial role" of Origen in interpreting Scripture was acknowledged by Pope Benedict XVI.[7][8] Origen's methods were then learned by Ambrose of Milan, who towards the end of the 4th century taught them to Saint Augustine, thereby introducing them into the monastic traditions of the Western Church thereafter.[7][8]
Early models of Christian monastic life also emerged in the 4th century, as the Desert Fathers began to seek God in the deserts of Palestine and Egypt.[9][10] These early communities gave rise to the tradition of a Christian life of "constant prayer" in a monastic setting.[10]" Wikipedia lectio Divina
Here we see Origen, instituting a mystical prayer and worship and hermeneutic. Origen is well known as a neo-platonist. This idea of not expositing the meaning of the text but instead finding a spiritual meaning is irrational. This a clear example of a philosophy that supports isogesis.(isogesis: basically to isolate a passage and get the meaning from outside of the context.)
Isaiah 28:9-10
9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
The Bible teaches in a logical straightforward pattern and must be interpreted literally.
Monasticism borrows from the practices of the gnostics. Who blended platnism with Christianity. The dicotomy between flesh/matter and spirit is emphasized and so the monks will punish there bodies with deprivation of food, and sleep speech shelter etc. Other gnostic practices were incoporated as well with mystic philosophy.
"A "mystikos" was an initiate of a mystery religion. The Eleusinian Mysteries, (Greek: Ἐλευσίνια Μυστήρια) were annual initiation ceremonies in the cults of the goddesses Demeter and Persephone, held in secret at Eleusis (near Athens) in ancient Greece.[1] The mysteries began in about 1600 B.C. in the Mycenean period and continued for two thousand years, becoming a major festival during the Hellenic era, and later spreading to Rome.[2]" Wikipedia mysticism
matthew 6:7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
monasticism would dominate the medieval church. The monks and nuns were not only tolerated but a force for the roman catholic empire. All clergy would eventually be forced into monastc vows.
" 1599 In the latin church the sacrament of Holy Orders for the presbyterate is normally conferred only on candidates who are ready to embrace celebacy freely and who publicly manifest there intention of staying celibate for the love of God's Kingdom and the service of men." 1996 Catechism of the catholic church
The theology of the church under the monks would enforce a strict sacramentalism.
monasticsm would eventually become one of the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. also recognized in eastern orthodoxy.
epistemology) mysticism sees a direct yet irrational contact with God
This is a claim of inspiration on the same level of scripture. yet with out logic. purely chaotic. This effectively ruins the whole concept of inspiration and revelation. Now to be clear this is a more intense doctrine than the gifts of the spirit as taught by charasmatics.
"Neither is mysticism to be confounded with the doctrine of spiritual guidance. Evangelical Christians admit that the children of God are led by the Spirit of God, that their convictions as to the truth and duty, their inward character and outward conduct, are moulded by His influence. They are children unable to guide themselves, who are led by an ever present Father of infinite wisdom of love. This guidance is partially providential, ordering their external circumstances; partly through the Word which is a lamp to their feet; and partly by the inward influence of the Holy Spirit on the mind. This last, however is also through the Word, making it intelligible and effectual, bringing it suitably to remembrance. God leads his people by the cords of a man i.e., in accordance with the laws of nature. this is very different from the doctrine that the soul, by yielding itself passively to God, is filled with all truth and goodness, or that in special emergencies it is controlled by blind, irrational impulses." Charles Hodge systematic theology abridged edition.pg66
It is important to nottice that this was written prior to the modern pentecostal and charasmatic movements. Which is good as it shows us evangelical understand verses mystical understanding of experiencing God. Now many charasmatics are by nature mystics. But this is not necesarily universal. I am one who holds that the gifts of the spirit even "prophecy" have not ceased. Yet I do not believe in mysticism. This would take place as Hodge defined "the inward influence of the Holy Spirit on the mind". I have no problem accepting the Holy Spirit placing information in our minds as longs it is consistent with the famous solas of the reformation. sola fide and sola scriptura. I will not recieve a doctrine contrary or even alien to the scripture. Also I will not recieve any information if I am not first justified by Faith alone and indwelt by the Holy spirit through regeneration. Also in accordance with Sola Gloria deo I can never acquire any information by any other means than God alone.
justification
The key divide over the gospel in the catholic protestant debate intellectually sola scriptura. But spiritually it is Sola fide.
The Catholic advocates of justification argue for an infusion of Christ's righteousness. While Protestantism and New Testament christianity argues for imputation of Christ righteousness. In other words I am not righteous in and of my self. Nor am I going to become like god in any esoteric sense. I am sinner from my birth to my death. The Holy Spirit is sealed to my spirit and will work with me to live a more holy life. But never the less I am still just a man. In Catholic Justification the sinner still has to become self righteous. Only they have an infusion of Christ's righteousnes To help the process be attainable. Yet ultimately, with the exception of a few saints, this does not work and they are left to burn for possible millions of years in purgatory until they are ready for heaven.
Sacramental worship
In essence sacramental worship argues that grace is aquired through works. Whenever one is worshipping in this pattern they are attempting a form of self-righteousness. Because when they try to be Holy they are doing so to justified as well as sanctified. In evangelical theology we are justified by faith alone. and so we seek sanctification through our gratidude for Christ obtained salvation of our own free will.
This also becomes a form of pantheism. Christ is God. The alexandirne churches who introduced sacramentalism introduced apollinarian christologies which unified the divinity and the humanity so that in a mystical way a person could be deified in the ritual. In Eastern Orthodox Theology we still see this understanding of deification within sacramentalism. The followers are supposedly becoming more godlike in their worship. Thus paganizing their nominal christian faith. Even in the RCC though they stay away from calling their followers gods. Sainthood becomes confused with deification. The follower becomes a statue people would pray to. and they are still deeply connected by means of sacramentalism.
memorial view)
Essential to the memorial view is the idea of a forensic symbol. The scriptures are rational. Jesus was completely human. Therefore his blood never needed his body at this time.
Now the issue of transubstantiation has been dealt with in other articles. And more importantly is not essential to the doctrine of mysticism.
But what if Christ is only spiritually present in the taking of the lords supper?
"But what of the idea that Christ is spiritually present? This view arose from two historical sources. One was the desire of certain theologians to retain something of the traditional belief in Christ presence even as they sought to change it. Their approach to the reformation of the faith leaned more toward retaining whatever is not explicitly rejected by Scripture than toward starting from scratch, preserving only those tenets of the faith that are explicitly taught in scripture. Instead of totally rejecting tradition and constructing a completely new understanding, they chose to modify the old belief. The other source of the view that christ is spiritually present was a disposition towards mysticism. Some believers , having had a profound experience of encounter with Christ as they observed the Lord's Supper concluded that Christ must have been spiritually present. The doctrine served as an explanation of the experience." Christian Theology Millard Erickson Pg. 30
Christ is already spiritual present through faith alone.
17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
So what would be the purpose or use of elements? This view of sacramentalism is still mysticism.
If Christ is not in the elements then we must come to him through faith alone. If He is in the elements then he must be acquired through faith plus works. So in mysticism and sacramentalism, we may access the divine through rituals and good works. So the memorial view of the lord's supper is consistent with justification by grace through faith alone.
sancitifcation and worship
We must be justified by grace through faith alone If we are to move forward in sanctification. If our sins are not atoned for there is no way that we can truly please God.
So mystical worship is typically emotional and yet legalistic. This is not the proper way to approach God.
Luke 18:10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Now obviously both these men were emotional and emotions are healthy. But nottice How the pharisee had faith in his works. And also nottice how he was not justified.
New evangelicalism is falling in love with it's worship. It is pursuing God in mystical formats. As a result it is not being sanctified. Because it is not justified.
We use projectors and electric guitars using lyrics with less and less meaning. Sometimes not even giving proper titles to God. Yet even though the doctrinal content is growing less and less. We feel we are closer to God because we are more emotional. Our worship is less focused upon how we are relating to God and more focused upon how God makes us feel. Do we even focus on music that is discussing how we minister? Typically no. Our worship is self centered.
Even when the claim is made to be God centered. One may notice how self returns the subject. Revelation is not considered as much since scripture is less the topic of the worship. Scripture is ultimately rational and mysticism ultimately is not.
Jesus is ultimately the Logos/Word. logos means among other things, logic.
Mysticism is in opposition to logic and ultimately in opposition to Christ.
In Christ,
Matt
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
van tillian heresy
intro.
Reformed theology is in evangelical theology known to have the greatest reputation for defending orthodoxy.
In the 20th century Cornelius van til was celebrated as one of it's Greatest apologists.
Yet buried in one of it's heroes teachings was a foundation for real heresy. In fact, if ever there was, this was a march back towards Rome.
The epistemological flaw
As overemphasis upon total depravity van til argued that the mind of man could never understand the mind of God. Although this doctrine went beyond the teaching of depravity but actually creator creature distinction Making God above truth comprehensive to humans. Thus this was a total rejection of the clarity of scripture.
1corinthians 14:33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Isaiah 1:18Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Yet the God of scripture is not against logic. he is not the author of confusion and willing for us to reason with him.
"II. The Subject of our Knowledge in Systematic Theology
God is the ultimate interpreter of the world; man receives knowledge as derivative from God. As Christians we may apprehend the things God has revealed in Word and his world but we look to God only as the one who can comprehend all things. He is the one with absolute knowledge; we are the “re-interpreters” of this knowledge which he has revealed." Outline of Cornelius Van Til- Introduction to Systematic Theology Rev. Charles R. Biggs
com·pre·hend /ˌkɒmprɪˈhɛnd/ Show Spelled[kom-pri-hend] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to understand the nature or meaning of; grasp with the mind; perceive: He did not comprehend the significance of the ambassador's remark.
2. to take in or embrace; include; comprise: The course will comprehend all facets of Japanese culture. Dictionary.com
ap·pre·hend /ˌæprɪˈhɛnd/ Show Spelled[ap-ri-hend] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to take into custody; arrest by legal warrant or authority: The police apprehended the burglars.
2. to grasp the meaning of; understand, especially intuitively; perceive.
3. to expect with anxiety, suspicion, or fear; anticipate: apprehending violence.
verb (used without object)
4. to understand.
5. to be apprehensive, suspicious, or fearful; fear.
Dictionary.com
Now the difference of these two words is not very great. But I believe what this is saying is that God understands the truth. Man can can attain truth but not understand it. And remember, this is after you have been regenerated by the Holy Ghost.
Let's see if van til's disciple John Frame will clear this up.
"Van Til's basic concern in the context of the incomprehensibility of God is with our understanding of scripture. Can we say that we have "fully" understood a passage when we have understood it correctly? Van Til says No. for essentially the reason that I noted above. God's knowledge, even of human language, is of a fundamentally different order than from ours. Does that mean that scripture is unclear and even unintelligible? If so we would have to say that God failed in His attempt to communicate! No, Scripture is clear enough, so that we have no excuse for disobedience." pg 34 The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God John M. Frame
So here Frame admits that the Bible being unintelligible would be a crime. He admits that according to van til we can not fully understand revelation from God. His defense is that we have enough ability to understand revelation, to the degree where we are morally accountable. Yet how is that true? If we can not fully understand what God is trying to communicate how can we be fully responsible for our disobediance? We have not even included the factor of our own moral depravity! We are not allowed the ability to make sense of scripture and are not given the moral holiness to follow it, and yet are responsible? Well, that doesn't included Calvinistic predestination! We are not given the ability to understand scripture nor the moral ability to follow it, nor the ability to believe it, and yet we have enough to be held responsible? And that doesn't include the weight of damnation? We are not given the ability to fully understand scripture, the moral ability to follow scripture, The ability to believe scripture and yet it is enough to damn us to Hell for century upon century and all eternity burning in the fires of God's wrath?
"So there you have what appears to be the categories concerning our understanding of divine revelation: univocal (we mean the same thing as God entirely); equivocal (we never mean the same thing); analogical (we mean the same thing only by analogy, but genuine truth is communicated in this form of manner even if incompletely or imperfectly). Clearly, Van Til is with Aquinas on this point. For Clark, analogical knowledge is simply a cover for equivocal knowledge and ultimately suffers from the same problems – skepticism. For Van Til, analogical knowledge is the only way to preserve the Creator-creature distinction and yet have access to genuine communicable knowledge and truth (he went to great pains trying to distance and distinguish himself from Barth’s theology on this point)." Troy Gibson thereformedmind.wordpress.com
So from an outside analysis does Van Til leaves faith irrational? In "Reason, Religion and revelation" Gordon Clark lays out the history of philosophy. How Thomas Aquinas segregated the concepts of faith and reason. As we see in secular philosophy it is based upon Aquinas understanding of reason without faith. Which falls apart into nihilism. Then from Soren Kierkegaard we see Reason without faith also a by-product of Thomism. Which falls apart into irrational-ism. Here this blogger naturally sees Van til in the same boat as kierkegaard, being that he has followed Aquinas understanding of faith. Although this blogger would not accuse van til of existentialism. Which only makes the case more obvious. How does analogy disprove skepticism?
"This led Clark to accuse Van Til of being a Barthian and an irrationalist or existentialist (since Barth said that divine revelation is essentially inexpressible in human language and totally outside of rational thought)."Troy Gibson thereformedmind.wordpress.com
How can partial certainty lead to absolute certainty? Afterall, we cannot fully understand God. So perhaps He is not the deity we understand from scripture. If so we are ill equipped to handle the challenge of the problem of evil.
1 Corinthians 2:9-16
9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
There is no doubt that the natural unregenerate man has no access to God knowledge. Yet The believer who has the Holy Spirit is guaranteed this knowledge assurance and certainty.
The effect on scripture
"all teaching of scripture is apparently contradictory." Common Grace and witness bearing pg. 22
So what good is the inspiration of God's Word if it is incomprehensible?
"It is precisely because they are concerned to defend the christian doctrine of revelation as basic to all intelligible human predication that they refuse to make any attempt at "stating clearly" any christian doctrine, or the relation of any one christians doctrine to any other christian doctrine. They will not attempt to "solve" the "paradoxes" involved in the relationship of the self contained God to his dependent creatures." Introduction to Systematic theology chapter 13 page 172
van til said these remarks in regards to His students
This is an unbiblical approach.
1Peter 3:15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
We are to show the gospel as rational as well as the rest of the word of God. Which is really the whole point of the word of God in general.
deaut. 30:11For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
Even in the Old Testament The Word of God has been delivered to us so that we may comprehend it and live by it.
The effect on theology
The confused trinity
Essentially Van til will prove his point by confusing the trinity. For some bizarre reason Van til wants to confuse the words person and being/essence. Thus making the trinity to be possibly 3 beings and also one person.
"We speak of God as a person... the persons of the Godhead are mutually exhaustive of one another." pg220 Introduction to Systematic theology
"We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead is one person."
"we must maintain that God is numerically one. he is one person." An introduction to Systematic theology chapter 17 page 229
Ultimately this sets up a an argument for modalism as well as other heresies.
Now John M. Frame is noted as Van Til's key and most famous student. When I attended a reformed baptist institution, the professor explained to me that Van Til had an awkward style and thought process and could be easily misinterpreted. Well obviously as Frame teaches the trinity He is not going to confuse the nature of the trinity regarding persons and beings right?
"The Nicene Creed says they are one "being" but three "substances," or differently translated, one "substance" and three "persons," I prefer simply to say "one God, three persons." The technical terms should not be understood in any precise, descriptive sense. the fact is that we do not know how precisely the three are one and the one is three. We do know that since the three are God, they are equal; for there is no superiority or inferiority within God. To be God is to be superior to everything. All three have all the divine attributes. All three are "Lord." All three have the relations to creation that we have earlier ascribed to God. All three are members of the upper circle in Van Till"s drawing."
The scripture is not confusing. No where does the Bible teach that there are three gods. It is consistently monotheistic.
1Corinthians 8:4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
2 corinthians 13:14The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
Ephesians4:4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Whenever it refers to God as one person it is refer to one of the three persons. Which it is almost always referring to god the Father. It points to the Son and spirit as God. Yet only as the same essence and as different persons.
2corinthians 13:14The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
The effect on ancestors
There is a Presbyterian theologian named Tim Shepherd. Tim shepherd was defrocked from His ministry and found heretical for teaching legalism. By confusing the new and old covenants. Him and several others out of Westminster theological seminary started a theology known as "federal vision". the leaders not only became part of the christian reconstructionist movement but claimed van til as their inspiration.
"They see additional support for their position in the Dutch Reformed tradition, citing, among others, the works of Y.E.P. De Jong, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, and Klaas Schilder. Kuyper and Bavinck influenced Christian philosopher Cornelius Van Til, who was also raised in the Dutch Reformed tradition. An influential Christian thinker of the 20th century, Van Til has influenced contemporary evangelical views on such things as apologetics, political theory and philosophy. Van Til particularly influenced R. J. Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen, who founded the Christian Reconstructionist movement. Several leaders in the Federal Vision began their theological careers in the Christian Reconstructionist movement until differences in methods and interpretations led to their exodus from Reconstructionism. Peter Leithart and James B. Jordan are two notable examples, as is, to a lesser extent, Jeffrey J. Meyers."Wikipedia
Believing unbelievers?
"In important ways, the unbelivers knowledge is like the believer's. Surveying the outline of the last seection. we can say (1) that god is knowable but incomprehensible to believer and unbeliever alike and (2) that in both cases the knowledge can be described as covenant knowledge. Both believer and unbeliever know about God's control, authority, and presence. The knowledge of the unbeliever, like that of the believer, is a knowledge that God is Lord (cf. passages mentioned earlier)." The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God pg. 50 John M. Frame
So in arguing for the doctrine of general revelation many of this school argue for the unbelivers having some form of belief or as frame puts it knowledge. This does more damage as to the doctrine of salvation and the nature of evangelism. What is a believer?
faith and works!
So Now that knowledge and belief are confused how is faith any different? It has to be through works.
lordship salvation
We see this teaching on the popular level first make waves with the teachings of Johm Macarthur. As time progresses this movement is very obviously coming out from the the teachings of current reformed theology. It involves the question of repentance of sin and it's bearings upon theology
Romans 11:6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
The effect on salvation
So if the Bible has all these apparent contradictions, then does salvation have apparent contradictions?
"James Jordan has denied that any part of Christ's earthly works are imparted to believers.[40] Norman Shepherd is in agreement with him.[41] Peter Leithart has publicly said in a letter to PCA Pacific Northwest Presbytery that,"
"What the Federal Vision proponents do question is whether Christ's earthly works do us any good. Jordan says:
Merit theology often assumes that Jesus' earthly works and merits are somehow given to us, and there is no foundation for this notion. It is, in fact, hard to comprehend what is meant by it. What does it have to do with my life that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and this good deed is given to me? The miracles that Jesus did were not required of me to satisfy God's justice. ... There seems to be nothing in the Bible to imply that we receive Jesus' earthly life and then also his death. His earthly life was "for us" in the sense that it was the precondition for his death, but it is not given "to us."[44]"
So here we see questioning regarding the imputation of Christ righteousness. So federal vision proponents end up with a wesleyan version of Justification which denies assurance of salvation. I argue this point more thoroughly in my critique on John Piper. (when the music fades...tuning out John Piper's Christian hedonism hangover)
While I am not necessarily blaming this doctrine on Van til. Hi followers have used his philosophy of confusion to confuse justification and sanctification.
federal vision
"most if not all of the FV proponents would claim either to be followers of the apologetic methodology of Van Til or would other wise not see themselves as not contradicting him." Report on justification, pg. 66, (73rd general assembly of the OPC)
Federal vision is a movement which confuses the categories of justification and sanctification. This is march back towards legalism.
Advocates come out of van til's philosophy of confusion. Applying this haze that vantil applied to the trinity onto the doctrine of justifcation as well. Jon Piper has repackaged this heresy in his book future Grace.
In conclusion. Van til's doctrine may not be understandable to the common pew sitter. But to those who train for ministry it is quite deadly. I have encountered three apostates who started there spiral as disciples of van til. God is not the author of confusion. Confusion is babylon. We must beware of babylon in all her splendour.
Revelation 18:4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
Reformed theology is in evangelical theology known to have the greatest reputation for defending orthodoxy.
In the 20th century Cornelius van til was celebrated as one of it's Greatest apologists.
Yet buried in one of it's heroes teachings was a foundation for real heresy. In fact, if ever there was, this was a march back towards Rome.
The epistemological flaw
As overemphasis upon total depravity van til argued that the mind of man could never understand the mind of God. Although this doctrine went beyond the teaching of depravity but actually creator creature distinction Making God above truth comprehensive to humans. Thus this was a total rejection of the clarity of scripture.
1corinthians 14:33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Isaiah 1:18Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Yet the God of scripture is not against logic. he is not the author of confusion and willing for us to reason with him.
"II. The Subject of our Knowledge in Systematic Theology
God is the ultimate interpreter of the world; man receives knowledge as derivative from God. As Christians we may apprehend the things God has revealed in Word and his world but we look to God only as the one who can comprehend all things. He is the one with absolute knowledge; we are the “re-interpreters” of this knowledge which he has revealed." Outline of Cornelius Van Til- Introduction to Systematic Theology Rev. Charles R. Biggs
com·pre·hend /ˌkɒmprɪˈhɛnd/ Show Spelled[kom-pri-hend] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to understand the nature or meaning of; grasp with the mind; perceive: He did not comprehend the significance of the ambassador's remark.
2. to take in or embrace; include; comprise: The course will comprehend all facets of Japanese culture. Dictionary.com
ap·pre·hend /ˌæprɪˈhɛnd/ Show Spelled[ap-ri-hend] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to take into custody; arrest by legal warrant or authority: The police apprehended the burglars.
2. to grasp the meaning of; understand, especially intuitively; perceive.
3. to expect with anxiety, suspicion, or fear; anticipate: apprehending violence.
verb (used without object)
4. to understand.
5. to be apprehensive, suspicious, or fearful; fear.
Dictionary.com
Now the difference of these two words is not very great. But I believe what this is saying is that God understands the truth. Man can can attain truth but not understand it. And remember, this is after you have been regenerated by the Holy Ghost.
Let's see if van til's disciple John Frame will clear this up.
"Van Til's basic concern in the context of the incomprehensibility of God is with our understanding of scripture. Can we say that we have "fully" understood a passage when we have understood it correctly? Van Til says No. for essentially the reason that I noted above. God's knowledge, even of human language, is of a fundamentally different order than from ours. Does that mean that scripture is unclear and even unintelligible? If so we would have to say that God failed in His attempt to communicate! No, Scripture is clear enough, so that we have no excuse for disobedience." pg 34 The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God John M. Frame
So here Frame admits that the Bible being unintelligible would be a crime. He admits that according to van til we can not fully understand revelation from God. His defense is that we have enough ability to understand revelation, to the degree where we are morally accountable. Yet how is that true? If we can not fully understand what God is trying to communicate how can we be fully responsible for our disobediance? We have not even included the factor of our own moral depravity! We are not allowed the ability to make sense of scripture and are not given the moral holiness to follow it, and yet are responsible? Well, that doesn't included Calvinistic predestination! We are not given the ability to understand scripture nor the moral ability to follow it, nor the ability to believe it, and yet we have enough to be held responsible? And that doesn't include the weight of damnation? We are not given the ability to fully understand scripture, the moral ability to follow scripture, The ability to believe scripture and yet it is enough to damn us to Hell for century upon century and all eternity burning in the fires of God's wrath?
"So there you have what appears to be the categories concerning our understanding of divine revelation: univocal (we mean the same thing as God entirely); equivocal (we never mean the same thing); analogical (we mean the same thing only by analogy, but genuine truth is communicated in this form of manner even if incompletely or imperfectly). Clearly, Van Til is with Aquinas on this point. For Clark, analogical knowledge is simply a cover for equivocal knowledge and ultimately suffers from the same problems – skepticism. For Van Til, analogical knowledge is the only way to preserve the Creator-creature distinction and yet have access to genuine communicable knowledge and truth (he went to great pains trying to distance and distinguish himself from Barth’s theology on this point)." Troy Gibson thereformedmind.wordpress.com
So from an outside analysis does Van Til leaves faith irrational? In "Reason, Religion and revelation" Gordon Clark lays out the history of philosophy. How Thomas Aquinas segregated the concepts of faith and reason. As we see in secular philosophy it is based upon Aquinas understanding of reason without faith. Which falls apart into nihilism. Then from Soren Kierkegaard we see Reason without faith also a by-product of Thomism. Which falls apart into irrational-ism. Here this blogger naturally sees Van til in the same boat as kierkegaard, being that he has followed Aquinas understanding of faith. Although this blogger would not accuse van til of existentialism. Which only makes the case more obvious. How does analogy disprove skepticism?
"This led Clark to accuse Van Til of being a Barthian and an irrationalist or existentialist (since Barth said that divine revelation is essentially inexpressible in human language and totally outside of rational thought)."Troy Gibson thereformedmind.wordpress.com
How can partial certainty lead to absolute certainty? Afterall, we cannot fully understand God. So perhaps He is not the deity we understand from scripture. If so we are ill equipped to handle the challenge of the problem of evil.
1 Corinthians 2:9-16
9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
There is no doubt that the natural unregenerate man has no access to God knowledge. Yet The believer who has the Holy Spirit is guaranteed this knowledge assurance and certainty.
The effect on scripture
"all teaching of scripture is apparently contradictory." Common Grace and witness bearing pg. 22
So what good is the inspiration of God's Word if it is incomprehensible?
"It is precisely because they are concerned to defend the christian doctrine of revelation as basic to all intelligible human predication that they refuse to make any attempt at "stating clearly" any christian doctrine, or the relation of any one christians doctrine to any other christian doctrine. They will not attempt to "solve" the "paradoxes" involved in the relationship of the self contained God to his dependent creatures." Introduction to Systematic theology chapter 13 page 172
van til said these remarks in regards to His students
This is an unbiblical approach.
1Peter 3:15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
We are to show the gospel as rational as well as the rest of the word of God. Which is really the whole point of the word of God in general.
deaut. 30:11For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
Even in the Old Testament The Word of God has been delivered to us so that we may comprehend it and live by it.
The effect on theology
The confused trinity
Essentially Van til will prove his point by confusing the trinity. For some bizarre reason Van til wants to confuse the words person and being/essence. Thus making the trinity to be possibly 3 beings and also one person.
"We speak of God as a person... the persons of the Godhead are mutually exhaustive of one another." pg220 Introduction to Systematic theology
"We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead is one person."
"we must maintain that God is numerically one. he is one person." An introduction to Systematic theology chapter 17 page 229
Ultimately this sets up a an argument for modalism as well as other heresies.
Now John M. Frame is noted as Van Til's key and most famous student. When I attended a reformed baptist institution, the professor explained to me that Van Til had an awkward style and thought process and could be easily misinterpreted. Well obviously as Frame teaches the trinity He is not going to confuse the nature of the trinity regarding persons and beings right?
"The Nicene Creed says they are one "being" but three "substances," or differently translated, one "substance" and three "persons," I prefer simply to say "one God, three persons." The technical terms should not be understood in any precise, descriptive sense. the fact is that we do not know how precisely the three are one and the one is three. We do know that since the three are God, they are equal; for there is no superiority or inferiority within God. To be God is to be superior to everything. All three have all the divine attributes. All three are "Lord." All three have the relations to creation that we have earlier ascribed to God. All three are members of the upper circle in Van Till"s drawing."
The scripture is not confusing. No where does the Bible teach that there are three gods. It is consistently monotheistic.
1Corinthians 8:4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
2 corinthians 13:14The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
Ephesians4:4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Whenever it refers to God as one person it is refer to one of the three persons. Which it is almost always referring to god the Father. It points to the Son and spirit as God. Yet only as the same essence and as different persons.
2corinthians 13:14The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
The effect on ancestors
There is a Presbyterian theologian named Tim Shepherd. Tim shepherd was defrocked from His ministry and found heretical for teaching legalism. By confusing the new and old covenants. Him and several others out of Westminster theological seminary started a theology known as "federal vision". the leaders not only became part of the christian reconstructionist movement but claimed van til as their inspiration.
"They see additional support for their position in the Dutch Reformed tradition, citing, among others, the works of Y.E.P. De Jong, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, and Klaas Schilder. Kuyper and Bavinck influenced Christian philosopher Cornelius Van Til, who was also raised in the Dutch Reformed tradition. An influential Christian thinker of the 20th century, Van Til has influenced contemporary evangelical views on such things as apologetics, political theory and philosophy. Van Til particularly influenced R. J. Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen, who founded the Christian Reconstructionist movement. Several leaders in the Federal Vision began their theological careers in the Christian Reconstructionist movement until differences in methods and interpretations led to their exodus from Reconstructionism. Peter Leithart and James B. Jordan are two notable examples, as is, to a lesser extent, Jeffrey J. Meyers."Wikipedia
Believing unbelievers?
"In important ways, the unbelivers knowledge is like the believer's. Surveying the outline of the last seection. we can say (1) that god is knowable but incomprehensible to believer and unbeliever alike and (2) that in both cases the knowledge can be described as covenant knowledge. Both believer and unbeliever know about God's control, authority, and presence. The knowledge of the unbeliever, like that of the believer, is a knowledge that God is Lord (cf. passages mentioned earlier)." The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God pg. 50 John M. Frame
So in arguing for the doctrine of general revelation many of this school argue for the unbelivers having some form of belief or as frame puts it knowledge. This does more damage as to the doctrine of salvation and the nature of evangelism. What is a believer?
faith and works!
So Now that knowledge and belief are confused how is faith any different? It has to be through works.
lordship salvation
We see this teaching on the popular level first make waves with the teachings of Johm Macarthur. As time progresses this movement is very obviously coming out from the the teachings of current reformed theology. It involves the question of repentance of sin and it's bearings upon theology
Romans 11:6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
The effect on salvation
So if the Bible has all these apparent contradictions, then does salvation have apparent contradictions?
"James Jordan has denied that any part of Christ's earthly works are imparted to believers.[40] Norman Shepherd is in agreement with him.[41] Peter Leithart has publicly said in a letter to PCA Pacific Northwest Presbytery that,"
"What the Federal Vision proponents do question is whether Christ's earthly works do us any good. Jordan says:
Merit theology often assumes that Jesus' earthly works and merits are somehow given to us, and there is no foundation for this notion. It is, in fact, hard to comprehend what is meant by it. What does it have to do with my life that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and this good deed is given to me? The miracles that Jesus did were not required of me to satisfy God's justice. ... There seems to be nothing in the Bible to imply that we receive Jesus' earthly life and then also his death. His earthly life was "for us" in the sense that it was the precondition for his death, but it is not given "to us."[44]"
So here we see questioning regarding the imputation of Christ righteousness. So federal vision proponents end up with a wesleyan version of Justification which denies assurance of salvation. I argue this point more thoroughly in my critique on John Piper. (when the music fades...tuning out John Piper's Christian hedonism hangover)
While I am not necessarily blaming this doctrine on Van til. Hi followers have used his philosophy of confusion to confuse justification and sanctification.
federal vision
"most if not all of the FV proponents would claim either to be followers of the apologetic methodology of Van Til or would other wise not see themselves as not contradicting him." Report on justification, pg. 66, (73rd general assembly of the OPC)
Federal vision is a movement which confuses the categories of justification and sanctification. This is march back towards legalism.
Advocates come out of van til's philosophy of confusion. Applying this haze that vantil applied to the trinity onto the doctrine of justifcation as well. Jon Piper has repackaged this heresy in his book future Grace.
In conclusion. Van til's doctrine may not be understandable to the common pew sitter. But to those who train for ministry it is quite deadly. I have encountered three apostates who started there spiral as disciples of van til. God is not the author of confusion. Confusion is babylon. We must beware of babylon in all her splendour.
Revelation 18:4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Biblical election (summary)
This is a summary of my article "the biblical doctrine of election" For those with questions about this doctrine, first study this article for the biblical exegesis. (april 2011)
divine decree duns capp.
Christian theology assumes at the start that election is God"s choice of who will and possibly will not recieve God's mercy.
Since the time of John calvin there has been an ongoing debate over the order of decrees by God in eternity past. whether he chose simply to save some, to save some and damn others or to offer it unto all.
The real problem with establishing an order is that while God existed before there was time. How can we establish a timeline if there was no such thing as time?
To do so makes a pre-existent gospel.
jewish definition
After studying the exhaustive concordance I realized that the terms Chosen and election are synonymous with servanthood. As in the kings chosen men. Or Chosen soldiers or chefs or whatever. So election as it was originally used had nothing to do with who recieves mercy. it is about who is used in God's plan.
So since the new Testament is a jewish written document we should assume the definition until it specifically states that the definition has changed. So the Gospel keeps the meaning.
Paul's jewish roots and his revelation of the age of grace
So I went through and found that it is only in Paul where we have a direct link to salvation. So why does Paul seem to change the definition of a word?
The answer is that Paul does not change the definition. However the Object of god's election is widened. So That God has elected those who are believers.
Thus Paul's revelation is that believers will now be used of God. Israel is still of use To God but they must be faithful to Him through Christ. As prophesied.
salvation predestined upon foreknowledge
Now with the doctrine of election segregated from salvation. Salvation is given to the believer upon their faith in christ. God in eternity past predestined believers with the benefits of salvation upon their faith. election
unconditional for the believer
God then unconditionally elects and calls them to service regardless of their merit He will use them to accomplish his mission.
divine decree duns capp.
Christian theology assumes at the start that election is God"s choice of who will and possibly will not recieve God's mercy.
Since the time of John calvin there has been an ongoing debate over the order of decrees by God in eternity past. whether he chose simply to save some, to save some and damn others or to offer it unto all.
The real problem with establishing an order is that while God existed before there was time. How can we establish a timeline if there was no such thing as time?
To do so makes a pre-existent gospel.
jewish definition
After studying the exhaustive concordance I realized that the terms Chosen and election are synonymous with servanthood. As in the kings chosen men. Or Chosen soldiers or chefs or whatever. So election as it was originally used had nothing to do with who recieves mercy. it is about who is used in God's plan.
So since the new Testament is a jewish written document we should assume the definition until it specifically states that the definition has changed. So the Gospel keeps the meaning.
Paul's jewish roots and his revelation of the age of grace
So I went through and found that it is only in Paul where we have a direct link to salvation. So why does Paul seem to change the definition of a word?
The answer is that Paul does not change the definition. However the Object of god's election is widened. So That God has elected those who are believers.
Thus Paul's revelation is that believers will now be used of God. Israel is still of use To God but they must be faithful to Him through Christ. As prophesied.
salvation predestined upon foreknowledge
Now with the doctrine of election segregated from salvation. Salvation is given to the believer upon their faith in christ. God in eternity past predestined believers with the benefits of salvation upon their faith. election
unconditional for the believer
God then unconditionally elects and calls them to service regardless of their merit He will use them to accomplish his mission.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
How can we be perfect?
48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Many Christians have struggled with the idea of perfection. What is it, and can Christians obtain it?
many in the reformed tradition have notice that sinless perfection is unattainable since mankind is completely depraved. Therefore they argued that this a commandment that was never meant to be fulfilled except by Christ or after glorification. And so it is not as much a commandment as much as a block from trying to obtain self righteousness. However this seems rather illogical. Why would we be ordered things that were incapable for us. It makes it seem as if man is not responsible for imperfection and that God is simply torturing man. Reformers will simply revert to man's pride when the contradiction is located.
That being said Jesus elsewhere teaches that no one is good except for God.(Matthew 19:17) So perfection here can not mean some absolute form of sinlessness. So what is the context?
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Here we see the context of the use of this verse. The discussion is on love. The normal way of love is to love thy neighbor but not those who are considered your enemies. Yet God's love is complete and perfect because he loves those who are evil.
This is the background to the commandment of perfection. Perfection here is speaking of a completeness. It is not an absolute perfection that humans are incapable of.
It is a valid commandment. And a means of being god-like. This is not to invalidate god's obvious perfections and omnipotent powers. But it points us to the Fathers characteristics and personality to be the highest points of greatness and emphasis.
But by the use of the word perfection it is not simply one of thousands of commands. It is the way of completion. If you want complete your faith you must have the ability to love your enemies. Not tolerate or accept, but to truly love.
back track
Isaiah 2
1The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
2And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
This is a prophesy of Isaiah. It is about the messiah. I believe this will be fulfilled completely in the millenial reign of Christ and yet it is also fulfilled partially in Christ Sermon on the Mount. here the Messiah shall teach the world and there shall be peace.
3Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Here we have the beatitudes. These promises are designed similar to the ten commandments only not as commandments but as blessings. This is a very important concept. Instead of a law in the negative The teachings of christ the Messiah are placed in the positive.
I bring up the beatitudes because this passage on perfection and a perfect love is an extension of the beatitudes as it it included in Christ Sermon on the Mount.
Perfection there fore is not simply a demand of self-righteousness. It is a blessing to be obtained. One of The main goals of Christian discipline is the ability to love our enemies.
Paul goes on to discuss this topic on a different format
1 Corinthians 13
1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Here in this famous passage Paul is addressing a different topic concerning the supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit. That even the maximum effect of the gifts of knowledge, prophecy and tongues are useles without the gift of charity/love.
Charity here is derived from agape just as Jesus sermon was also addressing is also derived from agape. Most translators prefer to translate this word as love.
The translation of charity is fine in the sense that it indicates action as oppose to only feeling.
4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
As we look we see the characteristics of love. As I shall paraphrase. Love is patient, it is a kind or gentle thing. It is completely sefless. It is not a rebellious thing. It is not a thing easily shaken.
Essentially Love is entirely oppose to evil. Very important as well is that perfect love is not based upon sin but rest upon the truth.
7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
Love can endure, believe, hope and bear all things. perfect Love is infallible. All the most miraculous manifestations of the Holy Ghost are limited and they have a point of expiration. These thing as sensational as they are, are not essential for the christian life, and only necessary for the immature. But when we see the perfect come. (which is ultimately the second coming of christ, but currently manifested in His love, On a side note, I do not believe this is referring to a cessation of spiritaul gifts.) then we will be able to survive on His love alone.
11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Sometimes God works so many things in our immaturity because we are weak and need them. Yet the greatest gift in the Christian life is that which will remain and bring us Home to Glory. This Gift is the love of God.
Many Christians have struggled with the idea of perfection. What is it, and can Christians obtain it?
many in the reformed tradition have notice that sinless perfection is unattainable since mankind is completely depraved. Therefore they argued that this a commandment that was never meant to be fulfilled except by Christ or after glorification. And so it is not as much a commandment as much as a block from trying to obtain self righteousness. However this seems rather illogical. Why would we be ordered things that were incapable for us. It makes it seem as if man is not responsible for imperfection and that God is simply torturing man. Reformers will simply revert to man's pride when the contradiction is located.
That being said Jesus elsewhere teaches that no one is good except for God.(Matthew 19:17) So perfection here can not mean some absolute form of sinlessness. So what is the context?
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Here we see the context of the use of this verse. The discussion is on love. The normal way of love is to love thy neighbor but not those who are considered your enemies. Yet God's love is complete and perfect because he loves those who are evil.
This is the background to the commandment of perfection. Perfection here is speaking of a completeness. It is not an absolute perfection that humans are incapable of.
It is a valid commandment. And a means of being god-like. This is not to invalidate god's obvious perfections and omnipotent powers. But it points us to the Fathers characteristics and personality to be the highest points of greatness and emphasis.
But by the use of the word perfection it is not simply one of thousands of commands. It is the way of completion. If you want complete your faith you must have the ability to love your enemies. Not tolerate or accept, but to truly love.
back track
Isaiah 2
1The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
2And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
This is a prophesy of Isaiah. It is about the messiah. I believe this will be fulfilled completely in the millenial reign of Christ and yet it is also fulfilled partially in Christ Sermon on the Mount. here the Messiah shall teach the world and there shall be peace.
3Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Here we have the beatitudes. These promises are designed similar to the ten commandments only not as commandments but as blessings. This is a very important concept. Instead of a law in the negative The teachings of christ the Messiah are placed in the positive.
I bring up the beatitudes because this passage on perfection and a perfect love is an extension of the beatitudes as it it included in Christ Sermon on the Mount.
Perfection there fore is not simply a demand of self-righteousness. It is a blessing to be obtained. One of The main goals of Christian discipline is the ability to love our enemies.
Paul goes on to discuss this topic on a different format
1 Corinthians 13
1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Here in this famous passage Paul is addressing a different topic concerning the supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit. That even the maximum effect of the gifts of knowledge, prophecy and tongues are useles without the gift of charity/love.
Charity here is derived from agape just as Jesus sermon was also addressing is also derived from agape. Most translators prefer to translate this word as love.
The translation of charity is fine in the sense that it indicates action as oppose to only feeling.
4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
As we look we see the characteristics of love. As I shall paraphrase. Love is patient, it is a kind or gentle thing. It is completely sefless. It is not a rebellious thing. It is not a thing easily shaken.
Essentially Love is entirely oppose to evil. Very important as well is that perfect love is not based upon sin but rest upon the truth.
7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
Love can endure, believe, hope and bear all things. perfect Love is infallible. All the most miraculous manifestations of the Holy Ghost are limited and they have a point of expiration. These thing as sensational as they are, are not essential for the christian life, and only necessary for the immature. But when we see the perfect come. (which is ultimately the second coming of christ, but currently manifested in His love, On a side note, I do not believe this is referring to a cessation of spiritaul gifts.) then we will be able to survive on His love alone.
11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Sometimes God works so many things in our immaturity because we are weak and need them. Yet the greatest gift in the Christian life is that which will remain and bring us Home to Glory. This Gift is the love of God.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Being an ambassader of the prince of peace
The following is my response to a publication by Southern Baptist theological seminary it is called "towers" this is volume 10 September 2011.
The new evangelical movement has made a lot of progress in turning baptist churches from New Testament churches to mainline protestant churches. Especially concerning our religious liberty and how we then feel about peace and war. While it is fine for a christian to serve in the military and theoretically a government could conduct "a just war" It is not the duty or curse of the Church to pick sides in the deadly confrontation. This a hinderance to the true Gospel and has lead to the persecution of christians over the centuries.
Isaiah 2:4(KJV) 4And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Dear Towers,
This letter is in response to Michael Haykin and Mark T. Coppenger in the interview “turning the correct cheek”
“pacifism has never been a real option for Baptists”So Haykin makes the declaration, as if we were Catholic that Baptist were NEVER pacifistic.
Question: Why didn’t the Baptist war against the state of Massachusetts? Why didn’t the Baptist war against Virginia?
They WERE oppressed in the pre-colonial era. Why didn’t they start the American Revolution earlier themselves? Instead of waiting for non-new testament churches.
So there were no major Baptist leaders who were pacifistic? Ever heard of Baptist pastor Martin Luther King Jr.?
“Baptist came out of a puritan mindset.”Bologna. Baptist came out of an Anabaptist and separatist mindset. If they did not come out of a separatist mindset they would never have separated from the Anglican church to begin with! That is the puritan mindset!
“By and large the American Baptist Experience was not pacificistic either” XIX. Peace and War 1925 Baptist faith and message
It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.
The true remedy for the war spirit is the pure gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of his teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of his law of love.
We urge Christian people throughout the world to pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace, and to oppose everything likely to provoke war.
Matt. 5:9,13-14,43-46; Heb. 12:14; James 4:1; Matt. 6:33; Rom. 14:17,19.
XVI. Peace and War 1963 Baptist faith and message
It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.
The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love.
Isa. 2:4; Matt. 5:9,38-48; 6:33; 26:52; Luke 22:36,38; Rom. 12:18-19; 13:1-7; 14:19; Heb.12:14; James 4:1-2.
XVI. Peace and War 2000 Baptist faith and message
It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.
The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love. Christian people throughout the world should pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 2:4; Matthew 5:9,38-48; 6:33; 26:52; Luke 22:36,38; Romans 12:18-19; 13:1-7; 14:19; Hebrews 12:14; James 4:1-2.
Where? Where in any of these editions of the Baptist faith and message is the just war theory propagated?
Let’s make it simpler. Where does Jesus tell the church to start a war?
We know that Jesus refused to be an earthly king.
John 6:15 (KJV)
15When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
We kno w that he said his kingdom was not earthly.
John 18:35-36(KJV)
35Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
We know that Paul said we do not war with carnal weapons.
2 Corinthians 10:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
6And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
Yet we hear……
““Baptist came out of a puritan mindset. In that mindset, Christianity was to transform culture, so they sought to impact culture rather than withdraw from it.” So are we to use war to “impact culture”? Are we to not worry about presenting the gospel because we are slicing a fellows head off while we move on to shoot his wife and children?
“They inherited the right of a people to overthrow a government when the government became oppressive and tyrannical, especially vis a vis religion.”Is this compatible with the doctrine of religious liberty?
XVIII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and he has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to his Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to the church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:17; 1 Tim. 2:1-2; Gal. 3:9-14; John 7:38-39; James 4:12; Gal. 5:13; 2 Peter 2:18-21; 1 Cor. 3:5; Rom. 6:1-2; Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17.
XVII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
Gen. 1:27; 2:7; Matt. 6:6-7; 24:16:26; 22:21; John 8:36; Acts 4:19-20; Rom. 6:1-2; 13:1-7; Gal. 5:1,13; Phil. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:1-2; James 4:12; 1 Peter 2:12-17; 3:11-17; 4:12-19.
XVII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
Genesis 1:27; 2:7; Matthew 6:6-7, 24; 16:26; 22:21; John 8:36; Acts 4:19-20; Romans 6:1-2; 13:1-7; Galatians 5:1,13; Philippians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; James 4:12; 1 Peter 2:12-17; 3:11-17; 4:12-19.
I f Southern Seminary were consistent they would terminate Michael Haykin for teaching contrary to the Baptist faith and message. They can terminate liberals over the same issue, yet if one is “conservative” then it doesn’t matter if they contradict Baptist teaching.
What source do they rely upon to establish the just war theory?
St. Augustine, count Boniface and Thomas Aquinas.
All Roman Catholic. Also involved in the Killing of Christians over doctrinal differences. (donatism, cathars etc.)
Yes Luther and Calvin would follow in this philosophy. Which would result in the killing of Anabaptist and other sects.
Even more important is the fact that mainline Protestantism then protects the crimes of the RCC Inquisition and the millions upon millions of murders in the name of Christ. Yes Baptist were separate/holy. The New Testament church did not get involved in violence.
However in America, every war since after WWII, congress has never declared war as stated in the constitution. Thus making them illegal. Yet southern Baptist leaders like Richard land ignore the breaking of law in order to perpetuate these wars in the name of Christ.
So as America stomps overseas like an empire. Baptists like Richard Land lets the muslims know that he is pushing the government to make war and occupy their people. So who is the real loser?
New Testament Christians! Iraqi Christians who have been persecuted, murdered and exiled because the Muslims think the Christians are out to get them! That’s a fine way to impact the culture!
Gee, I wonder why Southern Seminary would be so anxious to speak on this issue? I sure it has nothing to do with the fact that one of their biggest donors is the oil companies. (look it up for yourself, not a lie)
Sure the gospel allows soldiers to be saved. But the church is never to officially take sides in any war accept against the devil.
The new evangelical movement has made a lot of progress in turning baptist churches from New Testament churches to mainline protestant churches. Especially concerning our religious liberty and how we then feel about peace and war. While it is fine for a christian to serve in the military and theoretically a government could conduct "a just war" It is not the duty or curse of the Church to pick sides in the deadly confrontation. This a hinderance to the true Gospel and has lead to the persecution of christians over the centuries.
Isaiah 2:4(KJV) 4And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Dear Towers,
This letter is in response to Michael Haykin and Mark T. Coppenger in the interview “turning the correct cheek”
“pacifism has never been a real option for Baptists”So Haykin makes the declaration, as if we were Catholic that Baptist were NEVER pacifistic.
Question: Why didn’t the Baptist war against the state of Massachusetts? Why didn’t the Baptist war against Virginia?
They WERE oppressed in the pre-colonial era. Why didn’t they start the American Revolution earlier themselves? Instead of waiting for non-new testament churches.
So there were no major Baptist leaders who were pacifistic? Ever heard of Baptist pastor Martin Luther King Jr.?
“Baptist came out of a puritan mindset.”Bologna. Baptist came out of an Anabaptist and separatist mindset. If they did not come out of a separatist mindset they would never have separated from the Anglican church to begin with! That is the puritan mindset!
“By and large the American Baptist Experience was not pacificistic either” XIX. Peace and War 1925 Baptist faith and message
It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.
The true remedy for the war spirit is the pure gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of his teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of his law of love.
We urge Christian people throughout the world to pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace, and to oppose everything likely to provoke war.
Matt. 5:9,13-14,43-46; Heb. 12:14; James 4:1; Matt. 6:33; Rom. 14:17,19.
XVI. Peace and War 1963 Baptist faith and message
It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.
The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love.
Isa. 2:4; Matt. 5:9,38-48; 6:33; 26:52; Luke 22:36,38; Rom. 12:18-19; 13:1-7; 14:19; Heb.12:14; James 4:1-2.
XVI. Peace and War 2000 Baptist faith and message
It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.
The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love. Christian people throughout the world should pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 2:4; Matthew 5:9,38-48; 6:33; 26:52; Luke 22:36,38; Romans 12:18-19; 13:1-7; 14:19; Hebrews 12:14; James 4:1-2.
Where? Where in any of these editions of the Baptist faith and message is the just war theory propagated?
Let’s make it simpler. Where does Jesus tell the church to start a war?
We know that Jesus refused to be an earthly king.
John 6:15 (KJV)
15When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
We kno w that he said his kingdom was not earthly.
John 18:35-36(KJV)
35Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
We know that Paul said we do not war with carnal weapons.
2 Corinthians 10:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
6And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
Yet we hear……
““Baptist came out of a puritan mindset. In that mindset, Christianity was to transform culture, so they sought to impact culture rather than withdraw from it.” So are we to use war to “impact culture”? Are we to not worry about presenting the gospel because we are slicing a fellows head off while we move on to shoot his wife and children?
“They inherited the right of a people to overthrow a government when the government became oppressive and tyrannical, especially vis a vis religion.”Is this compatible with the doctrine of religious liberty?
XVIII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and he has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to his Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to the church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:17; 1 Tim. 2:1-2; Gal. 3:9-14; John 7:38-39; James 4:12; Gal. 5:13; 2 Peter 2:18-21; 1 Cor. 3:5; Rom. 6:1-2; Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17.
XVII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
Gen. 1:27; 2:7; Matt. 6:6-7; 24:16:26; 22:21; John 8:36; Acts 4:19-20; Rom. 6:1-2; 13:1-7; Gal. 5:1,13; Phil. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:1-2; James 4:12; 1 Peter 2:12-17; 3:11-17; 4:12-19.
XVII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
Genesis 1:27; 2:7; Matthew 6:6-7, 24; 16:26; 22:21; John 8:36; Acts 4:19-20; Romans 6:1-2; 13:1-7; Galatians 5:1,13; Philippians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; James 4:12; 1 Peter 2:12-17; 3:11-17; 4:12-19.
I f Southern Seminary were consistent they would terminate Michael Haykin for teaching contrary to the Baptist faith and message. They can terminate liberals over the same issue, yet if one is “conservative” then it doesn’t matter if they contradict Baptist teaching.
What source do they rely upon to establish the just war theory?
St. Augustine, count Boniface and Thomas Aquinas.
All Roman Catholic. Also involved in the Killing of Christians over doctrinal differences. (donatism, cathars etc.)
Yes Luther and Calvin would follow in this philosophy. Which would result in the killing of Anabaptist and other sects.
Even more important is the fact that mainline Protestantism then protects the crimes of the RCC Inquisition and the millions upon millions of murders in the name of Christ. Yes Baptist were separate/holy. The New Testament church did not get involved in violence.
However in America, every war since after WWII, congress has never declared war as stated in the constitution. Thus making them illegal. Yet southern Baptist leaders like Richard land ignore the breaking of law in order to perpetuate these wars in the name of Christ.
So as America stomps overseas like an empire. Baptists like Richard Land lets the muslims know that he is pushing the government to make war and occupy their people. So who is the real loser?
New Testament Christians! Iraqi Christians who have been persecuted, murdered and exiled because the Muslims think the Christians are out to get them! That’s a fine way to impact the culture!
Gee, I wonder why Southern Seminary would be so anxious to speak on this issue? I sure it has nothing to do with the fact that one of their biggest donors is the oil companies. (look it up for yourself, not a lie)
Sure the gospel allows soldiers to be saved. But the church is never to officially take sides in any war accept against the devil.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Incarnational sonship songs: lyrics written by matt Singleton
my daddy ain't that carpenter
my daddy ain't that carpenter. He just adopted me.
Daddy brought me to this earth to hang on calvary
Papa finally bragged on me< when I hit thirty. Everybody finally heard he is my son and I am well pleased
my daddy ain't that carpenter. He just adopted me.
Daddy had begotten me, but I went to foster care
so that he could adopt other people everywhere
my daddy ain't that carpenter.He just adopted me.
Joseph taught me to ax a tree and tear all it's limbs down
But daddy had me hanging on a tree outside of town
my daddy ain't that carpenter.He just adopted me.
Momma you know who I am. Do you follow what I say?
I was teaching at the temple. What? you thought I ran away!
my daddy ain't that carpenter.He just adopted me.
I wonder wear ole" daddy went has he forsaken me? I must go through hades just to set those captives free.
my daddy ain't that carpenter.He just adopted me.
Well they beat me and tried to dope me. Pierced a spear against my spine. the joke is on those goons cause I will walk right out there fine.
my daddy ain't that carpenter. He just adopted me.
Daddy brought me to this earth to hang on calvary
woe to you
woe to you!(3x)
No one's your daddy but the father up in heaven (3x)
woe to you!(3x)
Who needs a rabbi when you got Jesus Christ(3x)
woe to you!(3x)
You won't swear by the temple but you swear by it's gold(3x)
woe to you!(3x)
You compass the sea to make a child of the devil(3x)
woe to you!(3x)
You shut up the kingdom from the people and yourselves(3x)
woe to you!(3x)
Woe!!!!!!!!!!
I am the levite
I am your offspring
I am the one who make you evil hide away
If I am so holy
why marry a hooker?
I needed a girl who was well versed in my ways.
I mooched off your father
He gladly gave you over
there was no price too high to save his name from your deeds.
You thought you could break me
That's not your place it's my job.
You were unfaithful to me but I'll never be faithful to you.
They say I am holy
I have God's reputation
But while God may reach to you
You never will reach me.
You don't know jehovah
Well I know him neither
You will worship the God I choose; my slave by ignorance
Look a those chaps dear
They seem rather hungry
They like to devour me but that seems more your thing
Go and have fun dear; I have to run dear
I just can't take the pain
that job more suites you
whose this on my porch? she's beaten quite ugly
Oh what in sheol with her shall I do?
One, two, three, four, five!
I'll rip you limb from limb!
six, seven, eight, nine!
They'll never forget again!
ten eleve twelve!
Post marked Israel! (3x)
I am the Levite! I am your offspring! I am the Law!!!
my daddy ain't that carpenter. He just adopted me.
Daddy brought me to this earth to hang on calvary
Papa finally bragged on me< when I hit thirty. Everybody finally heard he is my son and I am well pleased
my daddy ain't that carpenter. He just adopted me.
Daddy had begotten me, but I went to foster care
so that he could adopt other people everywhere
my daddy ain't that carpenter.He just adopted me.
Joseph taught me to ax a tree and tear all it's limbs down
But daddy had me hanging on a tree outside of town
my daddy ain't that carpenter.He just adopted me.
Momma you know who I am. Do you follow what I say?
I was teaching at the temple. What? you thought I ran away!
my daddy ain't that carpenter.He just adopted me.
I wonder wear ole" daddy went has he forsaken me? I must go through hades just to set those captives free.
my daddy ain't that carpenter.He just adopted me.
Well they beat me and tried to dope me. Pierced a spear against my spine. the joke is on those goons cause I will walk right out there fine.
my daddy ain't that carpenter. He just adopted me.
Daddy brought me to this earth to hang on calvary
woe to you
woe to you!(3x)
No one's your daddy but the father up in heaven (3x)
woe to you!(3x)
Who needs a rabbi when you got Jesus Christ(3x)
woe to you!(3x)
You won't swear by the temple but you swear by it's gold(3x)
woe to you!(3x)
You compass the sea to make a child of the devil(3x)
woe to you!(3x)
You shut up the kingdom from the people and yourselves(3x)
woe to you!(3x)
Woe!!!!!!!!!!
I am the levite
I am your offspring
I am the one who make you evil hide away
If I am so holy
why marry a hooker?
I needed a girl who was well versed in my ways.
I mooched off your father
He gladly gave you over
there was no price too high to save his name from your deeds.
You thought you could break me
That's not your place it's my job.
You were unfaithful to me but I'll never be faithful to you.
They say I am holy
I have God's reputation
But while God may reach to you
You never will reach me.
You don't know jehovah
Well I know him neither
You will worship the God I choose; my slave by ignorance
Look a those chaps dear
They seem rather hungry
They like to devour me but that seems more your thing
Go and have fun dear; I have to run dear
I just can't take the pain
that job more suites you
whose this on my porch? she's beaten quite ugly
Oh what in sheol with her shall I do?
One, two, three, four, five!
I'll rip you limb from limb!
six, seven, eight, nine!
They'll never forget again!
ten eleve twelve!
Post marked Israel! (3x)
I am the Levite! I am your offspring! I am the Law!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
