Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Johnny Manziel, Obscenity, and Evangelicalism

I will continue my series on prayer (which you'll be able to get to each part from here) -- stay tuned. I'm planning on writing something about what's happening in Ferguson, MO in the near future, because I would like to shed some thoughts that I haven't read other places about that event.  That incident seems to be just like many other events that have become now regular in the United States. I also am planning on writing about the long interplay between James White and Steven Anderson recently on the King James Version.  But I have to make a choice and this is what I wanted to write on next.  I hope my last two posts have gotten your attention.  There were no comments on the last one, and I believe that one is bullseye.  However, I think it is true that the very reason it occurs relates also to it being ignored.  It must be ignored, although true.

**********************

After I got back to town here on August 15, I still had about ten days on my two month gym membership, and on Monday night, I chose to work out during football, so I could use the elliptical while watching Johnny Manziel of the Cleveland Browns.  We don't have television, and I was interested in how Johnny Football would fare against professional competition.  I played quarterback in high school and college, and from a purely football standpoint, on the high side, he might in the future compare to a Russell Wilson type of skill set.  I call that above average, and mainly because of intangible athletic instincts he possesses.  But I'm not really writing here about his football prowess, but about what I didn't see on Monday night, but did see when I came in to work out early Tuesday.

When his opposition mocked him on the sidelines after a subpar play, Manziel retorted with a common crude hand symbol.  The gesture was called an "obscenity."  The report said he might receive an $11,000 fine from the NFL for the "obscenity."  $11,000!!  ESPN protested the obscenity by replaying it about 47 times in the short time I used the exercise machine, except 'fuzzing' out his hand each time, as if seeing the single upraised center digit of a hand could not be imagined.  ESPN will not be fined.  Replaying the obscenity dozens of times does not constitute an obscenity, and neither does talking about it for cumulative days.  Just wanted you to know.  It's obvious that his one moment of holding up that outstretched finger was the obscenity.  But why?  Let's explore and then I'll comment.

What is an obscenity?  I wondered mainly because it interested me that the world thinks that anything is obscene.  I got that the world thinks Manziel was obscene.  One dictionary definition of obscenity is

any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time.

I looked at a whole bunch of other definitions and they were all essentially the same as the one above.

What could offend the prevalent morality of this present time?  Did Manziel really do that?  In this culture, what difference does it make?  The cheerleaders wear something not much less than underwear and often join in undulating hip thrusting as a "cheer."  This doesn't get a reaction.  I could keep going and going here. Many high school basketball programs play foul rap lyrics at eardrum bleeding volume on a boom box at half time, time-outs, and pregame.  I've seen this at middle school games in Oakland so loud that I couldn't hear the person next to me.  I have talked to coaches who witnessed as foul language as possible at clinics from the top named coaches across the country.   This is how they talked in their own practices.  I know that on rampant cable shows you don't see the symbol, but nonstop the actual act that Manziel was symbolizing. Michael Sam slobbering all over his boyfriend live on ESPN was courageous, not obscene.  How many venues and times do we hear our Lord's name in vain without apology?  I suppose this doesn't matter any more.

What I'm saying so far is that Manziel isn't offending the prevalent morality of the time.  I contend that most don't care except as a matter of hypocritical self-righteousness.  People are feigning offense, I'm saying -- just to look good.  Obscenity is entirely subjective in this culture.  We're at a place, as I see it, that obscenity is essentially unfeasible.  How can people call something wrong, when there is no. way. of deciding or determining what's wrong?  No absolute standard.  This culture rejects absolute truth.  According to the NFL worldview, no one could say Manziel did anything wrong.  ESPN, its type of people, has no right to say anything is obscene.  Nothing.

Sure.   Many people don't want to see Manziel's gesture.  I'd say that far more people though don't want to see Sam's slobbery kiss or hear one more thing about his lifestyle.  ESPN misreads or just lies about prevailing morality.  Obscene is whatever works as obscenity.

I oppose what Manziel did, even if it was in jest.  And most readers here would expect me to connect it to evangelicalism.  Judgment should begin with the house of God.  The Bible doesn't say it's wrong.  There is no verse on it.  Isn't it going "beyond what is written" (1 Cor 4:6) to oppose it?  Suddenly something means something to evangelicals?  Maybe.  Why should it?  Fingers are nothing.  They're just fingers.  Music is just notes, the equivalent of paper and pen. Amoral.  Morally neutral.  What's obscene to evangelicals is judging symbols.  Any of them.  If symbols such as these are judged, it seems totally to be arbitrary, like the soldier at the tomb of the unknown soldier.  They want that to mean something, so it does.  Where it is inconvenient, it stops meaning anything.  Evangelicalism produces this, pushes this, excuses this, and gives cover to anyone who wants to go to heaven, but not live like a Christian.

Much of what evangelicalism does should be obscene.  It isn't, because evangelicalism says it isn't.  And they can't have it mean anything if they want to reach what they understand to be a success.  So it isn't obscene, but only in a totally arbitrary way.  They shape their buildings like theaters, but that means nothing.  They use screens at the front and that means nothing.  Casual dress means nothing.  Women's shorts over a foot above the knee -- nothing.  Rock music, nothing.  Rap, nothing.  But Manziel's center digit.  Something.  Suddenly.  Means something obscene.  Oh yes.

Monday, August 18, 2014

How Bifurcation of Truth Became and Stays Acceptable

I wrote something related to this post just this last Wednesday.  I will continue my series on prayer (which you'll be able to get to each part from here) -- stay tuned.

************************

There is one God.  There is one universe.  There is one world.  There is one truth.  All of these former interrelate with one another.  It's not as though anyone gets to work under other laws of nature.  There isn't one set of laws of nature for one person and another set for someone else.  We don't live out God's one book in some alternative universe.  There isn't a separate will of God for certain people, while there is another for others, the first getting to have their own way in a manner that the other does not.

Where did Christianity start going down the wrong path, related in the first paragraph?  Satan gave Eve an alternate choice in the garden.  She could do something that God prohibited and still be OK.  He tempted her with a liberty she didn't have.  Satan justified what she would do contrary to God's prohibition.  With that being settled, today's various iterations of two truths or two stories or two realms hearkens back to Constantine and then Augustine among others in early Roman Catholicism.

I mention Constantine, because he took his cue from a vision of a cross in the sky, a highly subjective experience that he attributed as God's direct revelation to himself in almost apostolic fashion.  Then he proceeded to invent an unscriptural form of Christianity.  Even before he became a Catholic type of Christian, Augustine loved Platonic philosophy.  He brought Plato's philosophy into Christianity that bifurcated ideal truth from its concrete counterpart in the real world, the former the heavenly realm and the latter the earthly.  These were his two cities in his City of God.  The truth in the real world didn't necessarily match up with the truth of the ideal.  The church could essentially disobey God on the ground, while fulfilling obedience in the other realm spiritually or mystically.  When the Donatists confronted Augustine about the corruption in the church, he said that the true church was invisible and spiritual, bifurcating reality from the ideal.  This was straight out of Plato.

Roman Catholicism spiritualized huge swaths of scripture through allegorization.  This allowed all sorts of reading the personal and subjective into the text to allow for the Catholicism's own desired ends.  Evangelicalism traces its origins from Roman Catholicism through Protestantism.  Covenant theology defends amillennialism with a non-literal interpretation.  This spiritualization allows for wide latitude in meaning that continues to exist in evangelicalism, bifurcating truth in numbers of different ways.

The Bible itself has been subjected to the bifurcation.  You have the original manuscripts, an ideal text, and then we have what's in our hands, riddled with possible errors, and subject to the regular correction and tweaking of textual scientists.  The originals are that subjective, mystical spiritual text, even an ideal, and the modern critical text, the concrete, scientific reality.  Warfield saw a future danger in one truth, so he argued an original manuscript inerrancy, separated from the infallible apographa of preceding generations.  In Augustinian fashion, a mystical Bible in the ideal with a less than perfect manifestation in the physical.

Theological liberalism rose in Germany from German Protestantism, an outgrowth of Augustinian Catholicism.  These German theologians and philosophers idealized and spiritualized Jesus separate from a concrete, physical history.  They took bifurcation to another iteration by separating the supernatural of scripture from the lower realm of science and relegating it to a spiritualized upper level, only representative of reality.  Someone could receive Jesus without receiving His miracles.

Augustine's two cities found themselves in the ideal of a spiritual perfection of an invisible church and the less than perfect manifestation of every day life in a visible assembly.  Unity could be found in a spiritual sense through the invisible church without doctrinal and practical agreement in real life.  The bifurcation still counts this as unity.  Then to match this in the real world, truth was bifurcated into essentials and non-essentials, not expecting agreement in the latter, because spiritual reality had already been attained.  For whatever disunity there is, it still counts as unity, because it exists in a metaphysical ideal.

Bifurcation has affected the gospel of evangelicalism.  You see the spiritual experience beginning with a profession that doesn't produce biblical change.  At the some point in the future that higher life is reached through a process of succeeding crisis until someone is dedicated or surrenders to Jesus as Lord.  Truth is divided into what can occur, the spiritual unity around the gospel, and then the practical, concrete, resultant behavior that would suggest obedience, but relegated to non-essential.  This all is a later iteration of the spiritualization of Augustine.

It is no wonder that worship has become most often mystical and subjective, very much like the relativism of modern art.  One personal experience is as good as another without objective criteria.  This is the nature of this upper realm, fenced off from the lower quantifiable and scientific.  No one can judge the approach to God in the realm of the spiritual.

This bifurcation of truth produces dual definitions of terms.  Words can mean what someone wants in the upper, spiritualized, subjective story.  Love can be toleration or sentimentalism.  Grace can be license.  Immodesty is nudity only.  Rock music is now sacred.  A word from God is what you might hear in your head, that you say was the Holy Spirit.  And now marriage can be same sex.  The terms become flexible outside of a scientific standing.  The world in which they exist is also very pliable.  In that world of imagination, few rules any longer apply.

Someone can live the Christian life without in fact living it.  He's living it in a subjective, personal sense, that counts, because the truth has been separated from tangible, real world application.  Anymore, someone can be a good Christian with hardly obeying the Bible.  He's a good Christian.

Little can be criticized because the Bible can't be read one way.  There are several ways to take everything, including the gospel.  As a result, the primary ethic is acceptance.  Non-acceptance is the new disunity.  Obedience is accommodation.  The conscience can't rightly function, because there is nothing to accuse, only to excuse.

No one can know if he is really saved or not really saved, because the basis of knowing has been rendered ambiguous by bifurcation.   A person might have a story and a feeling.  Another carries the card but rarely shows up.  Some just punch the Christian time clock.  You can't violate what you can't be sure about.  It doesn't matter if you're sure because the upper realm is so subjective.

Anything can be justified through bifurcation of truth.  More people can get along.  The amillennialist does fine with the premillennialist, the pretribulationist with the post, the continuationist with cessationist, and the infant sprinkler with the credo-baptizer.  None of the truth can matter enough with its spiritualization in an upper story.  More people getting along results in a bigger crowd.  The bigger crowd means that God must approve, so you're s success.

The one who won't fit in is the one who won't bifurcate truth.   Mockery of him comes in concrete, real world terminology.  He alone can be known to violate a standard.  Without him, however, there is no hope for truth.

Friday, August 15, 2014

Reverence and Solemnity: Essential Aspects of Biblical Worship, part 1 of 8

I. Where Does Scripture Speak of Reverence?

            The relevant texts on reverence[1] in the Authorized Version are:
Lev. 19:30 Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.
Lev. 26:2 Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD. 
Psa. 89:7 God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.
Psa. 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.
Matt. 21:37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
Mark 12:6 Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
Luke 20:13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.
Eph. 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Heb. 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
Heb. 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
These texts demonstrate that God[2] is reverend—and consequently His worship, which is to reflect His character, is to be characterized by reverence.  Hebrews 12:28 commands that God’s service involves reverence, and service is one of the standard Greek words for worship.[3]  The assemblies, services, or worship of the Lord’s church must be characterized by reverence and godly fear if they are to be acceptable or well pleasing[4] to the Lord.  In “the assembly of the saints . . . God is greatly to be feared . . . and to be had in reverence” (Ps 89:7).  His “sanctuary,”[5] His holy place where His holy worship takes place, the tabernacle and temple in the Old Testament and the church in the New Testament, is to be a place of “reverence” (Lev 19:30; 26:2).  Reverence is contrasted with idolatry (Lev 26:1-2).  Reverence is not optional—it is essential if worship is to please the infinitely holy God—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

II. What is Reverence?

            The Authorized Version renders a number of Hebrew and Greek words as reverence.  In Leviticus 19:30;[6] 26:2[7] & Ps 89:7 reverence is the standard Hebrew word for fear.[8]  God’s name is holy and reverend because He is to be feared on account of His glorious redemption and covenant (Ps 111:9), His majestic creation (Ps 139:14), and His terrible judgments (Ps 145:6).  He is separate from and infinitely superior to all false gods, as One who is “glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders” (Ex 15:11).  “[G]reat is the LORD, and greatly to be praised: he also is to be feared above all gods” (1 Chr 16:25).  The “LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible” (Deut 10:17; 7:21).  “For the LORD most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth” (Ps 47:2).  Jehovah thy God is a “glorious and fearful name” (Deut 28:58), and “with God is terrible majesty” (Job 37:22);  “I am a great King, saith the LORD of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen” (Mal 1:14).  The people of God ought consequently to address Him as:  “LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments” (Neh 1:5; 9:32; Dan 9:4).  “Let them praise thy great and terrible name; for it is holy” (Ps 99:3). The Lord and His Messiah (Ps 45:4) do “great and terrible things” and “terrible things in righteousness” for the redemption and salvation of their people (Deut 10:21; Ps 65:5; 2 Sam 7:23; Neh 4:14; Ps 106:22; Is 64:3).  The Lord’s redemption makes Him “a name of greatness and terribleness” (1 Chr 17:21).  “[T]here is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared” (Ps 130:4).  He likewise executes fearful judgments on the wicked in the “great and terrible day of the LORD” (Joel 2:11, 31; Zeph 2:11; Mal 4:5).  He is to be adored and worshipped because of His reverend and holy terribleness and fearfulness (Ps 66:3, 5; 68:35; 76:7, 12; 96:4).  The saint’s reverence for Jehovah and His Messiah is a sacred fear of Him flowing from the glory and majesty of the Holy One’s awe-inspiring redemption of His blood-bought people and righteous and retributive wrath upon the unholy.
Indeed, Psalm 89:7 connects “reverence” with “greatly fearing” God, employing a verb for trembling with fear or awe.[9]  The word is rendered elsewhere as “terrified” (Deut 20:3) and “shake terribly” (Is 2:21).  The persistent warnings in the Pentateuch that any improper approach into the presence of God could lead to instant death (Ex 28:35, 43; 30:20, 21; Lev 15:31; 16:2, 13; Num 4:15-20, etc.)—warnings that were not mere idle threats, but were actually carried out (Lev 10:1-2)—illuminate the sort of reverential fear and awe that befits worship that enters into the presence of Jehovah, Sovereign of heaven and earth.  Sanctifying or setting apart God as holy is connected with this reverent fear:  “Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread” (Is 8:13).  “[S]anctify the Holy One of Jacob, and . . . fear the God of Israel” (Is 29:23).  Biblical worship sets apart and exalts God as the high, holy, and sanctified One by approaching His awful majesty with reverence.  On the other hand, irreverence is an idolatrous perversion of the character of God.  He will not tolerate irreverence, but will punish those who profane or make common His holy name with awful temporal and eternal punishments.

TDR

This entire study can be accessed here.


[1]           In the Old Testament, 2 Samuel 9:6; 1 Ki 1:31 & Esth 3:2, 5 also contain the English word reverence, in each case containing a form of the verb hÎwSjA;tVvIh, meaning “to worship” God or “to bow down” with reference to men, a sign of respect given especially those in authority such as kings.
[2]           Pastors and other mere mortals should not have “rev.” by their name, for God’s Name is reverend, while the name of Parson Jones, Bishop John, or Pastor Jim is not.
[3]           latreu/w, “to perform religious rites as a part of worship — ‘to perform religious rites, to worship, to venerate, worship’” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, Louw, Johannes P. Louw & Albert Nida.  New York, NY:  United Bible Societies, 1996 [Louw-Nida]).  The complete list of NT texts is: Matt 4:10; Luke 1:74; 2:37; 4:8; Acts 7:7, 42; 24:14; 26:7; 27:23; Rom 1:9, 25; Phil 3:3; 2 Tim 1:3; Heb 8:5; 9:9, 14; 10:2; 12:28; 13:10; Rev 7:15; 22:3.
[4]           eujare÷stwß, “in a manner well-pleasing to one, acceptably” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Henry Thayer.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan, 1978 (reprint ed.); [Thayer]), an adverb related to euja¿restoß, “pleasing, acceptable” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (BDAG).  Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker & William Arndt.  Chicago, IL:  University of Chicago Press, 2000); see Rom 12:1–2; 14:18; 2 Cor 5:9; Eph 5:10; Phil 4:18; Col 3:20; Titus 2:9; Heb 13:21) and the verb eujareste÷w, “1. to do someth[ing] or act in a manner that is pleasing or satisfactory, please, be pleasing . . . 2. to experience pleasure, be pleased, take delight” (BDAG; see Heb 11:5–6; 13:16). Compare eujare÷sthsiß, “the experience of being pleased because of what another does, being pleased” (BDAG).  Note the significant frequency of the eujareste÷w word group in connection to worship.
[5]           v∂;dVqIm, from, våd∂q, hence “holy place.”
[6]           :h`DOwh◊y y™InSa …waó∂ryI;t y™Iv∂;dVqIm…w …wr$OmVvI;t y∞AtOtV;bAv_tRa
[7]           Leviticus 19:30 and 26:2 are identical in Hebrew.
[8]           aérÎy, “to fear God . . . to tremble for, to honor” (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Francis Brown, Samuel R. Driver, & Augustus Charles.  Oxford:  Clarendon, 1906. [BDB]).  The Niphal, found in Psalm 89:7, means “to be feared, be honoured (God) . . . dreaded . . . awesome, terrible” (BDB).  The rest of the paragraph in the text above lists the other instances of the Niphal of the Hebrew verb Psalm 89:7 renders as reverend;  it is usually translated with some form of fear, terror, or dread.
[9]           XårDo, “cause to tremble, tremble (in terror, or awe)” (BDB).  The verb is found in:  Deut 1:29; 7:21; 20:3; 31:6; Josh 1:9; Is 2:19, 21; 8:12–13; 29:23; 47:12; Ps 10:18; 89:8; Job 13:25; 31:34.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

The Evangelical Seduction of Two Truths

God is One (Deut 6:4).  His Truth Is One (Jn 14:6, Jude 1:3, John 17:17-19).  The story of the world is His story.  There really isn't a sacred and secular.  Everything is His.

I understand there is a world system, but the world system is part of the truth, the story, the one realm that is God's realm.  In God's sovereignty, everything is His.  It is His world.  The world system is a defeated part of it, existing on borrowed time according to God's plan and allowed by God's power and wisdom.

The world system, part of the story, has itself pushed two stories, two truths, inventing and enthroning a lie that it's interested in objective truth, while religion offers subjective truth.  Within the latter are many contradictory options, all equally valid, allowing people to believe whatever truth they desire.  The world has erected its own false front city, masquerading as true, its inhabitants busy pretending.

Genuine believers, biblical Christians, can tell the story, which includes government, family, art, economics, industry, marriage, education, etc.  It's all one story and a converted, Holy Spirit indwelt person knows the place and proportion of everything within the one true story.  He knows what life is about.

On paper, if asked point blank, evangelicals might deny two truths.  The world has separated truth to two to destroy the truth, to leave itself with its own version alone.  In reality, evangelicalism has embraced and nurtured the two stories, despite the master plan of the world.  Evangelicalism rides the two truths-two stories to a perceived success.

The evangelical seduction of the two truths is that you can in fact have the world and Christianity both.  The separation between secular and sacred has been convenient to the evangelical strategy.  The world is a major reason the lost rejects Christianity, but with evangelicalism, they don't have to.  They can have their church and their world.  Evangelicalism tells part of the story, the evangelical part of the story, like a separate track, the one that allows someone to get to heaven, and yet also have his own kingdom in this world.  This is in fact a lie, and a lie that does ruin the so-called part of the story that is supposed to save.

The world uses the two stories to destroy the one story, the true one.  Evangelicalism uses the two stories to seduce people in the world to Christianity.  Evangelicalism sees itself as saving Christianity like religious liberalism claimed in the nineteenth century.  Evangelicalism has divided the story, taken what it sees as the most attractive aspect of Christianity, removed the unpopular parts, and told that as the other truth, the one other than the world is telling.  As time has gone on, more and more of the repulsive parts have been removed, while attempting to keep Christianity itself intact.  Is this possible?

Can this reduced form of Christianity be truth?  Does Christianity come as a whole or can it be offered in pieces to accomplish the same goals?  Can it?  Do you believe that?

God has one beauty.  Christianity should tell the story, which includes beauty.  Instead, evangelicalism removes beauty from the story as a seduction.  Evangelicalism doesn't think on that which is lovely.  True beauty and loveliness does not attract the world.  Fleshly lust does.  Comfort does.  Self-will does.  Even chaos does.   It offers ugly and expects people to understand God in that superstructure.  They won't.

To begin, two stories was just pragmatic, what would work.  It was worth it, because people could "get saved."  They would be saved from what?  Hell, of course.  But they would be saved to a lie about beauty, but worth it to avoid Hell.  Evangelicalism co-opted the two stories for pragmatism.  They still do.  Instead of rejecting two stories, they embrace them for what works.  The world can't understand God without the proper aesthetic, reverence, and solemnity, so the evangelical strategy doesn't even work. God isn't God in evangelicalism's silly setting.

Evangelicalism tells two stories under the guise of essentials and non-essentials.  Evangelicalism seduces with two truths.  The nasty reality, and a big one, is that evangelicalism is not telling two stories.  They are telling the same one as the world.  I'm not saying that people can't be saved in evangelicalism.  I am saying perhaps they can, despite evangelicalism, but those statistics aren't worth relinquishing the one story, the one truth.

In evangelicalism, you have your two truth leaders and your two truth enablers.  The leaders insist they just care too much for the lost.  They can't allow other things to stop them.  The God that people believe to be saved is the God of one truth.  His very definition is within the realm He exists, not one invented for easier acceptance.  The enablers just operate as if there are two realms.  They point out problems that exist because of two truths, still not willing to function according to one truth.

An example of a two truth leader is John Piper.  I see him especially now as an uneasy advocate.  His uneasiness was seen recently in his rejection of Christians watching an HBO series, Game of Thrones, known for its nudity.   Of course, I agree with John Piper on this (and this article by one of his associates).  I wrote the following about it:

Piper sees a problem.  Evangelicals do.  You can see it with their reaction to same-sex marriage.  They are rethinking their doctrinal statements, their covenants, and even their stands on separation.  But they don't have a biblical, defensible standard.  They don't offer a definition of modesty or nakedness.  Drawing the line at "nudity" isn't scriptural.  The Bible doesn't use the term.  If they were consistent, evangelicals should be angry or upset, because Piper is going beyond scripture with this standard, but we all knew evangelicals were being selective with this terminology.  It's not biblical, but convenient.  Piper can erect a barrier to prevent further moral erosion without tuning in to God's position.

It really isn't hard to be against nudity even in the world.  I've never seen it in public in my entire life.  I remember the streakers, when I was growing up, running on to public sporting events with no clothes.  They were running to stay away from secular authorities who attempted to capture and arrest them.  The line is drawn by Piper:  Christians wear clothes.  So do unbelievers.  Why talk about it all unless you're going to provide God's standard?

Most conservative evangelicals are at least enablers, who talk one truth but practice several.  This leads to their followers having two truths.  The realm of their existence allows for two, even if they say there is one.

The world proposed two truths.  Evangelicalism accepted the premise.  What about you?

Sunday, August 10, 2014

More About Prayer VI

Here's number 5, and here's the post with the rest of the links on this prayer series.

Here's an article on prayer with related truth.

As a bit of an introduction, awhile back I said I would deal with the prayer for someone to be saved and the prayer for someone to be healed and more about the prayer of faith and in God's will.  Then I said I would deal with history.  Here is history.  The parts about history and prayer will relate to some philosophical basis for the wrong way of praying and then a look at what believers were writing in history, and even changes in the writing about prayer as we get further along.  On to VI.

***************************

If we are not relying on scripture for knowing that for which we're to pray, then we are depending on something totally subjective as a basis.  A person does not know, because He can't know, and he prays for it anyway.  He probably has faith that God can do it, but He isn't sure that God will do it.  He might say he knows, but this isn't a biblical knowledge, so it isn't even knowledge, and neither can it be faith, because of that.  As this relates to what is called 'praying' in churches today, I see a few plausible causes, which can be tied to what's happened in the past, that is, history.

Revivalism

The historical era that began revivalism has affected all things theological and ecclesiastical.  I understand that some might become peeved when I say revivalism.  When I say revivalism, I am referring to something that is different than revival.  Opposition to revivalism is not contradiction to revival.  If you don't know that, then it would be get up to speed, perhaps by reading Iain Murray's Revival and Revivalism in which he differentiates the two.  Revivalism is a false theological position that links to or identifies with several related historical issues or positions, including keswick theology, Wesleyan perfectionism, higher life movement, Finneyism, and a Chaferian model of sanctification.

Some would say, "I'm not a revivalist."  Neither am I.  However, many, many who are not revivalists still have revivalist instincts or tendencies.  They might not be full fledged, but it is still there.  That also includes me.  I'm open to correction on this.  It's in my past, but it has been all over evangelicalism and fundamentalism and still among the most separated unaffiliated Baptists, who would claim not to be either evangelical or fundamentalist.

Interpretation of certain passages and even application have arisen out of the influence of revivalist teaching and tradition, if not from the revivalists themselves.  If I were going to characterize what I'm talking about, it could best be described as making the performance or practice or events in eras of miracles as normative for today.  I wrote about this in a previous post on unacceptable degrees of normativeness of the book of Acts. A huge majority of these men would repudiate continuationism and yet practice and therefore believe a sort of continuationism.  Some of this surely relates to and affects how or what they pray.  I think it should be considered rather than immediate outright denial.

What am I talking about?  A gift of healing from an era of miracles is a prayer for healing.  Apostolic revelation from an era of miracles and inspiration is an extra scriptural knowledge or understanding of who will be healed or saved or physically delivered -- this is nothing someone would "know" without being "told." A revivalist would pray for evangelistic results and "get them."  According to him, he got special power for special consequences because he prayed, and the consequences became the "evidence" that he had received the power.  Parallel with an era of miracles or the book of Acts, he sees a Pentecost-like "revival" to answer the prayer for salvation or someone healed like the apostolic gift of healing.

The results of the prayer are still arbitrary and ultimately unverifiable.  Why isn't the power more widely utilized?  You can't test the validity, because it was private and whimsical.  Something legitimate and long lasting could occur for different reasons than declared.  "Success" encourages more of the same.

Someone who totally embraces the sufficiency of scripture may in practice undermine the sufficiency of scripture.  We have a more sure word of prophecy, greater than an experience as valid as the Mount of Transfiguration (cf. 2 Pet 1).  We should enjoy what God promised, what we know we will receive in answer to prayer.

The Two Realm Theory or the Two Story Truth

Post-enlightenment and probably a vital cause of revivalism was a new concept of truth, which I'm calling here, but not originating with me, either a two realm theory or the two story truth.  I've read it most recently in Nancy Pearcey's excellent Total Truth, which I've not yet completed.   The two realm theory goes that there is an upper story of nonrational, noncognitive experience, which is the location of personal meaning, the realm of private truth, and then the lower realm, which is rational and verifiable.  Explaining it as "two story," one story is subjective, relative to particular groups, and the other is objective and universally valid.  The latter is where you get the haves and have nots.  Some get a personal connection and others may not.  There are those that swear to have it, but it is non-verifiable.  It's personal.  You've got to take his word for it -- it's his truth.

In the sense that I'm describing the above two realms or two stories, there is a mystical realm and then a scientific one.  This is a form of relativism or maybe just sheer relativism.  The truth of these experiences is relative to the one having or possessing them.  They become unquestionable.  Who am I to know that you don't know that God will save this person or heal that person?

I recognize that many or most (if not all) will protest this section.  I'm not saying that someone would ascribe to it on paper, admit that his position comes out of this post-enlightenment influence or new way of thinking. Some reading might recognize this as foundational to and descriptive of postmodernism.  Modernism claims to depend on man's reasoning, a cognitive approach.  A pendulum swing from that looks to private, personal experience as validation, which approximates postmodernism.  However, we live in a world that has left pre-enlightenment thinking.  This is the influence of secularism, perhaps represented by what Jesus called "the leaven of Herod."

When you consider how a particular doctrine or practice has changed in the history of Christian doctrine, you track where we start hearing something different.   You ask why?  What were the influences?  These look like the obvious choices.

In the next post, I'm going to look into historical writing on prayer.  Will we see that men in fact, pre-enlightenment did pray for the sick and the unsaved?  Of course they did.  But that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about the differences in how the sick and the unsaved are prayed for, among other differences that I discussed on the prayer in the will of God or the prayer of faith.  What I am saying here, however, is that prayer has changed like a lot of other practices in the Christian life, and the above are the best explanations for what happened.

More to Come

Friday, August 08, 2014

Response to a Baptist preacher influenced by Zane Hodges' view of 1 John, part 2 of 2

The following is the second part of a letter I wrote to someone who had read my study "The Just Shall Live by Faith": Faith and Salvation in All Its Aspects.  I thought that the questions and answers were important enough to post here.



2.) You also stated, on the same section above, "So if I manifest them one day and not another day then I am saved one day and not another day." Here you are confusing eternal security--which is objective, not experiential, and unchanging, with personal assurance of salvation, which is subjective, experiential, and changeable. A true believer is always just as secure as the saints in heaven already. He is secure whether or not he has assurance. A believer can lack personal assurance, but he cannot lack eternal security. That is evident even from a text like 1 John 5:13; not all believers know they have eternal life. If you believe, say, that someone who has said the sinner's prayer and then commits a murder a week for ten years should have assurance of salvation, we would need to see the passages of Scripture that teach this--but there aren't any. In fact, we are specifically told not to be deceived into thinking in such a way:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:9-11)

If we say that fornicators, idolators, adulterers, etc. inherit the kingdom of God, we need to not be deceived, because Scripture says in many, many places that they don't. For another example:

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. (Rev 22:14-15)

Let's be sure that our thinking on these matters comes from Scripture alone, and let's remember that the many passages like 1 Cor 6:9-11; Rev 22:14-15, etc. are just as inspired as John 3:16. The truth--which I demonstrated in my study with careful, detailed exegesis--is what I said in the paragraph right before the one your questions are on.  I had said: "Can the believer's faith fail him in particular trials? Yes, certainly. Can he fall into spiritual declensions and periods in which his faith is growing weaker? Sadly, the answer is an unequivocal affirmative. However, notwithstanding all such concessions, it is nevertheless those only who are JUST who will LIVE, and will do so because they exercised saving faith, entrusting themselves to Christ as both Lord and Savior, at the moment of their justification and regeneration."

I want you to be aware of where the position that you (at least seem) to be advocating, that assurance of salvation is based simply upon professed faith and nothing else at all, so that saying a holy life is part of Biblical assurance is, in your words, to take the joy out of the gospel, comes from. It was popularized by a man named Zane Hodges, who wrote a book called The Epistles of John: Walking in the Light of God's Love, in which he tried to overturn the Christian consensus that 1 John presented persevering righteousness, belief, and love as the tests of spiritual life. Hodges was a false teacher. In addition to his new view of 1 John, he taught that a lost man does not have to be aware of, know, understand, or believe in the deity, death, and/or resurrection of Christ, but can still be born again. He held to many other wretched heresies. He was an unregenerate false teacher. His view of 1 John did not exist in print until the 1950s, at which time it was still very obscure, and only began to enter and corrupt Baptist churches very, very recently. It did not exist for the first 95% of church history. The fact that a changed life is part of assurance of salvation was universal among true (Baptist) churches, and even in the Protestant world, until a time after your parents were born. Hodges' view is not the faith "once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) but a dangerous heresy. We need to recognize and reject it and continue to hold to the Biblical, Baptist faith of our Baptist forefathers, or, if we are going to reject the position on 1 John taught by Baptists from the 1st century until the 1970s or later--then we ought to stop calling ourselves Baptists and call ourselves something else, like "Hodgeites." If we are willing to lay down our lives for the first century Gospel, then we need to reject Hodges' view of 1 John for the historic Baptist doctrine, the view that is perfectly obvious from a natural reading of 1 John and many other passages of Scripture when interpreted literally, grammatically, and historically.  By the way, I have a very difficult time thinking that our Baptist forefathers and everyone else for 95% of church history were "attack[ing] faith" and "tak[ing] all the joy out of the gospel" by teaching what I wrote above, so that nobody could exalt faith and have joy in the gospel until Zane Hodges and a few other non-Baptists like him came along and popularized a new view of 1 John.

3.) In a later note, you wrote: "Often they doubt it the most if you make all these requirements." I would suggest that we consider that the Apostle John made the requirements, not me. All I did was study every passage in the OT and NT in the "just," "live," and "faith" word groups, classify all these passages, and draw exegetical conclusions from them. Before we say that I made up requirements that lead people to doubt their salvation, we really ought to carefully exegete passages such as the 1 John 3 text above and show that they don't really mean what they plainly say, and show that the rest of my exegesis is in error. If the Apostle John says things like "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren" (1 Jn 3:14), then we actually know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brethren, not come to "doubt it the most" by "mak[ing] all these requirements." Godly people actually get assurance from verses like 1 John 3:14, not come to doubt, or such verses are not the truth.

4.) You asked, "Have you ever doubted your salvation?"

Answer: I'm sure that I have, although I don't think I have for a long time. I can't remember the last time I had a problem with doubting my salvation. Books like 1 John are very comforting and assuring.

5.) You asked: "In witnessing would you take someone who had just been saved to Jn 3:36 and tell them [sic] that they [sic] have eternal life now that they [sic] have believed?"

Answer: Since Jn 3:36 is a verse about how to get eternal life, not a verse about the subjective peace and joy from assurance, it would not be the first place I would go to explain assurance. I would use Jn 3:36 to explain how to get eternal life, since that is what it is about, and I would use verses about assurance to explain assurance. I would go to the passages actually about assurance, such as 1 John. The Lord Jesus told people who had just been saved that if they had just been truly converted and had just become His followers, they would continue in His Word--something Paul also says and something found in many other passages of Scripture (Jn 8:30-32; Heb 3:14; Mt 24:13; etc.), so I would tell someone who has newly professed conversion what the Lord Jesus and the Apostles told people like that. They knew a whole lot better than I do what to tell people, and so following what they did is going to be the best thing I can do.

When I was an undergrad in college I had read a variety of stuff on soulwinning from the Sword of the Lord which left my evangelistic methodology shallow. I led lots and lots of people to repeat the sinner's prayer and then sought to give them assurance because they made a decision. None of them ever came to the church I was a member of at the time. I wish I could go back now and tell those people, almost all--I hope not all, period!--of whom I almost certainly made two-fold children of hell what Christ told people in John 8:30-32 instead of telling them what the Sword of the Lord organization told me to tell them. Unfortunately, I can't do that. However, I would encourage you not to follow my bad practice and don't waste years of your life misleading people, but instead turning many to righteousness, so that you can shine like the stars forever and ever (Dan 12), instead of giving people false assurance for a number of years, like I did. When you stand before the Lord you will be very glad if you use the passages actually about assurance to give people assurance instead of using other passages that aren't about assurance and so giving people false assurance.

6.) Two other comments you made were: "Acc. to the previous how can he be assured if it is based on a focus on himself and not on the Bible?" At the end, when I stated "Receive His promise--be assured of your salvation--and go on in your Christian walk from strength to strength," you commented: 'This is contradictory to the previous [sic]. Here you are saying it is based on the promise but early [sic] you said it is based on what a person does??"

My response: First, where did I say that a person is to focus on himself and not on the Bible? If you could quote the part where I said a person is to "focus on himself and not on the Bible," I would appreciate it. I will then immediately take that sentence out. Perhaps we should carefully consider what the historic Baptist position actually advocates first, and not fall into Hodges' heresy based on a misrepresentation. Most people don't fall into Hodges' heresy through careful exegesis of Scripture, but through setting up straw men, like that the historic Baptist and orthodox Christian view of 1 John is to "focus on himself and not on the Bible," and then, based on such misrepresentations, they adopt Hodges' heresy as the (alleged) only other alternative. Let's avoid that snare.

The way Hodges would argue--which I suspect is what you are advocating--is that if a holy life, love for the brethren, etc. have anything to do with assurance, then one must be focused on himself. However, this is not the case, for the following reasons.

A.) Most importantly, Scripture never, ever presents the matter this way. Hodges has to torture the plain teaching of many passages of Scripture to come to his position--for example, in relation to the 1 John 3 text quoted above, he taught that some saved people are children of the devil. That is what one has to do to if he is going to deny the plain teaching of the passage that believers practice righteousness as a lifestyle. 

B.) Secondly, the holy life of the justified is not self-produced moralism, but it is part of the purchased inheritance that they have through the cross of Christ. Regeneration--based on the cross--shatters the power of sin over the newly redeemed person. Sanctification--purchased by the cross and applied progressively by the Holy Spirit--is based on the cross. Christlikeness flows out of the cross. It is not based on self-sufficient moralism. When 1 John plainly says, over and over, that the children of God cannot practice sin because they are born of God (1 John 3:9), the Apostle is pointing to a fruit of the cross, not to self-sufficient moralism. Furthermore, honest believers see and get assurance both through the change Christ (not they themselves) has wrought in them, 1 John 3, and they also characteristically confess their sins and look to the cross for cleansing, another mark of the children of God which brings them assurance (1 John 1:9). Consider 1 John 1 in context:

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

In the Apostle John's day, there were proto-Gnostics who had left the fellowship of the church (1 Jn 2:19), and John is writing to assure those who did not follow the proto-Gnostics of their salvation. He reminds them of the reality of the incarnation, contra the Gnostic docetism (1:1-2). He says that they--all believers--are really the ones in fellowship with God, not the proto-Gnostics. (While there is a clear right with God/not right with God distinction in Scripture, in context 1 John 1:3 is not distinguishing some believers as in fellowship with God from believers who aren't; he is saying that all the church members/saved people he is writing to are in fellowship with God and know God because they are saved; it is like 1 Cor 1:9, where all believers are in the fellowship of His Son; or Jn 17:3, where all who have eternal life know God, a fellowship term. See the vast majority of commentaries on 1 John for more information.) John wants the church to have full joy because they are the ones who have eternal life, not the proto-Gnostics (PG's), v. 4. John's message is not new but old; God is holy, and those who are in saving fellowship with Him (all believers)  walk in the light, v. 5-7, unlike the proto-Gnostics, who didn't care about holy living because they thought the body/flesh was unchangeably sinful and only the spirit was holy, and unchangeably so. All believers are in fellowship with God, unlike the PG's, and the blood of Christ continually cleanses them from sin, v. 5-7. The PG's said they had no sin, but believers characteristically confess their sins, v. 8-10, and God has forgiven and does forgive them, and progressively cleanses and purifies them from all unrighteousness through progressive sanctification, a process that will culminate in glorification. These facts assure the church that it was they, not the PG's, that are the ones with eternal life, for 1 John 1 describes them, not the PG's. 

Thus, both the change believers see Christ has wrought in them (1 John 3), and the fact that they confess their sins and recognize that they have not arrived (1 John 1:8-10) point to the cross. Neither is self-dependent moralism. The contrast is not "either you believe in self-dependent moralism or you adopt the view of Zane Hodges," but the contrast is between the Biblical and historic Baptist view--which is Christ-focused and Christ-dependent--and the view of a heretic whose ideas have only very, very recently begun to infiltrate a minority of Baptist churches. Let's reject the view of Zane Hodges, let's be Christ-dependent and Christ-focused, and let's be honest with the Scripture Christ inspired and recognize that the Holy Spirit says that the new life He imparts to His people is one of the things that gives the saints assurance.

5.) I will respond to one final comment you made--I think the rest are answered above. You said: "If a person doesn't have assurance and shouldn't have it when they [sic] are in sin, that is like an earthly father saying you are not my son because you are doing such thing [sic]. Knowing one is 'accepted in the beloved' is the greatest environment for growth, Eph 1:6." Of course, I believe, and stated in my study, that having assurance is important for Christian growth. I entirely agree with you on that. In relation to your analogy, I would point out that you didn't give any verses for your position. The verses on the believer's adoption and sonship actually show that the sons of God are like God their Father--the image of God has been and is being renewed in them again so that the dominion of sin is shattered, they are becoming holy like God their Father (Col 3:10), and will be perfectly holy like Him in glory in the future, 1 John 3:2. The passages on sonship actually associate a holy life with sonship. For example, 1 John 3:2-3--the sons of God purify themselves, even as He is pure; those who are Christ's brethren as sons of God are predestinated to be conformed to the holy image of His Son and the sons of God are led by the Spirit of God to mortify the deeds of the body, Romans 8. Scripture teaches the children of the holy heavenly Father are like their Father, and children of the devil are like their unholy father. A more Biblically accurate analogy would be the following. Let's say there were two families living next to each other. In one family the parents were both blue eyed, blond-haired, light-skinned people from Norway. In the other family the parents were both very dark skinned, black, curly-haired, brown-eyed people from Africa. If two children were playing outside of their houses, and one child had blond hair, blue eyes, and white skin, while the other had very dark skin, black hair, and brown eyes, but both children said they were the children of the Norwegian family, which one would be telling the truth?

Friend, let's recognize that the view of Zane Hodges on 1 John is false and one of the many heresies that he held. Let's hold to the view of 1 John, and the view of assurance, held by our Baptist forefathers for the first 95% of church history. Let us passionately love the truth, and because we love it, let's hate every false way, such as the Hodges view of assurance and of 1 John, and let's strive together with all our might to keep it out of every true church, for many people will be burning in hell eternally because they were given assurance by someone with Hodges view when they weren't really saved. Let's love God, love the gospel, and earnestly contend for all the faith once delivered to the saints--a faith once delivered in the first century, not by Zane Hodges in the late 20th century.

With love for Christ and for you,


Thomas Ross