148. NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE FOREORDAINED PLAN OF GOD AND EVOLUTION
Suffering from "Interpretation-Elicited Vertiginous Syndrome" (IEVS)?
(Don't worry. There's an app for that.)
Regarding evolution, science, and the Bible, I have turned 180 degrees twice, a complete 360 -- and that only describes the rotation in 2 dimensions. Sixty plus years ago, I was told in Sunday school that the earth was 6000 years old, created in 4004 BC, during six 24 hour periods of time. That was my final answer, and I was sticking to it. Everything in Genesis 1-3 was literal down to each word -- as well as the Tower of Babel and Noah's Ark and various other literal interpretations. Attending a Christian college and then pharmacy school, I didn't have to worry much about successful contradictions to my creationist ideas -- one doesn't get much evolutionary science in pharmacy school except in freshman biology, which I had taken at a Christian college anyway. You don't have to worry too much about monkeys in a pharmacy counting pills by the five'ses, except there was one customer who would bring his pet monkey in on his shoulder. But graduate school was outside of that range of protection. I began to recognize overwhelming evidence for evolutionary origins, which didn't fit with the 6 day theory. For years, studying John Clayton materials and other similar publications, I tried to fit evolutionary ages with the sequence in Genesis. The Big Bang was the Big Bad, but there sure was a lot of time scrunched into those first 3 days. I read Desmond Morris' book, "The Naked Ape," and thought what it proposed was just terrible, but then I read the description of the natural man in Romans 7-8 and Galatians 5 and recognized those verses did characterize someone who behaved a lot like an ape. Then the explanation was "the God of the gaps"; then it was more of a theistic evolution. But it seemed that I was always trying to take what sounded like an allegorical biblical story and transform it into objective data that might coincide with conclusions from science -- coming from a million times that much data. There was always this uneasy cease-fire in my mind between scientific data and the old Sunday school engrams of an "instant" creation.
So, we have said that the Bible tells the Who and the Why in the spiritual realm, and science tells the When and the How in the physical realm. Okay, but one still has this urge to at least put the edges together for a seamless fit between the Bible and science. And being perfectly honest, there is an interface between the spiritual and physical realms that necessarily involves harmonious overlap which is difficult to obtain, so many people just either deny the spiritual realm exists at all or claim that the most of the scientific discoveries in the physical realm are invalid. Because the questions still exist, a problem is created called "How to make up something that is out of your territory after you have declared the real answer to be non-existent."
One source of my concern was that the Biblical account was always having to be interpreted around scientific evidence. Well, maybe "day" didn't mean "day" as in 24 hours; maybe "light" in verse 3 meant something different than "light" in verse 16; maybe there was a little micro-evolution going on in these periods of time described as "days." Then, there were discoveries of relativity and time warp and multiple universes and strings and the search for the Theory of Everything (Unified Field Theory) to explain and give meaning to everything in the universe. How would a few verses about creation fit into that? Time warp the scripture? What a conundrum!
Free at last
But, now, I have been freed from all of that. Because it really doesn't matter. In fact, if worrying about "origins" becomes too much of a focus and obsession, it can become idolatrous.
The plan is bigger than my mind
My revelation (or "epiphany" for cessationists - which I also was years ago) came only recently while studying the foreordained plan of God, formed before creation and time, with a predestined outcome, held in mystery until the coming of Jesus Christ and fulfilled as the promise of the Father on the Day of Pentecost for all of those who would follow in the last days. We are in those days, and we as Christians and as the church have expectations and responsibilities to do in response to being called into the kingdom of light as the elect and children of God and called according to His purpose.
Just flip the switch and turn on the light
The more I read and studied and compared the many scriptures concerning the plan of God and the developments that followed in the effecting of this plan, the more I came to certain new realizations.
[1] God foreordained before creation that we, in these days, would be transformed into the character of Jesus Christ and into the glory of God, because we were created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24). There is nothing in heaven or on earth, past, present, or future, that is more important for the pinnacle of God's physical creation - humankind - to understand and submit to than the plan of God. At the coming of the Lord, we will all understand the importance of this sovereign plan.
[2] Everything in the Bible points to the effecting, or carrying out, of God's plan. God's plan was that we should be declared sin-free by the blood of Jesus so that we could receive His genes, the same spiritual DNA given to Jesus Christ in the flesh, who modeled what the plan should look like in its perfection. Jesus, Himself, was an author of the plan before time began, and He came to fulfill and to bring the plan into its final phase, which occurred on the Day of Pentecost when Jesus poured out the Holy Spirit upon all flesh (Acts 2:33). The promise to Abraham, carried through the ages and prophesied about over the centuries, was brought about by Jesus, but the promise of the Father was the Holy Spirit, and the gift of the Holy Spirit being the genes of God to transform us into His likeness. This occurs at the baptism within the Holy Spirit (Spirit Holy in the Greek) and the new birth of the New Creation in Christ.
[3] This plan of God is the Unifying Law of Everything. God's plan was made before creation, therefore, it preempts creation, time, and everything. Therefore, the physical universe since time began fits into God's plan, not the other way around. God's plan is the reason the universe was made and everything in it. Everything in the Bible and everything in science - all discoveries past, present, future - submit to God's plan.
[4] The plan is why the universe exists, why physical cosmic and earthly developments occurred as they did over whatever number of years, why humans exist and why we are here, what we are supposed to be doing, and what the organization of Christians called the body of Christ, the church, is supposed to be doing. The plan also reveals how God expects that we should prepare for eternity.
[5] The word of God trumps any discovery of man - in science (all disciplines) as well as theology and religion (any and all). But watch out and don't be too fast to run with that one. Human discovery is not limited to science, but it also applies to human interpretation of the message that the words translated by humans in human hands, and how these words reveal of the mind of God. The word of God is inerrant, but my opinion about and my interpretation of the printed words on the page of the Bible are not inerrant. We say we understand that, but then we pridefully act as though we don't. There are many, many golden calves of "accepted" interpretation of what the scripture says and of what God "means to say," and every one of those idols must be melted down. Better that we should melt them as a sacrifice of ourselves on the alter of God than God melt them down when our work is tested on the final day of the Lord.
[6] The Unifying Law of Everything in the Universe is the Who and the Why, and compared to that, the importance of the How and the When is insignificant. If I gain all the arguments about evolution or Young Earth Creationism, if I publish books and videos, if I debate everyone else into the ground, if I win all the arguments on comment sections on blogs about theistic this or that, what has it gained me, unless it transforms me into the righteousness and holiness of God at the fastest possible rate. Realize that the difference between my little measly rate of transformation while I argue about origins compared to the rate of transformation I could be attaining by the works of service God has prepared in advance for me to do, that difference is sin. Thank God for His grace, but His grace frees me to become like Him and not to keep on inflating my prideful interpretations of what I think He said back in Sunday school or in my doctrinally prejudiced seminary.
[7] If you haven't caught the idea by the increasing temperature of the developing rhetoric, we should feel a sense of urgency, just like those in the first century, when the writer said "as you see the day approaching." We must lay aside those things that entangle us -- one of which is the pride of interpretation.
[8] Since my faith is in Christ and in the power of God that is transforming me into His likeness and since my faith is not in my past interpretations of scripture, I am free to let these interpretations go rather than having to defend them. To say that the creation story and the Garden and Adam and Eve may be allegorical stories, along with the Towel of Babel and the Flood and Noah's Ark and maybe even Jonah and the fish, and Job and parts of Daniel may be apocalyptic would once have really messed with my head, but not now, because my faith is no longer in my previous interpretations. That frees me to look past my previous interpretations, which I considered to be literal, conservative, and fundamental, to new and deeper meanings of these scriptures -- meanings that reveal the carrying out of the plan of God. I cannot afford to get all upset over evidence for or against a world wide flood, because getting focused on that debate does not make me to be more like God. And to focus and be consumed on something in the past takes away time and energy from my becoming like God in the future. That is sin.
[9] I used to think (a) that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God that contained everything for salvation, (b) that the Bible was to be interpreted literally and in doing so, I was a conservative, fundamentalist who was dedicated to restoring New Testament Christianity. That expressed view of myself is unchanged -- but what I have now are different definitions of these words, and I understand differently the meanings of these words. I am free from the legalistic chains that have bound me to the traditional interpretations of the English translation of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, so now I can consider more carefully how the readers of the time might have interpreted either the writing to them of the events as they were recorded. For example, I used to struggle with the idea of God in the O.T. getting angry and busting people, or threatening to wipe the Israelites out unless Moses interceded. I now do not have a problem with God allowing these verses to have been written from a human perspective of thinking that God must have been angry when something bad happened. Or even that the conversation of Moses talking God out of trashing the Israelites was included as a representation of Christ. "You mean it really didn't happen that way?" It happened that way, but I may have misinterpreted the meaning of the scripture by making the words English literal instead of context literal. I don't have a problem with it either way, but now I am free to consider a wider range of options that might better fit into the development of the plan of God. Because scriptures no longer stand on their own, or even stand within a micro-context. The highest level of interpretation of all scripture should be how it relates to the development of the plan of God at that time.
[10] God's plan was effected in three major ages, eons, or stages -- (1) physical creation and development, (2) creation of social structure and order and development of religious thinking, and (3) the New Creation and spiritual development (transformation, sanctification, renewal). In physical creation, humankind was formed with intelligence that could sufficiently comprehend God, right and wrong, obedience, submission, and authority in order to proceed to the development of social and interactive skills. Social development occurred throughout the Old Testament record, as God helped people to have higher and higher accountability in their submission to Him and in their treatment of one another as facilitated by the development of their political structures. Their political structures eventually became corrupt because human effort alone is destined to follow the path of entropy. When the time had fully come, Christ came and accomplished, fulfilled, modeled, taught, and brought about everything in perfection that was necessary for the final phase of the plan to be effected. The final phase was initiated on the Day of Pentecost, when the plan of our "creation to be like God" was fully revealed.
[11] Each of these three phases involved a gradual change that could be called an "evolution." Thus, there was physical evolution, social/religious/political evolution, and spiritual evolution. Humanism reigned until the Day of Pentecost -- then the genes of God became available for the evolution into new heights never possible before -- to be like God. We do not evolve retrogradely, or backwards. We do not return to Adam "before sin." The doctrines of original sin, the "Fall of Man," and "once saved always saved" are erroneous and do not fit with the revealed plan of God. God did not plan that man would fail. Jesus did not come to redeem a plan gone awry. The plan was made to be continually progressive, and it was.
[12] Each of these three phases involves a change from something more simple to something more complex. There is an increase in complexity and ability of function over time, and the increase is gradual and accumulative. Each of the phases starts where the previous one fully matured, or completed its development. Each phase didn't stop; it kept going like a baton handed off in a relay. The next phase was only superimposed over the previous phase and surpassed it in development. So, each phase involved starting simple and going more complex, which continued until a time of completion or "perfection" when sufficient development had occurred for a higher phase to start. The transition of the physical evolution phase occurred in Genesis as depicted by the creation story and the Garden of Eden. Mankind was ready for a social evolution for development of a society with increasing complexity and knowledge of religion and national organization. This evolution had matured sufficiently that the "fullness of time had come" for Christ, who was the transition between the humanistic social/religious/political phase to the spiritual phase which preempts everything that came before. We are evolving -- changing -- transforming -- toward perfection and maturity -- the full knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:14-16) and the righteousness and holiness of God (Eph. 4:24).
"Faster, boy, faster!"
Everything since the beginning of time has pointed toward this age. What are we doing with it?
God is unchanging -- the same before the creation of the world, the same during time, and the same after. Every revelation we have of the method of God is described as a gradual process from simple to complex. There is no precedent or revelation in scripture that is consistent with a sudden six 24 hour days in which everything just gets zapped into existence. The plan of God as revealed in the scripture does not support Young Earth Creationism. It does support an evolutionary process, even one that is seemingly indistinguishable from the natural. What appears random to us is by design from God.
The Foreordained Plan of God is Bigger Than Evolution
There is no conflict between Genesis 1-3 and evolution or any other scientific discovery; no conflict with a 16.3 billion year universe or with a 4.5 billion year earth; no conflict with an evolution of mankind. Conflict is due to our faulty interpretations. We need to stop trying to make a conflict where there is none and instead show the world what it looks like to be growing to be like God. Because we can't do both - and we aren't doing both.
So, how should Gen 1-3 be interpreted if not as a physical creation? See books by John Walton and Peter Enns about the Garden of Eden describing a view of a temple of God in which He lives and over which Adam was caretaker. That interpretation also matches better with Revelation 20.
There are many posts on this site (createdtobeliegod), as well as the companion site (intheimageofthecreator), that go into more detail about various aspects of the summary here. This is just another attempt to begin to explain the incomprehensible.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Monday, November 18, 2013
147. THE PLAN OF GOD, PREDESTINED BEFORE TIME BEGAN, IS BIGGER THAN REDEMPTION
Many years ago, J.B. Phillips wrote a book, "Your God Is Too Small." Perhaps another book is needed -- "Your Plan Is Too Limited." We limit ourselves by our finite human comprehension. While we claim to operate by faith, we functionally operate only by what we can understand and explain. By doing so, we place our human intellect above faith and restrict the channel for the Spirit to reveal the mind of God.
We are in the last days, the last phase of the plan of God, created before time began and extending beyond the point when time ends. We are in the culmination of 16.3 billion years of preparation. We have more revelation of God than at any time before. The Holy Spirit of God has indwelled the church for almost 2000 years. What are we doing with this power and where are we headed? Are we being faithful stewards with what God has given to us?
A rescue
Edward Fudge makes a good observation in his GraceMail of Nov. 17, 2013. "Today, Christian theologians from all over are calling for a 'big picture' story that takes the spotlight off us and shines it directly on God's enormous plan to redeem the whole world!" Edward then recommends his book "The Divine Rescue" -- which Max Lucado calls "the 'sweetest of stories' -- God's relentless pursuit of his fallen people" -- which addresses the need for a big picture in a Biblically accurate and readable story that "unfolds the drama of the salvation story from Adam and Eve to the open gates of eternity."
I highly recommend and endorse Edward's book. I bought two copies-- gave one away and kept one for myself. It is written by a scholar of great study and experience, and it provides a depth of theological discernment into the scripture. So, thank you, Edward, for contributing this work.
Why a rescue?
What I want to do is build upon the story described in "The Divine Rescue." In our human minds, God's plan started in the Garden with Adam and Eve, because that's the start of our natural comprehension. Adam and Eve failed in the obedience test, and sin, with its consequence of death, entered into the world. Because of that sin and separation from God, He had to redeem us to "get us back." That's a "sweet story" -- using human terms. Although this story content may be accurate, is the scope of the story still too limited? Our plans can go sour; God's plan does not. God's plan didn't start in the Garden; and the Garden wasn't a failed experiment in a phase called, "God's plan goes bad -- Oh my, now what?"
Paul clearly says that God's plan did not start with the Garden and that the plan did not start with creation or the beginning of time. God's plan started in the spiritual realm before the physical universe was formed (1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:9-12, 2:6-10, 3:3-6, 3:9-11; Rom. 8:28-30; 2 Thess. 2:13-14). God's plan begins before time, continues from the big bang to the end of everything, and does not stop with the gates of eternity, but proceeds on. God's plan is not limited to our human experience, to our recorded history, to our physical perception or understanding. God's plan began in the heavenly realms, it travels through time and space, and it returns to God. Just like Jesus did. Among all of the eternally important things that were accomplished by Jesus Christ the Son, the eternal plan of God was modeled for us within a period of time that we can relate to (33 years) and in a 3-dimensional space we can relate to (a human body). The mystery of God's plan was revealed though Christ, and the power for the spiritual growth phase of the plan was administered on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out (Acts 2:33). God's plan came to earth in real time and real space (John 1:1-4). Men didn't comprehend it because they couldn't get their own flesh out of the way. Nothing has changed.
The limiting problem with a phrase such as "the rescue" is that it implies something went wrong -- something got off track -- something got itself in a mess so bad that it couldn't get itself out. Therefore, only God could do the rescue. While that is true, a rescue depends on the prior occurrence of a mistake, mishap, or accident. A rescue is a response to a goof-up and its consequences-- maybe somebody's fault or maybe just out-of-control circumstances. Did the eternal plan of God include a phase of goof-up from which a component (human) of the created had to be extracted? Was man's sin planned before the creation of the world? Was sin just foreknown to be extremely likely to happen? Or does "rescue" imply a humanly limited understanding of the eternal plan of God?
When did "sin" enter the world? Was it when the human creation had sufficiently developed so that it could comprehend the necessity to seek after a divine being, so that they were accountable for their actions? What is "sin" anyway? Did God create "sin," or is "sin" a term used in scripture to describe being under the control of the human, physical, animal (if you will) nature instead of the nature that was created in the image of God? Sin is the difference between our human "righteous rags" and the true righteousness of God. Jesus coming to snatch us from the mouth of hell is true, but it is not mature thinking. Jesus came so I don't have to worry about that and can spend full energy growing to be like Him. Carefully defining what hell is and what hell is not does not make me more like God, because that is where God is not. That is an elementary subject that we are supposed to leave behind as we grow into the fullness of Christ (Heb. 6:1).
So much of our theology regarding the plan of God centers around recorded historical facts without considering the many scriptures that suggest something is beyond both ends of the limits of time. We do a better job of imagining "heaven" than we do with imagining what God's plan was before creation. We tend to equate "salvation" with "redemption" and being "safe" from hell and living in the house Jesus has provided -- all those concepts that start with "the fall of man." But the scripture doesn't limit salvation to redemption from "a fall." Redemption is for what reason -- for what purpose? To be obedient? To bring glory to Jesus? To spread the gospel to the world? All these are involved, but are working components of a larger plan. All of the above components are limited to time and space which we compress to fit our finite understanding. A universe age of 16.3 billion years and an earth age of 5 or so billion years is much harder to conceive of than Bishop Ussher's Young Earth calculation of 6000 years. And the picture of God intentionally creating everything like a wizard fits with our preconceptions from Bible school better than an evolution from chemicals to amoebae to fish to monkeys to humans in a way that is not distinguishable from random -- at least from a limited human perspective. While these subjects may seem very important in isolation, but when one understands the eternal plan of God, these types of subjects limited to time and space become secondary by comparison.
So, are we redeemed? Is Christ the Redeemer? Were we bought back with a price that we could never pay ourselves? Does that make us justified, declared righteous and holy, with continual forgiveness of sin? Sure -- all of this is correct. But, it presents the question, "Why?" So that we could be free of all earthly entanglements to overcome our human nature with the nature and character of God -- so we can be like God in an eternity of heavenly fellowship. Of course we interpret the scripture from a human perspective, because that's all we have available. Even revelation from the Holy Spirit passes through a human filter. That's why the words of prophets are subject to other prophets (1 Cor. 14: 29-33). But we should also ask if our human perspective of dimension and time could limit our understanding of the eternal plan of God, and if we might be missing something because of that.
The traditionally accepted explanation of Gen. 1-3 is that the creation, and Adam and Eve, were created perfect -- which is an interpretation of being created "in our likeness" or "in our image" (Gen. 1:26, 27). In spite of long-established tradition, can we admit that we really don't know exactly what that means? Created perfect sets up the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and the doctrine of "the fall of man" comes from Gen. 3. To have "a fall," you have to start off at some point of higher elevation -- as though gravity is sin and the rocks at the bottom of the ravine are the consequences? This sin now sets up the inevitable failure of the human nature to please God, so creating the need for Christ, the Redeemer, so that we can be "bought back" and again placed in the position of Adam, with final perfection coming at the Second Coming of Christ.
From human perspective, looking backwards in time and trying to understand what has already happened, this looks like pretty rocky terrain for a plan to unfold -- perfect, then sin, then slowly developing a called people, then a law to point out sin, then a law that cannot be kept, then a law that represents condenmation, then a law that represents such a coating of legalism that the original intent is missed, then a Savior -- a Redeemer, the perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of God -- sets us back in the grace of God. What if the line of progression were not up and down and jagged depending on circumstances of the time -- what if the line was more linear. Linear or straight, as though the line described the path of a plan -- made beforehand rather than following almost random-appearing reactions to changing circumstances. Said another way, what has been in charge -- have the circumstances developed according to a predetermined plan, or has the plan had to adjust according to human response or failure or other natural circumstances?
The doctrine of "the fall" does not appear as such in scripture -- it is a traditional interpretation of the meaning of Gen. 3. That doesn't automatically mean the interpretation is wrong, but it should not be that the doctrine is above question or investigation.
So, what would be a plan that is bigger than redemption, bigger than rescue, bigger than evangelism, even bigger than creation, itself? A plan into which all of these important concepts find place and function. A plan that targets us but centers on God, as we are drawn to Him. A plan that is so big and so important that it overshadows all human based endeavors. A plan that is the reason why the universe was made, why we are here, and what we are supposed to be doing. A plan that is the center of everything. A plan that ties everything together, physical and spiritual, because "in him all things hold together" (Col. 1:17). A plan that calls for the church to show the manifold wisdom of God to the authorities in the heavenly realms (Eph. 3:10).The plan is so simple -- actually, it was included in the above discussion. Did you catch it? We miss the plan's importance when we impose the limits of our human understanding of time and space upon it and miss the continuity on either side of time. When we miss the plan, we place it lower than our ideas, interpretations, developments, and doctrines. Our methods of achieving the plan (as we understand it) for God takes precedence over the plan, itself. The one sovereign plan of God brings unity; our variations of human "wisdom," elevated above the plan, bring division. The extent to which there is division in the body of Christ is the extent to which the plan of God is misunderstood, and vice versa. So, how are we doing?
The plan: we are to grow to be like God.
http://www.createdtobelikegod.com
http://www.intheimageofthecreator.com
These sites are comprised of a somewhat tortuous collection of around half a million words -- somewhere between "scratch notes put together" and a "rough draft" of some sort of "real" publication. In spite of the sometimes random presentation of the logic, these sites are dedicated to trying to explain something beyond (at least my) human comprehension -- the eternal plan of God to which everything in heaven and earth submits, fully revealed through the Lord Jesus Christ.
God loved us so much that He saves us, but God saves us so that we can be like Him in true righteousness and holiness. The ultimate salvation is when He comes for His called and elect -- recognized because they are His family who resemble Him, the Father.
How we execute the plan in the kingdom of God on earth is how we will live the plan with joy in the kingdom of God in heaven.
Many years ago, J.B. Phillips wrote a book, "Your God Is Too Small." Perhaps another book is needed -- "Your Plan Is Too Limited." We limit ourselves by our finite human comprehension. While we claim to operate by faith, we functionally operate only by what we can understand and explain. By doing so, we place our human intellect above faith and restrict the channel for the Spirit to reveal the mind of God.
We are in the last days, the last phase of the plan of God, created before time began and extending beyond the point when time ends. We are in the culmination of 16.3 billion years of preparation. We have more revelation of God than at any time before. The Holy Spirit of God has indwelled the church for almost 2000 years. What are we doing with this power and where are we headed? Are we being faithful stewards with what God has given to us?
A rescue
Edward Fudge makes a good observation in his GraceMail of Nov. 17, 2013. "Today, Christian theologians from all over are calling for a 'big picture' story that takes the spotlight off us and shines it directly on God's enormous plan to redeem the whole world!" Edward then recommends his book "The Divine Rescue" -- which Max Lucado calls "the 'sweetest of stories' -- God's relentless pursuit of his fallen people" -- which addresses the need for a big picture in a Biblically accurate and readable story that "unfolds the drama of the salvation story from Adam and Eve to the open gates of eternity."
I highly recommend and endorse Edward's book. I bought two copies-- gave one away and kept one for myself. It is written by a scholar of great study and experience, and it provides a depth of theological discernment into the scripture. So, thank you, Edward, for contributing this work.
Why a rescue?
What I want to do is build upon the story described in "The Divine Rescue." In our human minds, God's plan started in the Garden with Adam and Eve, because that's the start of our natural comprehension. Adam and Eve failed in the obedience test, and sin, with its consequence of death, entered into the world. Because of that sin and separation from God, He had to redeem us to "get us back." That's a "sweet story" -- using human terms. Although this story content may be accurate, is the scope of the story still too limited? Our plans can go sour; God's plan does not. God's plan didn't start in the Garden; and the Garden wasn't a failed experiment in a phase called, "God's plan goes bad -- Oh my, now what?"
Paul clearly says that God's plan did not start with the Garden and that the plan did not start with creation or the beginning of time. God's plan started in the spiritual realm before the physical universe was formed (1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:9-12, 2:6-10, 3:3-6, 3:9-11; Rom. 8:28-30; 2 Thess. 2:13-14). God's plan begins before time, continues from the big bang to the end of everything, and does not stop with the gates of eternity, but proceeds on. God's plan is not limited to our human experience, to our recorded history, to our physical perception or understanding. God's plan began in the heavenly realms, it travels through time and space, and it returns to God. Just like Jesus did. Among all of the eternally important things that were accomplished by Jesus Christ the Son, the eternal plan of God was modeled for us within a period of time that we can relate to (33 years) and in a 3-dimensional space we can relate to (a human body). The mystery of God's plan was revealed though Christ, and the power for the spiritual growth phase of the plan was administered on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out (Acts 2:33). God's plan came to earth in real time and real space (John 1:1-4). Men didn't comprehend it because they couldn't get their own flesh out of the way. Nothing has changed.
The limiting problem with a phrase such as "the rescue" is that it implies something went wrong -- something got off track -- something got itself in a mess so bad that it couldn't get itself out. Therefore, only God could do the rescue. While that is true, a rescue depends on the prior occurrence of a mistake, mishap, or accident. A rescue is a response to a goof-up and its consequences-- maybe somebody's fault or maybe just out-of-control circumstances. Did the eternal plan of God include a phase of goof-up from which a component (human) of the created had to be extracted? Was man's sin planned before the creation of the world? Was sin just foreknown to be extremely likely to happen? Or does "rescue" imply a humanly limited understanding of the eternal plan of God?
When did "sin" enter the world? Was it when the human creation had sufficiently developed so that it could comprehend the necessity to seek after a divine being, so that they were accountable for their actions? What is "sin" anyway? Did God create "sin," or is "sin" a term used in scripture to describe being under the control of the human, physical, animal (if you will) nature instead of the nature that was created in the image of God? Sin is the difference between our human "righteous rags" and the true righteousness of God. Jesus coming to snatch us from the mouth of hell is true, but it is not mature thinking. Jesus came so I don't have to worry about that and can spend full energy growing to be like Him. Carefully defining what hell is and what hell is not does not make me more like God, because that is where God is not. That is an elementary subject that we are supposed to leave behind as we grow into the fullness of Christ (Heb. 6:1).
So much of our theology regarding the plan of God centers around recorded historical facts without considering the many scriptures that suggest something is beyond both ends of the limits of time. We do a better job of imagining "heaven" than we do with imagining what God's plan was before creation. We tend to equate "salvation" with "redemption" and being "safe" from hell and living in the house Jesus has provided -- all those concepts that start with "the fall of man." But the scripture doesn't limit salvation to redemption from "a fall." Redemption is for what reason -- for what purpose? To be obedient? To bring glory to Jesus? To spread the gospel to the world? All these are involved, but are working components of a larger plan. All of the above components are limited to time and space which we compress to fit our finite understanding. A universe age of 16.3 billion years and an earth age of 5 or so billion years is much harder to conceive of than Bishop Ussher's Young Earth calculation of 6000 years. And the picture of God intentionally creating everything like a wizard fits with our preconceptions from Bible school better than an evolution from chemicals to amoebae to fish to monkeys to humans in a way that is not distinguishable from random -- at least from a limited human perspective. While these subjects may seem very important in isolation, but when one understands the eternal plan of God, these types of subjects limited to time and space become secondary by comparison.
So, are we redeemed? Is Christ the Redeemer? Were we bought back with a price that we could never pay ourselves? Does that make us justified, declared righteous and holy, with continual forgiveness of sin? Sure -- all of this is correct. But, it presents the question, "Why?" So that we could be free of all earthly entanglements to overcome our human nature with the nature and character of God -- so we can be like God in an eternity of heavenly fellowship. Of course we interpret the scripture from a human perspective, because that's all we have available. Even revelation from the Holy Spirit passes through a human filter. That's why the words of prophets are subject to other prophets (1 Cor. 14: 29-33). But we should also ask if our human perspective of dimension and time could limit our understanding of the eternal plan of God, and if we might be missing something because of that.
The traditionally accepted explanation of Gen. 1-3 is that the creation, and Adam and Eve, were created perfect -- which is an interpretation of being created "in our likeness" or "in our image" (Gen. 1:26, 27). In spite of long-established tradition, can we admit that we really don't know exactly what that means? Created perfect sets up the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and the doctrine of "the fall of man" comes from Gen. 3. To have "a fall," you have to start off at some point of higher elevation -- as though gravity is sin and the rocks at the bottom of the ravine are the consequences? This sin now sets up the inevitable failure of the human nature to please God, so creating the need for Christ, the Redeemer, so that we can be "bought back" and again placed in the position of Adam, with final perfection coming at the Second Coming of Christ.
From human perspective, looking backwards in time and trying to understand what has already happened, this looks like pretty rocky terrain for a plan to unfold -- perfect, then sin, then slowly developing a called people, then a law to point out sin, then a law that cannot be kept, then a law that represents condenmation, then a law that represents such a coating of legalism that the original intent is missed, then a Savior -- a Redeemer, the perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of God -- sets us back in the grace of God. What if the line of progression were not up and down and jagged depending on circumstances of the time -- what if the line was more linear. Linear or straight, as though the line described the path of a plan -- made beforehand rather than following almost random-appearing reactions to changing circumstances. Said another way, what has been in charge -- have the circumstances developed according to a predetermined plan, or has the plan had to adjust according to human response or failure or other natural circumstances?
The doctrine of "the fall" does not appear as such in scripture -- it is a traditional interpretation of the meaning of Gen. 3. That doesn't automatically mean the interpretation is wrong, but it should not be that the doctrine is above question or investigation.
So, what would be a plan that is bigger than redemption, bigger than rescue, bigger than evangelism, even bigger than creation, itself? A plan into which all of these important concepts find place and function. A plan that targets us but centers on God, as we are drawn to Him. A plan that is so big and so important that it overshadows all human based endeavors. A plan that is the reason why the universe was made, why we are here, and what we are supposed to be doing. A plan that is the center of everything. A plan that ties everything together, physical and spiritual, because "in him all things hold together" (Col. 1:17). A plan that calls for the church to show the manifold wisdom of God to the authorities in the heavenly realms (Eph. 3:10).The plan is so simple -- actually, it was included in the above discussion. Did you catch it? We miss the plan's importance when we impose the limits of our human understanding of time and space upon it and miss the continuity on either side of time. When we miss the plan, we place it lower than our ideas, interpretations, developments, and doctrines. Our methods of achieving the plan (as we understand it) for God takes precedence over the plan, itself. The one sovereign plan of God brings unity; our variations of human "wisdom," elevated above the plan, bring division. The extent to which there is division in the body of Christ is the extent to which the plan of God is misunderstood, and vice versa. So, how are we doing?
The plan: we are to grow to be like God.
Eph. 4:24Why does Eph. 4:24 give the plan; why is it so important; and why are we missing it? Those questions are the subject of the two web sites below, written under the pseudonym of "drtheophilus."
"...to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness."
http://www.createdtobelikegod.com
http://www.intheimageofthecreator.com
These sites are comprised of a somewhat tortuous collection of around half a million words -- somewhere between "scratch notes put together" and a "rough draft" of some sort of "real" publication. In spite of the sometimes random presentation of the logic, these sites are dedicated to trying to explain something beyond (at least my) human comprehension -- the eternal plan of God to which everything in heaven and earth submits, fully revealed through the Lord Jesus Christ.
God loved us so much that He saves us, but God saves us so that we can be like Him in true righteousness and holiness. The ultimate salvation is when He comes for His called and elect -- recognized because they are His family who resemble Him, the Father.
How we execute the plan in the kingdom of God on earth is how we will live the plan with joy in the kingdom of God in heaven.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
146. WHAT WOULD "VETERANS DAY" IN THE CHURCH LOOK LIKE?
What are some underlying characteristics of Veterans Day? - (trying to be realistic and not too cynical)
It is a day to publicly honor some of those who have worked to help us be where we are today - with freedom, liberty, choice, democracy - largely intangible things in our society upon which the tangibles (things that we have: ownership, vote, stability, investment or work monetary return, house, car, food, clothes, etc) are built and without which the tangibles would be meaningless or even nonexistent. But the attention is a temporary public light in which particular persons are selected to represent the other 99.9%. In honor of Veterans Day, Federal offices, banks, the US Post Office, the financial markets are closed but retail stores remain open as usual. After the day in the sunshine, those "honorees" can go back to their place of less-(non?)-productivity they had occupied the day before Veterans Day, and the days before that. And the public light moves on to something else.
It is good to honor veterans -- honor to whom honor is due. It is good for many people who want to honor them, because a veteran is someone's good friend or family member. It is good to have one special day to remind the rest of us to do that, because otherwise veterans of the past would be left behind by the forward rush of football scores, credit card payments, Academy Awards, deadlines, marketing, and complaining -- 365 days a year instead of only 364. This is just "real life" in the now.
Could it be said that we honor veterans because they gave so much for our country -- so that we can be free to do our own thing? That may not be 100% representative of all attitudes, but it still within range? Do the veterans pass down great knowledge and experience of life so that we can become even better citizens with even more character and dedication and sacrifice? Do we as a society build upon the foundation of the principles shown by veterans, as their generation built upon the faith and honor and dedication of the veteran generation before them? Assuming that such information existed among the veterans, would anybody care enough to listen?
Anything different about veterans in the church?
Do they represent generational wisdom to those "in charge" or do they represent old wineskins, roadblocks, and "we've never done it that way"? Is their council acknowledged but then ignored as complaints? Just donate your money and shut up? "Oh, okay. Let's have a meeting and let 'em talk about the good ole 1980's." If there were to be a Veterans Day in the church, would anybody notice? Would it be the Parade of Geezers? It Depends.
Too many congregations have divided over issues stemming from different generations interpreting scripture in different ways. Both generational sides interpret the scripture on the basis of the preconceived bias of their experience. The older generation may prefer to participate in singing hymns a cappella or with an organ accompaniment, because that is how they grew up (back in the 1800's). The younger may prefer a performance of contemporary tunes with a band because that's what was played (in the nursery in which they were born yesterday). (Slight hyperbole -- assigning a rather negative view of one generation for the other). Whatever view it is, neither generation can tolerate the other. Happy Veterans Day, anybody? Maybe after the church split. Happy, happy, happy!
What scriptures might apply to this generational structure in the church?
The N.T. indicates that those who are experienced, older, gifted, wiser should teach and help others using their knowledge and ability. Timothy received training from his mother and grandmother (2 Tim. 1:5). Older men and women are to teach and help the younger, and they are to be given respect and honor due to that position (Tit. 2:2-3; 1 Tim. 5:1, 17; 2 Tim. 2:2). Younger men are to submit to those who are older, but all are to be clothed with humility toward one another (1 Pet. 5:5). Those who are spiritually gifted are to use them in love to build up the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:1-11; Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Pet 4:10-11; Eph. 4:11-13). The church that does not grow into maturity recycles its immaturity by remaining in the elementry teachings of Christ (Heb. 6:1).
The church grows into the full knowledge of Jesus Christ as each generation builds on the knowledge of the previous generations -- as the Spirit has led each successive generation into further and deeper revelation about fulfilling the predestined plan of God. This only happens when all generations have their eyes on Jesus and not on one another as if the other is an adversary in the way of a group's private agenda.
Division and chaos disrupt the construction -- it is then a destruction -- it is building on the sandy foundation. The church does not build itself up in love when it is serving under the an internal chaos created by those who are squabbling for control. The older generation doesn't view change as a "departure from the truth," because they have helped with the mature grounding in the faith as the basis for change -- change not for convenience, control, or for changes sake, but change to become more like Jesus. The younger generation wants the mature input, because they realize it can keep them from recycling the same mistakes. Tuition has been paid by the consequences from past mistakes. The church can either retake the remedial class or move on toward graduation.
Some things not so helpful:
Information is lost unless communication occurs across generations. Younger generations have to see the faith of an older generation played out in action to know that God deserves honor, respect, and reverence. Through the time of the patriarchs, the faith of the father was carried into at least one of the sons so that the designed plan of God could proceed -- Abraham to Isaac to Jacob to 12 sons. The lineage of Christ was through Judah. As Israel grew into a nation, God established more of a corporate method of transferring His name and authority -- remembrance of God's goodness and mercy, deserving of worship and respect -- through the Passover first and then through obedience to the Law of Moses and other feasts and holidays. Moses was a great leader, but his sons didn't carry the torch after him. As God's leadership and instruction to His people was carried out through representatives (judges, prophets, priests, kings), a great person would be called of God for a particular leadership task, which he(she) would do, but there didn't seem to be much of a quality nature passed on to the children. Individual judges were raised up to meet a need, but there wasn't exactly a judge dynasty. There wasn't a good perpetuation of leadership from one generation to the next. Eli the high priest has sons that were of little value. Samuel's sons were of poor character, so the people demanded a king. Saul fizzled out, and God raised up David, the man after God's own heart. David's children by various wives were a mess, except for Solomon, the son by Bathsheba. Solomon asked for wisdom, and he used it to rule the kingdom successfully, but he could not rule himself or his family. God said the kingdom of Israel would come apart during the reign of Solomon's son, Rehoboam. Every king had been told the consequences of obedience or of disobedience to God. God had set up the universe so that acting in an orderly, peaceful, and obedient manner, within the will of God for His plan, would yield success and blessing, but disobedience and idol worship would produce chaos, division, and entropy. God knew what would happen as a consequence of David's sin and of Solomon's disobedience, because God had set it up that way. In fact, the nemesis for Israel, united under David and Solomon, began before Solomon died. The fate for Solomon's disobedience was initiated by Jeroboam, an adversary of Solomon (1 Kings 11:26-40), who fled to Egypt and returned after Solomon's death (2 Chron. 10:2). Solomon's son, Rehoboam, continued to act in a manner consistent with a person poorly trained in the ways of the Lord by the previous generation, and he sealed the ultimate division of Israel by his own pride, greed and lack of wisdom.
In 1 Kings 12 (2 Chron. 10), after Rehoboam was made king of Israel, the people came to him and asked for relief from the big tax and conscription burden that had been imposed by Solomon as he amassed his riches. Rehoboam told the people to return in three days for the answer, and Rehoboam asked the advisers from the older generation and also from his own generation. The older generation advisers said to reduce the taxes and the people would follow him as king. But Rehoboam's contemporaries told him to stick it to the people -- that they hadn't seen anything yet -- just wait until they saw his tax bill. Rehoboam rejected the advice of the older generation and told the people to anticipate getting busted. No Veterans Day parade for you guys -- now get out there and make some money so I can tax it. Just use the easy tax form -- how much did you make this year? Turn it over. All the tribes except Judah and Benjamin rejected Rehoboam as king and appointed Jeroboam as king over 10 tribes of Israel.
The testosterone rose over this one, and Rehoboam gathered an army to attack Jeroboam; but a man of God spoke to Rehoboam and told him to back off -- the Lord said for him to go home because all of this was of the Lord's doing (2 Chron. 11:2-4). This is another case when God had to intervene in the natural course of events, because the evolution of God's plan was being jeopardized by the uncontrolled sinful and fleshly actions of people in earthly authority. These people were intent on destroying each other. This outcome was set up when Rehoboam brought his own immature bias into a decision rather than heeding the advice of the older, more experienced, people. Oh well, at least he was smart enough to inquire, even though he ignored the response. He also didn't inquire of the Lord. and so he set himself up to hear what he wanted to hear.
Did God control the choice that Rehoboam made? Did he have a free will choice? Or, had it been foreordained that this person named Rehoboam would choose poorly and not wisely at an exact point in time about 16.3 billion years after the bangus bigitorious, +/- a few years? Or, was Rehoboam predestined by the choices made in previous generations and by his own fleshly nature -- consequences to actions that were programmed at creation to occur in a certain predictable way. Quantum mechanics says that everything is theoretically random, but some situations, states, or processes are statistically more likely to happen than others -- a higher probability of occurrence. Some occurrences have such high probability they are an almost certainty; others have such a low probability they are almost impossible. Rehoboam had a choice, but the background and environment within which Rehoboam made his choice had already formed a very high probability that he would make the wrong decision. Is that defined as a natural evolutionary process or a supernatural God-ordained one? God created the natural and/or supernatural processes, and the result is the same, irrespective of what we call it.
One way to increase probability in one's favor for making a wise choice is to have a system of transfer of generational knowledge and wisdom from gained from experience and spiritual growth passed from older generations to the younger. But the acceptance of that process has to be built into the culture of the people. Celebrate the veterans.
A respectful attitude toward God equates with a respectful attitude toward one another
It is so important that it is worth repeating: The church is a building under construction. It is to be building itself up in love (Eph. 4:12-16) without the different rooms or stories waging war with each other. It is built on the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets in establishing the church with Christ as the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20). It is being built into the full knowledge of Jesus Christ as each part does its work. As each generation searches out the revelation of God as led by the Holy Spirit, the knowledge of the nature of God and of His eternal plan adds to and builds upon the knowledge of previous generations. Each generation must grow in knowledge of Christ over the previous generations -- else the church will not grow into maturity. And if one looks at some of the characteristics of maturity -- unity, love, not being tossed around by winds of doctrine, full knowledge -- it can be readily seen that the church could and should be doing much better that it is.
Some things to keep in mind:
Generations are not in competition for control or for credit of accomplishment. The older generation has been allowed to live to their age in order to pass the revelation to the younger and to help and guide them into growing beyond their understanding into new and deeper knowledge about God. All generations must stop revering past knowledge gained by a particular patriarch of any particular group or denomination. Caution and discernment are in order, but just controlling, protecting, and maintaining discoveries of the past are not. There is no change for changes sake, but the status quo doesn't exist -- it goes down. Entropy and the passage of time don't know about status quo.
The knowledge of past generations deserves recognition and appreciation, but constructing theological shrines to the doctrinal "isms" from past human discovery is commensurate with erecting alters to false gods in the high places. Successive generations build upon the knowledge of God revealed during the search of revelation by past people, but they must not hold, defend, and protect or else spiritual growth into maturity is stymied.
The older generations should be aggressively passing knowledge and experience to the younger. Mistakes count as knowledge. Older generations demonstrate the love and peace of Jesus by confessing the mistakes and teaching the lessons learned. You have the information, so cough it up before you forget all of it. The younger generation should view the older as a spiritual resource upon which to build new knowledge about God. You start where the older generation left off. Otherwise you recycle mistakes and reinvent the wheel.
Veterans Day? Not needed. New Recruits Day? No time. Everyone is too busy helping one another to grow more to be like God, in true righteousness and holiness. Cross generational transfer of spiritual knowledge in the church is one of the ways that God created for the body of Christ to grow into perfection.
What are some underlying characteristics of Veterans Day? - (trying to be realistic and not too cynical)
It is a day to publicly honor some of those who have worked to help us be where we are today - with freedom, liberty, choice, democracy - largely intangible things in our society upon which the tangibles (things that we have: ownership, vote, stability, investment or work monetary return, house, car, food, clothes, etc) are built and without which the tangibles would be meaningless or even nonexistent. But the attention is a temporary public light in which particular persons are selected to represent the other 99.9%. In honor of Veterans Day, Federal offices, banks, the US Post Office, the financial markets are closed but retail stores remain open as usual. After the day in the sunshine, those "honorees" can go back to their place of less-(non?)-productivity they had occupied the day before Veterans Day, and the days before that. And the public light moves on to something else.
It is good to honor veterans -- honor to whom honor is due. It is good for many people who want to honor them, because a veteran is someone's good friend or family member. It is good to have one special day to remind the rest of us to do that, because otherwise veterans of the past would be left behind by the forward rush of football scores, credit card payments, Academy Awards, deadlines, marketing, and complaining -- 365 days a year instead of only 364. This is just "real life" in the now.
Could it be said that we honor veterans because they gave so much for our country -- so that we can be free to do our own thing? That may not be 100% representative of all attitudes, but it still within range? Do the veterans pass down great knowledge and experience of life so that we can become even better citizens with even more character and dedication and sacrifice? Do we as a society build upon the foundation of the principles shown by veterans, as their generation built upon the faith and honor and dedication of the veteran generation before them? Assuming that such information existed among the veterans, would anybody care enough to listen?
Anything different about veterans in the church?
Do they represent generational wisdom to those "in charge" or do they represent old wineskins, roadblocks, and "we've never done it that way"? Is their council acknowledged but then ignored as complaints? Just donate your money and shut up? "Oh, okay. Let's have a meeting and let 'em talk about the good ole 1980's." If there were to be a Veterans Day in the church, would anybody notice? Would it be the Parade of Geezers? It Depends.
Too many congregations have divided over issues stemming from different generations interpreting scripture in different ways. Both generational sides interpret the scripture on the basis of the preconceived bias of their experience. The older generation may prefer to participate in singing hymns a cappella or with an organ accompaniment, because that is how they grew up (back in the 1800's). The younger may prefer a performance of contemporary tunes with a band because that's what was played (in the nursery in which they were born yesterday). (Slight hyperbole -- assigning a rather negative view of one generation for the other). Whatever view it is, neither generation can tolerate the other. Happy Veterans Day, anybody? Maybe after the church split. Happy, happy, happy!
What scriptures might apply to this generational structure in the church?
The N.T. indicates that those who are experienced, older, gifted, wiser should teach and help others using their knowledge and ability. Timothy received training from his mother and grandmother (2 Tim. 1:5). Older men and women are to teach and help the younger, and they are to be given respect and honor due to that position (Tit. 2:2-3; 1 Tim. 5:1, 17; 2 Tim. 2:2). Younger men are to submit to those who are older, but all are to be clothed with humility toward one another (1 Pet. 5:5). Those who are spiritually gifted are to use them in love to build up the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:1-11; Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Pet 4:10-11; Eph. 4:11-13). The church that does not grow into maturity recycles its immaturity by remaining in the elementry teachings of Christ (Heb. 6:1).
The church grows into the full knowledge of Jesus Christ as each generation builds on the knowledge of the previous generations -- as the Spirit has led each successive generation into further and deeper revelation about fulfilling the predestined plan of God. This only happens when all generations have their eyes on Jesus and not on one another as if the other is an adversary in the way of a group's private agenda.
Division and chaos disrupt the construction -- it is then a destruction -- it is building on the sandy foundation. The church does not build itself up in love when it is serving under the an internal chaos created by those who are squabbling for control. The older generation doesn't view change as a "departure from the truth," because they have helped with the mature grounding in the faith as the basis for change -- change not for convenience, control, or for changes sake, but change to become more like Jesus. The younger generation wants the mature input, because they realize it can keep them from recycling the same mistakes. Tuition has been paid by the consequences from past mistakes. The church can either retake the remedial class or move on toward graduation.
Some things not so helpful:
"What might have worked for you 'in the good old days' is not relevant today."Generational transfer of a respectful attitude toward God
"You didn't do very well when you were in charge, so why should we listen to you?"
"You always think everything is going down the tubes because immature people are in charge and you're not"
"You are just slow, forgetful, lethargic, and have to go to the bathroom all the time."
"They just want to change everything."
"It's just all flash and bang. It's either i-worship or wii-worship."
"There's an app for that."
"Everything is going down the tubes because immature people are in charge."
Information is lost unless communication occurs across generations. Younger generations have to see the faith of an older generation played out in action to know that God deserves honor, respect, and reverence. Through the time of the patriarchs, the faith of the father was carried into at least one of the sons so that the designed plan of God could proceed -- Abraham to Isaac to Jacob to 12 sons. The lineage of Christ was through Judah. As Israel grew into a nation, God established more of a corporate method of transferring His name and authority -- remembrance of God's goodness and mercy, deserving of worship and respect -- through the Passover first and then through obedience to the Law of Moses and other feasts and holidays. Moses was a great leader, but his sons didn't carry the torch after him. As God's leadership and instruction to His people was carried out through representatives (judges, prophets, priests, kings), a great person would be called of God for a particular leadership task, which he(she) would do, but there didn't seem to be much of a quality nature passed on to the children. Individual judges were raised up to meet a need, but there wasn't exactly a judge dynasty. There wasn't a good perpetuation of leadership from one generation to the next. Eli the high priest has sons that were of little value. Samuel's sons were of poor character, so the people demanded a king. Saul fizzled out, and God raised up David, the man after God's own heart. David's children by various wives were a mess, except for Solomon, the son by Bathsheba. Solomon asked for wisdom, and he used it to rule the kingdom successfully, but he could not rule himself or his family. God said the kingdom of Israel would come apart during the reign of Solomon's son, Rehoboam. Every king had been told the consequences of obedience or of disobedience to God. God had set up the universe so that acting in an orderly, peaceful, and obedient manner, within the will of God for His plan, would yield success and blessing, but disobedience and idol worship would produce chaos, division, and entropy. God knew what would happen as a consequence of David's sin and of Solomon's disobedience, because God had set it up that way. In fact, the nemesis for Israel, united under David and Solomon, began before Solomon died. The fate for Solomon's disobedience was initiated by Jeroboam, an adversary of Solomon (1 Kings 11:26-40), who fled to Egypt and returned after Solomon's death (2 Chron. 10:2). Solomon's son, Rehoboam, continued to act in a manner consistent with a person poorly trained in the ways of the Lord by the previous generation, and he sealed the ultimate division of Israel by his own pride, greed and lack of wisdom.
In 1 Kings 12 (2 Chron. 10), after Rehoboam was made king of Israel, the people came to him and asked for relief from the big tax and conscription burden that had been imposed by Solomon as he amassed his riches. Rehoboam told the people to return in three days for the answer, and Rehoboam asked the advisers from the older generation and also from his own generation. The older generation advisers said to reduce the taxes and the people would follow him as king. But Rehoboam's contemporaries told him to stick it to the people -- that they hadn't seen anything yet -- just wait until they saw his tax bill. Rehoboam rejected the advice of the older generation and told the people to anticipate getting busted. No Veterans Day parade for you guys -- now get out there and make some money so I can tax it. Just use the easy tax form -- how much did you make this year? Turn it over. All the tribes except Judah and Benjamin rejected Rehoboam as king and appointed Jeroboam as king over 10 tribes of Israel.
The testosterone rose over this one, and Rehoboam gathered an army to attack Jeroboam; but a man of God spoke to Rehoboam and told him to back off -- the Lord said for him to go home because all of this was of the Lord's doing (2 Chron. 11:2-4). This is another case when God had to intervene in the natural course of events, because the evolution of God's plan was being jeopardized by the uncontrolled sinful and fleshly actions of people in earthly authority. These people were intent on destroying each other. This outcome was set up when Rehoboam brought his own immature bias into a decision rather than heeding the advice of the older, more experienced, people. Oh well, at least he was smart enough to inquire, even though he ignored the response. He also didn't inquire of the Lord. and so he set himself up to hear what he wanted to hear.
Did God control the choice that Rehoboam made? Did he have a free will choice? Or, had it been foreordained that this person named Rehoboam would choose poorly and not wisely at an exact point in time about 16.3 billion years after the bangus bigitorious, +/- a few years? Or, was Rehoboam predestined by the choices made in previous generations and by his own fleshly nature -- consequences to actions that were programmed at creation to occur in a certain predictable way. Quantum mechanics says that everything is theoretically random, but some situations, states, or processes are statistically more likely to happen than others -- a higher probability of occurrence. Some occurrences have such high probability they are an almost certainty; others have such a low probability they are almost impossible. Rehoboam had a choice, but the background and environment within which Rehoboam made his choice had already formed a very high probability that he would make the wrong decision. Is that defined as a natural evolutionary process or a supernatural God-ordained one? God created the natural and/or supernatural processes, and the result is the same, irrespective of what we call it.
One way to increase probability in one's favor for making a wise choice is to have a system of transfer of generational knowledge and wisdom from gained from experience and spiritual growth passed from older generations to the younger. But the acceptance of that process has to be built into the culture of the people. Celebrate the veterans.
A respectful attitude toward God equates with a respectful attitude toward one another
It is so important that it is worth repeating: The church is a building under construction. It is to be building itself up in love (Eph. 4:12-16) without the different rooms or stories waging war with each other. It is built on the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets in establishing the church with Christ as the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20). It is being built into the full knowledge of Jesus Christ as each part does its work. As each generation searches out the revelation of God as led by the Holy Spirit, the knowledge of the nature of God and of His eternal plan adds to and builds upon the knowledge of previous generations. Each generation must grow in knowledge of Christ over the previous generations -- else the church will not grow into maturity. And if one looks at some of the characteristics of maturity -- unity, love, not being tossed around by winds of doctrine, full knowledge -- it can be readily seen that the church could and should be doing much better that it is.
Some things to keep in mind:
Generations are not in competition for control or for credit of accomplishment. The older generation has been allowed to live to their age in order to pass the revelation to the younger and to help and guide them into growing beyond their understanding into new and deeper knowledge about God. All generations must stop revering past knowledge gained by a particular patriarch of any particular group or denomination. Caution and discernment are in order, but just controlling, protecting, and maintaining discoveries of the past are not. There is no change for changes sake, but the status quo doesn't exist -- it goes down. Entropy and the passage of time don't know about status quo.
The knowledge of past generations deserves recognition and appreciation, but constructing theological shrines to the doctrinal "isms" from past human discovery is commensurate with erecting alters to false gods in the high places. Successive generations build upon the knowledge of God revealed during the search of revelation by past people, but they must not hold, defend, and protect or else spiritual growth into maturity is stymied.
The older generations should be aggressively passing knowledge and experience to the younger. Mistakes count as knowledge. Older generations demonstrate the love and peace of Jesus by confessing the mistakes and teaching the lessons learned. You have the information, so cough it up before you forget all of it. The younger generation should view the older as a spiritual resource upon which to build new knowledge about God. You start where the older generation left off. Otherwise you recycle mistakes and reinvent the wheel.
Veterans Day? Not needed. New Recruits Day? No time. Everyone is too busy helping one another to grow more to be like God, in true righteousness and holiness. Cross generational transfer of spiritual knowledge in the church is one of the ways that God created for the body of Christ to grow into perfection.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
145. RELEASING "STRANGE FIRE" OR
QUENCHING THE HOLY SPIRIT?
Oh, why not? Everybody else seems to be jumping all over this. If there is anything good to come from all this chaos, it might be if everyone finally gets so sick of all the arguing that they just do what the Bible says instead of obeying their own preconceived interpretations that they continue to blindly defend against one another.
What is all the flap about? John MacArthur is a well-respected preacher and publisher of many sermons that are available on the Internet (Grace To You). MacArthur is known for conservative messages and writings that are well-documented by scripture. He has, however, written several books about the so-called charismatic movement which are rather sectarian in nature. The first was "Charismatic Chaos" (1994), and the second is "Strange Fire" (2013). In addition, he has recently held a "Strange Fire" conference in which he and other participants have regrettably made many condemning remarks about "charismatic Christians."
All of this material is basically the same old stuff warmed up over 20 years -- [1] miracles and supernatural events have ceased after the first century, [2] "when the perfect has come" (1 Cor. 13:10) is the completed New Testament writings, [3] call out some excesses (crazy stunts in church, "prosperity gospel," healing, send money) of those who are known "charismatic" persons (Kenneth Copeland, Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagan, Benny Hinn, Kathryn Kuhlman, etc) and paint those individuals as being representative of 500 million Christians, [4] judge them as worthless and condemn them to hell.
The bloggers who are, themselves, "charismatic" have, of course, been set off big time in giving their response. Most responses have been kinder than was the message from MacArthur.
Frank Viola has written a 75 page response to the "Strange Fire." This publication covers very well the points to be made in rebuttal and the points to bring the conversation to a position of more Biblical balance. Frank is from a background involving charismatic churches, but now considers himself to not be a charismatic, but instead concerned about the body of Christ being unified upon Jesus Christ. I recommend his e-book.
Everyone's response to MacArthur's words reflects their particular background and experience. The responses end in a similar place, some more Christ-central than others, but take different approaches to get there. So, they are all a little different in some ways. I have also written about spiritual gifts, tongues, and the charismata in the church -- from my own experience.
So, rather than be just another (b)log in the fire, I would like to just raise a few points that I haven't seen made yet -- based on my own trek from being raised as a cessationist to maturing as a believer in the total power of God yesterday, today, and forever.
The argument that the supernatural has ceased because "the perfect has come" is total nonsense.
I used to regurgitate that argument until God helped me to see the need to think beyond the limitations of the wonderfulness of my very own box of self-preserved fossilized preconceptions. (Note to John MacArthur -- hey, if I can do it, you can too!)
We don't have to manufacture some interpretive concoction to uncover the mystery of "the perfect." "The perfect" in 1 Cor. 13:10 is described in the first 8 verses of the same chapter. It's love. The perfect love of the Father manifested through Jesus Christ. That's what we are supposed to be transformed into. That's where the church is supposed to be headed -- maturity (perfection), unity, the full knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. News flash -- we don't get there unless all the parts of the body are building up the body in love (Eph. 4:12-16). We don't do that by claiming that others are creating chaos while we are creating even more chaos ourselves.
The purpose of the word is not to declare itself perfect, but to provide the instruction from God that we might know to be transformed to be like Him (Eph. 4:24). Is anybody there yet? Paul said he wasn't there (Phil. 3:13), so who is any person to think that they are perfect, just because the word is complete? We are to be transformed, not into imputed righteousness, but into true righteousness. What about the church? Is the church perfect? By putting down other Christians, one is judging them to be lesser than the big number one -- the one who is casting the stones.
So, if nothing has yet been brought into perfection, why shouldn't spiritual gifts still be needed? The gifts are provided for everyone to work toward perfecting the church and the members of the body with it. Therefore, the gifts are still needed to do their job, as assigned by the Holy Spirit, glorifying Christ. Christ is not glorified and the church does not grow into perfection by glorifying the gifts or seeking after the gifts or making any gift into some sort of doctrinal requirement. But, guess what? You can glorify the gifts by either endorsing and publicizing the gifts or by calling big time public attention to how wrong the people are who do that. MacArthur is glorifying the gifts in a different way, but in as public a way as anybody. And in so doing, he is behaving in a manner described in 1 Cor. 13 as "immature." Besides, in the Greek, the verse says that "tongues shall extinguish themselves." So, why should some human think that they are needed to help God understand His spiritual gifts? God can orchestrate His plan without our interference.
We don't grow the church into maturity by tearing other Christians down, but by building them up in love as we all provide better examples to one another of how to glorify Christ in our work. Let the toothpaste and mouthwash companies and the drug companies compete with each other. Christians have a higher calling.
People who say miracles have ceased only demonstrate that they do not understand the Biblical definition of miracle or of supernatural.
God's plan, made before the beginning of time, is still being carried out and will continue to be carried out until time ends. That is supernatural. God still forgives sins, and there is no greater miracle than that (read Mark 2:4ff and Luke 5:19ff).
Do people like John MacArthur, who honestly desire to preach from Biblical authority, believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? Yes, of course. Why do they? They refer to scriptures such as 2 Peter 1:16-21 --didn't write from personal opinion but as carried along by the Holy Spirit, etc. So, we would say that the Biblical text is the outcome of supernatural events? The word of God is supernatural? Sure. Then, why are the epistles of John inspired but the "epistle of Barnabas" is not inspired? [Answer here with process of the canon, Council of Trent, all the criteria for acceptance as canon or not, etc.] All of this happened around 400-500 AD, right? Yes. That was after the close of New Testament writings and after the last apostle died and even some generations after that, right? Yes.
So, aren't you saying that the New Testament was put together by a bunch of humans operating out of their own intellect without the supernatural guidance of God? Aren't you saying that humans were putting together the canon - including deciding what books to consider to be inspired and what books not - involving which doctrines to include and which ones not - all these decisions that impact our doctrines today were made by humans acting out of the natural - since the supernatural had died out? Aren't you saying that God was not supernaturally involved in assembling the canon? If God was involved, wouldn't that by definition be supernatural? So how can the New Testament we use be considered a closed canon - a complete revelation -- a compilation of manuscripts that distinguishes inspired documents from the uninspired? How did that happen if God were not supernaturally involved? Oh, and by the way, your salvation depends on your answer.
You're stuck, brother. You say that "the perfect" is the completed scripture. So, by your definition, "the perfect" had come, but it hadn't yet been decided "that which was perfect" was really perfect. That couldn't occur until some imperfect humans met 400 years later to decide what was perfect and what was not - all while they were not being carried along by the Holy Spirit. It was the imperfect leading the perfect - the uninspired deciding on the inspired? It's either that, or else God decided to make a special exception in the cessation of miracles -- just for this one special case. Yeah? Do you have a scripture to show that? An inspired scripture and not just an imperfect one that you made up? Book of Mormon? Don't even go there.
Saying "the perfect" in 1 Cor 13:10 is the completed word is self-contradictory, illogical, and involves blatant eisegesis. And the reason to force that uninspired interpretation upon God's word is to fashion a doctrinal weapon to use against other Christians. That action involves both division and compromise of the inspired integrity of the scripture. I speak to myself, because I used to believe that cessationist doctrine..
When discernment taken to extreme, it is difficult to avoid elevating the pride of one's own doctrine to the judgment seat of God.
MacArthur was reported to have said on social media: "We're not trying to divide the body of Christ with this conference. We're trying to identify the body of Christ." And, pray tell, who gives humans the authority to do that? Upon what criteria do we document composition of the body other than the ones Jesus gave in John 13:34-35 to "love one another" and in John 15:8 to "bear much fruit showing that you are my disciples." God adds to the church; we fellowship. God determines who is added; we do not.
About 5 years ago, MacArthur published in "Pulpit Magazine" -
In the parable of the wheat and tares (Matt. 13:24-29, 36-43), Jesus said the contaminated field should be left until the product of the field could be seen, and the angels would do the harvest. He didn't say that the workers were authorized to create division and chaos in the field by using their non-botanical knowledge to identify the tares and pull the out, taking the place of the plan of God in the kingdom. That wasn't called a "compromise." The choice was between obeying God or creating chaos and division based on human pride. It was whether or not to assert one's human knowledge in the place of God.
What has been created by this uproar other than division and chaos in the body of Christ and a display of human pride for the world to see?
What's in your name?
If the description of a person's belief or their approach or to their doctrinal position requires a word in addition, or in place of, the word "Christian," there is trouble lurking. "Charismatic Christian" - "Calvanist" - "Lutheran" - "Armenian" - "Catholic" - even "Restoration Movement" and "Restoration Movement" - "evangelical" - "missional" - all imply a limited brand or interpretation of the scripture as it points to Jesus -- most of the time based on traditional thinking begun by a reformist of hundreds or more years ago. Yeah, it's about Jesus, but it's my way to Jesus, or it's no way. You don't have a way, or maybe your way is just really lame. Yes, Luther and Calvin and others plowed new ground. Their thinking at that time moved the church more toward the centrality of Christ. Shall we continue to plow, or shall we continue to plant the same crops in the field until we use up all the nutrients in the soil?
Shall we defend our small plot of ground against the plots of other field managers? Remember, all plots and fields belong to the same landowner, who will be coming back to examine the increase in crop yield and judge our productivity. Instead of growing stronger by eating the fruit of the field, shall we instead "bite and devour one another - until we destroy one another?" (Oh, yes, it's because I love you so much.)
The love of a brother
There is a Biblical example of a person having his eyes on his brother instead of God, being jealous of his brother, and then destroying his brother. It was all the work of the flesh, not of the Spirit. It was the operation of the natural man.
"Then the Lord said to Cain, 'Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.'" (Gen 4:6-8).
Cain was angry at God and at his brother, Abel. He was selfish, jealous, and prideful. He was being motivated by all the same natural characteristics that had caused his parents to rebel against God. Rather than learning mastery over sin, Cain instead destroyed and killed his brother.
How many Christians have tried to kill one another spiritually with unloving arrows and hateful words and slander? How many Christians could God charge with "attempted murder?"
This entire explosion of "Charismatic Chaos" and "Strange Fire" - books, conference, sermons, and public comments -- maintains an appearance of a veneer of "speaking the truth in love," but most of the comments do not bear good fruit. We are to be the aroma that pleases God (2 Cor 2:14-16), but, unfortunately, this hack job on the charismatic movement reeks of fleshly body odor.
This anti-charismatic tirade is a call to be judgmental of others, not a call to the holiness of God.
MacArthur's material calls into question people who have had healing ministries with claims of all sorts of miracles. One of the historical figures is Kathryn Kuhlman. There have been books written about Kathryn Kuhlman and whether or not anything she did was for real. As in most cases involving a controversial figure, most books are dedicated from the start to proving or disproving the legitimacy of the person. Few investigations are objective; most have an intention to start with, and they only present biased information that is biased one way or the other. MacArthur uses some of these publications for reference, but he chooses only the ones what are biased toward his way of looking at it. Frank Viola discusses this in his book. So we head for a different point.
And, now, I show you the most excellent way.
So, what? What difference does all this make in our eternal salvation? People are dying by the minute, and they need to have heard about the saving blood of Jesus Christ and not what is right or wrong with Kathryn Kuhlman, or anyone else like her. We do not live in the past. We cannot spend energy validating or condemning the past and also have that energy to be transformed into the image of God. You can't throw your cake at someone else and eat it, too. I need all the time, focus, and energy I have available to grow to be like God in true righteousness and holiness at the fastest possible rate. My fellowship with God depends on how much of the character of Jesus Christ I have been clothed with -- not by some biased and judgmental analysis of Kathryn Kuhlman or anyone else. It's taken me quite a few years to figure that one out.
Anyone who feels the need to grind on charismatic Christians, non-charismatic Christians, or any other sub-differentiation of Christians and to place their judgmental crosshairs on brothers and sisters in Christ must accept the responsibility for the detrimental effects on the body of Christ. But I pray that the day will soon come when we have all matured enough in Christ that we are compelled to make a different choice.
Romans 14 deals with people who were destroying the unity of the body of Christ over opinions about doctrinal interpretations based on their prior experiences and preconceptions. Some placed their freedom to eat certain meat as a principle above Christ, and it was "in your face" to everyone who disagreed. Those who disagreed made their reaction to this insult to be above Christ as well. Because any issue that divides the body of Christ is being placed above Christ, and that is called idolatry. Protagonist or antagonist = still idolatry. Paul said to stop destroying the body of Christ over your opinions.
Perhaps instead of "Strange Fire" the book and conference could have been called "Strange Meat." Maybe then the relation to Romans 14 could be more clearly seen.
Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Rom. 14:19
Instead of ripping into other Christians on areas in which they need improvement, show the most excellent way yourself. People will see the difference in how greatly you glorify Jesus and they will come and ask how to do the same. And you will be glad to tell them without holding a marketing seminar, because love operates in human humility and in Christ's glory. And if you are not showing the most excellent way that is displaying the manifold wisdom of God to the authorities in the heavenly realms (Eph. 3:10) ...... you have nothing to say. So, either show it or stow it.
Conferences and sermons about the "strange meat" phenomenon only prove that the church is not on track toward the Lord Jesus Christ. One group may think they are and think that some other group is not. The second group is upset at the first group. Then, be assured -- neither group is on track. Both groups are being blown about by the winds of the other group's doctrinal views. Let's be on track toward the Lord Jesus and not anti-track each other.
Only then could we all discuss constructively the various ways that we see God's power manifested today and how these observations might compare to what was recorded from the first century. We might actually put together some of our different parts of the full knowledge of Christ and build up the church into Him rather than into ourselves.
The church that is operating out of the flesh is not exempt from reaping the consequences of entropy.
Oh, why not? Everybody else seems to be jumping all over this. If there is anything good to come from all this chaos, it might be if everyone finally gets so sick of all the arguing that they just do what the Bible says instead of obeying their own preconceived interpretations that they continue to blindly defend against one another.
What is all the flap about? John MacArthur is a well-respected preacher and publisher of many sermons that are available on the Internet (Grace To You). MacArthur is known for conservative messages and writings that are well-documented by scripture. He has, however, written several books about the so-called charismatic movement which are rather sectarian in nature. The first was "Charismatic Chaos" (1994), and the second is "Strange Fire" (2013). In addition, he has recently held a "Strange Fire" conference in which he and other participants have regrettably made many condemning remarks about "charismatic Christians."
All of this material is basically the same old stuff warmed up over 20 years -- [1] miracles and supernatural events have ceased after the first century, [2] "when the perfect has come" (1 Cor. 13:10) is the completed New Testament writings, [3] call out some excesses (crazy stunts in church, "prosperity gospel," healing, send money) of those who are known "charismatic" persons (Kenneth Copeland, Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagan, Benny Hinn, Kathryn Kuhlman, etc) and paint those individuals as being representative of 500 million Christians, [4] judge them as worthless and condemn them to hell.
The bloggers who are, themselves, "charismatic" have, of course, been set off big time in giving their response. Most responses have been kinder than was the message from MacArthur.
Frank Viola has written a 75 page response to the "Strange Fire." This publication covers very well the points to be made in rebuttal and the points to bring the conversation to a position of more Biblical balance. Frank is from a background involving charismatic churches, but now considers himself to not be a charismatic, but instead concerned about the body of Christ being unified upon Jesus Christ. I recommend his e-book.
Everyone's response to MacArthur's words reflects their particular background and experience. The responses end in a similar place, some more Christ-central than others, but take different approaches to get there. So, they are all a little different in some ways. I have also written about spiritual gifts, tongues, and the charismata in the church -- from my own experience.
So, rather than be just another (b)log in the fire, I would like to just raise a few points that I haven't seen made yet -- based on my own trek from being raised as a cessationist to maturing as a believer in the total power of God yesterday, today, and forever.
The argument that the supernatural has ceased because "the perfect has come" is total nonsense.
I used to regurgitate that argument until God helped me to see the need to think beyond the limitations of the wonderfulness of my very own box of self-preserved fossilized preconceptions. (Note to John MacArthur -- hey, if I can do it, you can too!)
We don't have to manufacture some interpretive concoction to uncover the mystery of "the perfect." "The perfect" in 1 Cor. 13:10 is described in the first 8 verses of the same chapter. It's love. The perfect love of the Father manifested through Jesus Christ. That's what we are supposed to be transformed into. That's where the church is supposed to be headed -- maturity (perfection), unity, the full knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. News flash -- we don't get there unless all the parts of the body are building up the body in love (Eph. 4:12-16). We don't do that by claiming that others are creating chaos while we are creating even more chaos ourselves.
The purpose of the word is not to declare itself perfect, but to provide the instruction from God that we might know to be transformed to be like Him (Eph. 4:24). Is anybody there yet? Paul said he wasn't there (Phil. 3:13), so who is any person to think that they are perfect, just because the word is complete? We are to be transformed, not into imputed righteousness, but into true righteousness. What about the church? Is the church perfect? By putting down other Christians, one is judging them to be lesser than the big number one -- the one who is casting the stones.
So, if nothing has yet been brought into perfection, why shouldn't spiritual gifts still be needed? The gifts are provided for everyone to work toward perfecting the church and the members of the body with it. Therefore, the gifts are still needed to do their job, as assigned by the Holy Spirit, glorifying Christ. Christ is not glorified and the church does not grow into perfection by glorifying the gifts or seeking after the gifts or making any gift into some sort of doctrinal requirement. But, guess what? You can glorify the gifts by either endorsing and publicizing the gifts or by calling big time public attention to how wrong the people are who do that. MacArthur is glorifying the gifts in a different way, but in as public a way as anybody. And in so doing, he is behaving in a manner described in 1 Cor. 13 as "immature." Besides, in the Greek, the verse says that "tongues shall extinguish themselves." So, why should some human think that they are needed to help God understand His spiritual gifts? God can orchestrate His plan without our interference.
We don't grow the church into maturity by tearing other Christians down, but by building them up in love as we all provide better examples to one another of how to glorify Christ in our work. Let the toothpaste and mouthwash companies and the drug companies compete with each other. Christians have a higher calling.
People who say miracles have ceased only demonstrate that they do not understand the Biblical definition of miracle or of supernatural.
God's plan, made before the beginning of time, is still being carried out and will continue to be carried out until time ends. That is supernatural. God still forgives sins, and there is no greater miracle than that (read Mark 2:4ff and Luke 5:19ff).
Do people like John MacArthur, who honestly desire to preach from Biblical authority, believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? Yes, of course. Why do they? They refer to scriptures such as 2 Peter 1:16-21 --didn't write from personal opinion but as carried along by the Holy Spirit, etc. So, we would say that the Biblical text is the outcome of supernatural events? The word of God is supernatural? Sure. Then, why are the epistles of John inspired but the "epistle of Barnabas" is not inspired? [Answer here with process of the canon, Council of Trent, all the criteria for acceptance as canon or not, etc.] All of this happened around 400-500 AD, right? Yes. That was after the close of New Testament writings and after the last apostle died and even some generations after that, right? Yes.
So, aren't you saying that the New Testament was put together by a bunch of humans operating out of their own intellect without the supernatural guidance of God? Aren't you saying that humans were putting together the canon - including deciding what books to consider to be inspired and what books not - involving which doctrines to include and which ones not - all these decisions that impact our doctrines today were made by humans acting out of the natural - since the supernatural had died out? Aren't you saying that God was not supernaturally involved in assembling the canon? If God was involved, wouldn't that by definition be supernatural? So how can the New Testament we use be considered a closed canon - a complete revelation -- a compilation of manuscripts that distinguishes inspired documents from the uninspired? How did that happen if God were not supernaturally involved? Oh, and by the way, your salvation depends on your answer.
You're stuck, brother. You say that "the perfect" is the completed scripture. So, by your definition, "the perfect" had come, but it hadn't yet been decided "that which was perfect" was really perfect. That couldn't occur until some imperfect humans met 400 years later to decide what was perfect and what was not - all while they were not being carried along by the Holy Spirit. It was the imperfect leading the perfect - the uninspired deciding on the inspired? It's either that, or else God decided to make a special exception in the cessation of miracles -- just for this one special case. Yeah? Do you have a scripture to show that? An inspired scripture and not just an imperfect one that you made up? Book of Mormon? Don't even go there.
Saying "the perfect" in 1 Cor 13:10 is the completed word is self-contradictory, illogical, and involves blatant eisegesis. And the reason to force that uninspired interpretation upon God's word is to fashion a doctrinal weapon to use against other Christians. That action involves both division and compromise of the inspired integrity of the scripture. I speak to myself, because I used to believe that cessationist doctrine..
When discernment taken to extreme, it is difficult to avoid elevating the pride of one's own doctrine to the judgment seat of God.
MacArthur was reported to have said on social media: "We're not trying to divide the body of Christ with this conference. We're trying to identify the body of Christ." And, pray tell, who gives humans the authority to do that? Upon what criteria do we document composition of the body other than the ones Jesus gave in John 13:34-35 to "love one another" and in John 15:8 to "bear much fruit showing that you are my disciples." God adds to the church; we fellowship. God determines who is added; we do not.
About 5 years ago, MacArthur published in "Pulpit Magazine" -
Yet
sometimes division is fitting, even healthy, for the church. Especially in
times like Luther’s—and like ours—when the visible church seems full of
counterfeit Christians, it is right for the true people of God to declare
themselves. Compromise is sometimes a worse evil than division…
This is one of those statements so full of platitudes that
it sounds legitimate. But the statement
is full of words whose meanings can be skewed to conform to personal
interpretations. What is the definition
of the "true people of God" other than the words of Jesus?In the parable of the wheat and tares (Matt. 13:24-29, 36-43), Jesus said the contaminated field should be left until the product of the field could be seen, and the angels would do the harvest. He didn't say that the workers were authorized to create division and chaos in the field by using their non-botanical knowledge to identify the tares and pull the out, taking the place of the plan of God in the kingdom. That wasn't called a "compromise." The choice was between obeying God or creating chaos and division based on human pride. It was whether or not to assert one's human knowledge in the place of God.
What has been created by this uproar other than division and chaos in the body of Christ and a display of human pride for the world to see?
What's in your name?
If the description of a person's belief or their approach or to their doctrinal position requires a word in addition, or in place of, the word "Christian," there is trouble lurking. "Charismatic Christian" - "Calvanist" - "Lutheran" - "Armenian" - "Catholic" - even "Restoration Movement" and "Restoration Movement" - "evangelical" - "missional" - all imply a limited brand or interpretation of the scripture as it points to Jesus -- most of the time based on traditional thinking begun by a reformist of hundreds or more years ago. Yeah, it's about Jesus, but it's my way to Jesus, or it's no way. You don't have a way, or maybe your way is just really lame. Yes, Luther and Calvin and others plowed new ground. Their thinking at that time moved the church more toward the centrality of Christ. Shall we continue to plow, or shall we continue to plant the same crops in the field until we use up all the nutrients in the soil?
Shall we defend our small plot of ground against the plots of other field managers? Remember, all plots and fields belong to the same landowner, who will be coming back to examine the increase in crop yield and judge our productivity. Instead of growing stronger by eating the fruit of the field, shall we instead "bite and devour one another - until we destroy one another?" (Oh, yes, it's because I love you so much.)
The love of a brother
There is a Biblical example of a person having his eyes on his brother instead of God, being jealous of his brother, and then destroying his brother. It was all the work of the flesh, not of the Spirit. It was the operation of the natural man.
"Then the Lord said to Cain, 'Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.'" (Gen 4:6-8).
Cain was angry at God and at his brother, Abel. He was selfish, jealous, and prideful. He was being motivated by all the same natural characteristics that had caused his parents to rebel against God. Rather than learning mastery over sin, Cain instead destroyed and killed his brother.
How many Christians have tried to kill one another spiritually with unloving arrows and hateful words and slander? How many Christians could God charge with "attempted murder?"
This entire explosion of "Charismatic Chaos" and "Strange Fire" - books, conference, sermons, and public comments -- maintains an appearance of a veneer of "speaking the truth in love," but most of the comments do not bear good fruit. We are to be the aroma that pleases God (2 Cor 2:14-16), but, unfortunately, this hack job on the charismatic movement reeks of fleshly body odor.
This anti-charismatic tirade is a call to be judgmental of others, not a call to the holiness of God.
MacArthur's material calls into question people who have had healing ministries with claims of all sorts of miracles. One of the historical figures is Kathryn Kuhlman. There have been books written about Kathryn Kuhlman and whether or not anything she did was for real. As in most cases involving a controversial figure, most books are dedicated from the start to proving or disproving the legitimacy of the person. Few investigations are objective; most have an intention to start with, and they only present biased information that is biased one way or the other. MacArthur uses some of these publications for reference, but he chooses only the ones what are biased toward his way of looking at it. Frank Viola discusses this in his book. So we head for a different point.
And, now, I show you the most excellent way.
So, what? What difference does all this make in our eternal salvation? People are dying by the minute, and they need to have heard about the saving blood of Jesus Christ and not what is right or wrong with Kathryn Kuhlman, or anyone else like her. We do not live in the past. We cannot spend energy validating or condemning the past and also have that energy to be transformed into the image of God. You can't throw your cake at someone else and eat it, too. I need all the time, focus, and energy I have available to grow to be like God in true righteousness and holiness at the fastest possible rate. My fellowship with God depends on how much of the character of Jesus Christ I have been clothed with -- not by some biased and judgmental analysis of Kathryn Kuhlman or anyone else. It's taken me quite a few years to figure that one out.
Anyone who feels the need to grind on charismatic Christians, non-charismatic Christians, or any other sub-differentiation of Christians and to place their judgmental crosshairs on brothers and sisters in Christ must accept the responsibility for the detrimental effects on the body of Christ. But I pray that the day will soon come when we have all matured enough in Christ that we are compelled to make a different choice.
Romans 14 deals with people who were destroying the unity of the body of Christ over opinions about doctrinal interpretations based on their prior experiences and preconceptions. Some placed their freedom to eat certain meat as a principle above Christ, and it was "in your face" to everyone who disagreed. Those who disagreed made their reaction to this insult to be above Christ as well. Because any issue that divides the body of Christ is being placed above Christ, and that is called idolatry. Protagonist or antagonist = still idolatry. Paul said to stop destroying the body of Christ over your opinions.
Perhaps instead of "Strange Fire" the book and conference could have been called "Strange Meat." Maybe then the relation to Romans 14 could be more clearly seen.
Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Rom. 14:19
Instead of ripping into other Christians on areas in which they need improvement, show the most excellent way yourself. People will see the difference in how greatly you glorify Jesus and they will come and ask how to do the same. And you will be glad to tell them without holding a marketing seminar, because love operates in human humility and in Christ's glory. And if you are not showing the most excellent way that is displaying the manifold wisdom of God to the authorities in the heavenly realms (Eph. 3:10) ...... you have nothing to say. So, either show it or stow it.
Conferences and sermons about the "strange meat" phenomenon only prove that the church is not on track toward the Lord Jesus Christ. One group may think they are and think that some other group is not. The second group is upset at the first group. Then, be assured -- neither group is on track. Both groups are being blown about by the winds of the other group's doctrinal views. Let's be on track toward the Lord Jesus and not anti-track each other.
Only then could we all discuss constructively the various ways that we see God's power manifested today and how these observations might compare to what was recorded from the first century. We might actually put together some of our different parts of the full knowledge of Christ and build up the church into Him rather than into ourselves.
The church that is operating out of the flesh is not exempt from reaping the consequences of entropy.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
144. UNBELIEVERS CAN PROVIDE A REFLECTION BACK TO THE CHURCH OF INTERNAL ATTITUDES NEEDING IMPROVEMENT
(But will we listen, or will we just be dismissive?)
When will atheists accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?
The answer to this question is so simple in words, but so complex in meaning, that it hasn't been done, at least consistently, in almost 2000 years.
The simple answer: Unbelievers will want to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord when they see the character of Jesus Christ being lived out in the church.
The simple answer as we complicate it: "You mean we have to be perfect?" No, but people looking into the church can tell when those inside are sincerely desiring and moving toward Jesus and when they are avoiding it so they can do things their own way.
What might the church see in the reflection of itself as provided by unbelievers?
Christians view themselves in a mirror reflecting imputed perfection*; unbelievers often see Christians more realistically than Christians see themselves. Think that's unfair? Watch this video clip: Javalujah, brother.
Like the bumper sticker, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." (And, by the way, I just demonstrated my imperfection in the arrogance displayed by this bumper sticker!)
Any positive effect on the "world" by the church will be determined by the scope of the influence of the church -- the larger the scope (as in witness), the greater the outcome or effect (as in effectual, work, evangelism, missional). One atheist might see Jesus in the life of one person, or a group, or a congregation -- all affecting people at a relatively local level. But people professing atheism worldwide will be moved by seeing Jesus Christ in the church -- all the church -- not just a denomination or a non-denomination - or a special group - or any other division of Christianity.
Scripturally, the words "division" and "Christianity" constitute an oxymoron. Christianity is the "oxy" part, as in "orthodoxy." The remaining association can be easily derived.
But what if the spirit of individualism, competition, and division is at the core of the church rather than the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? That identifies a major problem, which is, at present, seemingly insurmountable. It is a human problem, created by humans, who are acting like humans. So, what does anyone, atheists or otherwise, see when looking into the church -- do they see people acting like Jesus or people acting out of the human nature, which in scripture is referred to as "the flesh?" What category includes chaos, division, slander, selfish ambition and competition, pride, idolatry, dissensions, etc. (Gal. 5:19-21)?
"Doubting" Thomas?
That's the Sunday school name for Thomas, the disciple, who needed to see physical proof of the genuine Jesus before he could believe in Him. John 20:24-29 records Thomas as the one who needed to see first-hand, for himself, to believe, but Luke (24:36-43) records that Jesus showed his nail marks and pierced side to all of the disciples. So was Thomas "doubting" or was Thomas needing more evidence? Whichever it was, what Thomas wanted to verify was the body of the true and real Jesus Christ -- the risen Lord, still in the flesh.
So, what are people today called who want to see the physical evidence of the true body of Jesus Christ -- are they called "unbelievers;" might they called "atheists?" Are these people any more unbelieving than the disciples of Jesus? Like the disciples, they want to see Jesus in the flesh, which today is His body, the church. But when they see the church, if they don't see Jesus, what is that called? Maybe the divided church should cast the log of disbelief out of its own eye, so it can see more clearly who to call "unbeliever" and "atheist."
An unbeliever can ask the church "Show me where you have been crucified with Christ. Show me the scars. Show me the true Jesus."
"Yeah, sure, that's #4 on our order of worship, but could you fill out a visitor's form first, so we can have a record of your visit? Include cell phone number and email address. Someone will send you a welcome message and a $10-off coupon to use in our bookstore."
There are plenty of unbelievers, atheists, and humanists in the world. But the church is supposed to distinguish (separate) itself from the world by uniquely showing the character and love of Jesus Christ and the unity of the love between the Father and the Son (John 17:23). If that is not seen, then what is inside the church? How different is the church from the world?
A more honest reflection?
The church is supposed to take the lead in modeling the right behavior to this world, and the church does take the lead, whether that lead is good -- a reflection of Jesus -- or bad -- a reflection of humanism. A lot of the criticism of Christianity by atheists is a reaction to what they perceive to be inconsistent, hypocritical, or judgmental behavior out of the church-- not characteristic of Jesus Christ. Much of their criticism is a reaction to what Christians have done or said or how they have acted publicly. After receiving criticism, Christians then react to that criticism. Some unbelievers may sound critical, but their observations may also be valid points that should be given honest consideration, not just categorically dismissed as coming from evil sources.
Many opinions of the Bible, the church, or Christians as expressed by unbelievers are based on misinformation, partial information, and preconceptions that are wrong -- that they would rather promote than check out for verification of the truth. The so-called verifications often consist of reinforcing what they knew beforehand. That's not good. But does anyone think Christians don't do exactly the same thing? Get real. That is the source of much of the hypocrisy and division in the church today.
Some atheists pick out what they perceive as a weakness in the church and amplify that in their complaining as if that's the total picture. They have a problem. But not all atheists would like to see Christianity go away -- some are genuinely constructive in their observations and comments regarding the inconsistencies they perceive in the scripture and in the church. If this information is just categorically dismissed, the church has rejected a valuable input that should at least be considered.
Getting to an example
In a post on Jesus Creed, RJS reviews a video clip in which outspoken atheist Penn Jillette, who grew up in at least a nominal Christian home, community, and church, gives the reasons why reading the Bible will make one an atheist (excerpted from "How did you become an atheist")
(But will we listen, or will we just be dismissive?)
When will atheists accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?
The answer to this question is so simple in words, but so complex in meaning, that it hasn't been done, at least consistently, in almost 2000 years.
The simple answer: Unbelievers will want to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord when they see the character of Jesus Christ being lived out in the church.
The simple answer as we complicate it: "You mean we have to be perfect?" No, but people looking into the church can tell when those inside are sincerely desiring and moving toward Jesus and when they are avoiding it so they can do things their own way.
What might the church see in the reflection of itself as provided by unbelievers?
For now we see but a dim reflection of
face to fantasy, but then we shall see face to reality. (Adapted from 1 Cor.
13:12).
Christians view themselves in a mirror reflecting imputed perfection*; unbelievers often see Christians more realistically than Christians see themselves. Think that's unfair? Watch this video clip: Javalujah, brother.
*Mirror, mirror
on the wall, who's most spiritual of them all?" (James 1:23-24)
Like the bumper sticker, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." (And, by the way, I just demonstrated my imperfection in the arrogance displayed by this bumper sticker!)
Any positive effect on the "world" by the church will be determined by the scope of the influence of the church -- the larger the scope (as in witness), the greater the outcome or effect (as in effectual, work, evangelism, missional). One atheist might see Jesus in the life of one person, or a group, or a congregation -- all affecting people at a relatively local level. But people professing atheism worldwide will be moved by seeing Jesus Christ in the church -- all the church -- not just a denomination or a non-denomination - or a special group - or any other division of Christianity.
Scripturally, the words "division" and "Christianity" constitute an oxymoron. Christianity is the "oxy" part, as in "orthodoxy." The remaining association can be easily derived.
But what if the spirit of individualism, competition, and division is at the core of the church rather than the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? That identifies a major problem, which is, at present, seemingly insurmountable. It is a human problem, created by humans, who are acting like humans. So, what does anyone, atheists or otherwise, see when looking into the church -- do they see people acting like Jesus or people acting out of the human nature, which in scripture is referred to as "the flesh?" What category includes chaos, division, slander, selfish ambition and competition, pride, idolatry, dissensions, etc. (Gal. 5:19-21)?
"Doubting" Thomas?
That's the Sunday school name for Thomas, the disciple, who needed to see physical proof of the genuine Jesus before he could believe in Him. John 20:24-29 records Thomas as the one who needed to see first-hand, for himself, to believe, but Luke (24:36-43) records that Jesus showed his nail marks and pierced side to all of the disciples. So was Thomas "doubting" or was Thomas needing more evidence? Whichever it was, what Thomas wanted to verify was the body of the true and real Jesus Christ -- the risen Lord, still in the flesh.
So, what are people today called who want to see the physical evidence of the true body of Jesus Christ -- are they called "unbelievers;" might they called "atheists?" Are these people any more unbelieving than the disciples of Jesus? Like the disciples, they want to see Jesus in the flesh, which today is His body, the church. But when they see the church, if they don't see Jesus, what is that called? Maybe the divided church should cast the log of disbelief out of its own eye, so it can see more clearly who to call "unbeliever" and "atheist."
An unbeliever can ask the church "Show me where you have been crucified with Christ. Show me the scars. Show me the true Jesus."
"Yeah, sure, that's #4 on our order of worship, but could you fill out a visitor's form first, so we can have a record of your visit? Include cell phone number and email address. Someone will send you a welcome message and a $10-off coupon to use in our bookstore."
There are plenty of unbelievers, atheists, and humanists in the world. But the church is supposed to distinguish (separate) itself from the world by uniquely showing the character and love of Jesus Christ and the unity of the love between the Father and the Son (John 17:23). If that is not seen, then what is inside the church? How different is the church from the world?
A more honest reflection?
The church is supposed to take the lead in modeling the right behavior to this world, and the church does take the lead, whether that lead is good -- a reflection of Jesus -- or bad -- a reflection of humanism. A lot of the criticism of Christianity by atheists is a reaction to what they perceive to be inconsistent, hypocritical, or judgmental behavior out of the church-- not characteristic of Jesus Christ. Much of their criticism is a reaction to what Christians have done or said or how they have acted publicly. After receiving criticism, Christians then react to that criticism. Some unbelievers may sound critical, but their observations may also be valid points that should be given honest consideration, not just categorically dismissed as coming from evil sources.
Many opinions of the Bible, the church, or Christians as expressed by unbelievers are based on misinformation, partial information, and preconceptions that are wrong -- that they would rather promote than check out for verification of the truth. The so-called verifications often consist of reinforcing what they knew beforehand. That's not good. But does anyone think Christians don't do exactly the same thing? Get real. That is the source of much of the hypocrisy and division in the church today.
Some atheists pick out what they perceive as a weakness in the church and amplify that in their complaining as if that's the total picture. They have a problem. But not all atheists would like to see Christianity go away -- some are genuinely constructive in their observations and comments regarding the inconsistencies they perceive in the scripture and in the church. If this information is just categorically dismissed, the church has rejected a valuable input that should at least be considered.
Getting to an example
In a post on Jesus Creed, RJS reviews a video clip in which outspoken atheist Penn Jillette, who grew up in at least a nominal Christian home, community, and church, gives the reasons why reading the Bible will make one an atheist (excerpted from "How did you become an atheist")
Refer to RJS's post for
her comments on this video as well as reader comments that follow. Some of the transcript of the video is taken
from her post. This is not an instance
in which an atheist wants to offer genuine constructive criticism to make an organization
better. The comments on the video are
intended as destructive criticism, but they contain typical fallacious observations
and other mistakes (which Christians can also make) as well as some points
worth considering.
(Minutes/seconds
on video) 1:26-1:51 And I read the Bible cover to cover. And I think that
anyone who is thinking about maybe being an atheist, if you read the Bible or
the Koran or the Torah, cover to cover, I believe will emerge from that as an
atheist. I mean, you can read the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, you can read God
is Not Great by Hitchens. But the Bible itself will turn you atheist faster
than anything.
Q. Why would reading the Bible make you an
atheist?
(Minutes/seconds
on video) 1:54-3:26 I think because what we get told about the Bible is
such a lot of picking and choosing. When you see, you know, Lot’s daughter gang
raped and beaten and the Lord being OK with that; when you actually read about
Abraham being willing to kill his son, when you actually read that, when you
read the insanity of the talking snake, when you read the hostility toward
homosexuals, towards women, the celebration of slavery; when you read in
context that thou shall not kill means only in your own tribe. I mean there’s
no hint that it means humanity in general. That there’s no sense of a shared
humanity, its all tribal, when you see a God that is jealous and insecure, when
you see that there is contradictions that show that it was clearly written
hundreds of years after the supposed fact and full of contradictions. … read
what the Bible says. Going back to the source material is always the best. When
someone’s trying to interpret something for you they always have an agenda. So
I read the Bible.
Analysis
[1] Jillette is highly
prejudiced by a reaction to his religious background, which unfortunately was a
negative experience with Christianity.
That "try and reject" sequence is difficult to shake, and it
clearly affects his non-objective preconceptions about the Bible. Two lessons here. First, I can do the same thing. I have a background entrenched in legalism --
even after many years of freedom, I can still find traces of a
"reflex" legalistic thought or attitude that needs to be submitted to
God. I can also react negatively to
legalism in someone else and respond with impatience rather than the patience
of the Spirit. Perfect balance is a
characteristic of the righteousness of God, into which I am to be growing. Second, the young people we are supposed to
influence for Christ can recognize hypocrisy as well or better than
anyone. If they don't see Jesus through
the parents and leaders in the church, why should they want to spend their time
with it?
[2] Jillette said, "And I read the Bible
cover to cover. And I think that anyone who is thinking about maybe being an
atheist, if you read the Bible or the Koran or the Torah, cover to cover, I
believe will emerge from that as an atheist." Translated:
If you want to look for reasons to be an atheist, you will find them --
anywhere and in anything. If you are
reading the Bible to find God, you will find Him. Jesus said, "Seek and you will
find." That applies to anything --
seek and find God or seek and find atheism -- you will find whatever you
started off looking for. Therefore,
Jillette is, himself, more selective in "picking and choosing" from
the scripture than anyone he criticizes.
He has his preconceptions, and he finds support for them. Reading Dawkins or Sagan or whoever might
give their agenda; but Jillette reads the Bible with his own agenda. He finds what he is looking for, and he further
deludes himself with it.
Does anyone think that
they don't do the same thing? I can't
say how many times I reviewed the scriptural references backing up my doctrinal
beliefs, just to test again and confirm that I was right. And so I opened my mind (!) and very
objectively (!) reread the verses that had been picked and chosen by
knowledgeable people as relevant to the doctrinal points. Guess what?
I proved I was right every time! I
was deluding myself. When that house of
cards fell, great was the fall thereof.
And, just for comparison,
how many Christians have read the Bible cover to cover? For any reason. It should be noted that some atheists (or
agnostics) are more objective than are people such as Jillette. Some who are now Christians became so by reading
the Bible with the full intent and expectation that they would prove to their
wife that she was wrong in her faith.
But they were the one proven wrong and were convicted by the Holy Spirit
instead. It does happen.
[3] Jillette doesn't understand the big picture
of the scripture -- the central theme -- the purpose. He just goes wherever he wants and pulls
everything out of context. Jillette
pulls stories out of context and tries to place a present-day Western society
interpretation on them and says it is the Bible's fault when we can't
understand them or if the Bible verses seem strange. Virtually every one of his complaints and
examples of so-called contradictions or errors are interpretive errors on his
part because either the environment, time, and culture when the text was
written was not considered, nor was the way the people reading the message
would have interpreted it. The only
people who might believe this unintellectual approach as valid would be those
who have the same prejudice as he does.
It's like people of a particular political persuasion espousing their
party line as if it were truth, no matter how ridiculous it sounds.
But, Christians do the
same thing all the time. How many
doctrines of denominations or other religious groups are based on an understanding
of the eternal plan of God, interpreting all passages in the context of writing
and reading of the time, understanding the meanings in the original language,
not translations, and not based on the interpretations of a human who has been
placed as a doctrinal intermediary between the church and God? (Are there any who do?) How many Christians impose a present day
meaning and interpretation onto the scripture and make it a matter of salvation
if you don't agree? How many Christian groups go and pull out
passages here and there and put them into a new context to support a doctrinal
idea or immutable command? (Are there
many who don't?) How about eisegesis? Isn't this the basis of much of the division
in the church? Christians would
apparently rather divide the body of Christ than to agree -- if agreement
requires someone to change. "It's
okay if you're the one who changes -- as long as you repent before coming over
to my side." (BTW, have you been baptized? By whom?
What did they say before; how much did you know beforehand; what did you
confess?)
The "talking
snake" is not a problem with the Biblical text, but with human
interpretation that forces Genesis 1 into today's literal, English, Western
interpretations of "day" as one 24 hour period, no more and no
less. This creation theme park eisegesis
ignores the context and understanding that these verses would have had on the
people who read it at the time of writing.
That approach of ignoring context is not that different from the one
used by Jillette, an atheist, and creates an enormous negative image of Christian
scientific illiteracy. I say that even
though I used to believe and teach a 6000 year old earth. I was very uninformed, to put it politely.
Many times, when people
are hostile toward Christianity and/or the Bible it stems from negative
experience with other similar people.
Everyone of that identification is placed into that category and judged
the same. What? "Objective" atheists being
judgmental? Isn't that what atheists
like to say about Christians, while the same atheists, themselves, are using
terms like judgmental, wrathful, and destructive to characterize God? Their knowledge of the scripture is
superficial, but that is all they want to know.
But, don't Christians do the same thing when they divide over different doctrinal
interpretations? Let's be really
different from the world and not just delude ourselves into thinking that we
are.
Being reactionary
Too often, instead of
searching for the truth, people will spend their time and energy reacting and
rebutting what someone else says. That
approach doesn't reflect the truth, but only their opinion about the truth. Actually, the parties of both sides have
their own errors that could be corrected if they would just search for the
truth instead of searching for some way to condemn the statements of others.
Why do people give any credibility to atheists like
Penn Jillette?
The biggest reason is that
Christians, and corporately the church, do not give evidence of the real truth
as lived in the kingdom
of God, which would
clearly contrast with the false information being published. The church is supposed to live the standard
-- it is supposed to be the light that contrasts with the darkness -- the good
that overcomes the evil. Otherwise,
people are free to claim most anything that is untrue about Christianity,
Christ, the Bible, or God, because the difference between what they say and how
the church lives is not great enough to distinguish. That's not what Peter said to do.
1
Pet. 2:11 Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to
abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. 12 Live such good
lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may
see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
Also,
the way that Christians talk, put down, and judge other Christians is too often
not much different than the assaults that people like Penn Jillette make
against the church and the Bible.
Read
the blogs and the comments that follow, and oftentimes theologians with
academic and pastoral training and responsibilities will have express doubts
and problems with the same things that Jillette mentioned -- problems most
often with the stories in the Old Testament that are incorrectly viewed from
the vantage of 21 century culture instead of the culture of the time.
Christians
can act toward one another in ways that are not that different from Penn
Jillette, and some of their views about the Bible and interpretation can seem equally
uninformed. Too many Christians do not
understand the centrality of the predestined plan of God, even though they
glibly say that they do.
The Unifying Field Law of Everything
We
have said that the most important thing in the universe was the plan of God,
designed before the creation of matter, time, and space. In fact, the plan was the reason the universe
was created -- our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, and everything in and
on the earth, including us. The
preordained plan of God was put into motion at creation (by the big bang or
whatever); the plan has been implemented since that time; and the plan is still
being implemented in the lives of Christians today and in the church. Everything that has happened has been as
predestined by God and worked out according to His will and pleasure.
Everything
in scripture reveals in some way the developmental phases of the plan of God as
it evolved through the ages. If that is
the case, how valid is it to pluck out passages and force interpretations on
them that are out of our own experience in the 21st century. We are to conform to the truth revealed in
scripture; we are not to contort the scripture so it lines up with modern human
society, opinions, and definitions.
What
if all of scripture, from Gen. 1:1 to Rev. 22:11, were to be interpreted as a
progressive revelation of the plan of God, designed before the time began? The purpose of creation and everything that
has happened, is happening, and will happen is related to the fulfillment of
the plan of God. The plan of God is the center around which everything in our existence revolves. The plan is not just that Jesus Christ would come
into the world, but it is the reason why He did. We
fulfill the plan when we are transformed into the likeness of God. The church fulfills the plan when it
demonstrates the manifold wisdom of God (Eph. 3:10) expressed in God's
foreordained purpose for the church -- grow into the fullness of Jesus Christ (Eph
4:13) and take the world with it through conversion into Christ, overcoming
evil with good.
What
if all of scripture were viewed in that context, rather than the context of how
we learned it in Sunday school as a series of factual stories. Does that mean Sunday school is wrong? No, we are saying that the plan is the
standard, and Sunday school may have gotten that right sometimes and other
times not. Our Bible classes may not
have it right today, either. If so, isn't
it about time we figured that out?
What
if the Old Testament stories were interpreted in light of the development of
the plan -- how much of the plan could be revealed to the people at the time
that passage was written? They acted
based on what they knew, and they knew what had been revealed, and the extent
of the revelation was based on how much they could handle at their particular
level of physical, social, and religious evolution.
What
if the scripture were a history, not only of God's revelation of his plan, but
also of mankind's level of understanding of that plan. If the word of God contained a history of
thinking presented at the level of the spiritual maturity developed up to that
time, and if some ideas about God and His interaction with people were based
more on human perception than truth yet to be revealed from God, would that
shake our faith about "inspiration" or "inerrancy?" If we understood that a purpose of Biblical
history is to show human understanding of the plan at that particular time --
maybe we would know that times when the scripture says "God's anger burned
against them" were not necessarily to be viewed the same as anger fits today. Perhaps "anger" was the best expression
that people could use to relate their circumstances at that time. God seems different in the Old Testament from
the New Testament? So does that mean God
changed or that people's concept of God matured? What if God allowed the scriptural record to
be written as through the eyes of human understanding? Could we handle that? That's might seem like a different slant, but
wouldn't that be valuable information? Does
that mess with our minds too much? Do we
define "inerrancy" as not deviating from what we were once told, or
could "inerrancy" mean an accurate representation of the history of human
understanding of God's revelation as that understanding evolved along with
man's capacity to comprehend it? Why was
God's plan kept hidden across the ages past?
Because the time was not yet right for Christ to come into the world
(Gal. 4:4).
Is
there any reason that anyone should be threatened by this? We are becoming, not returning to the
past. First, let's be a part of the plan
of the future as we were intended to be.
Then place understanding the past in that context, and not the reverse.
If
that were the case then some of the scripture, particularly the Old Testament,
should only reflect a partial understanding of God's plan. Why should we have the right, because the
plan has now been fully revealed, to go back and make retrospective analysis of
the social sensitivity of actions attributed to God, placing ourselves as
judges of the correctness of God's dealings with people 4000 years ago? What good comes from that approach? Do we sit in judgment of God? Penn Jillette thinks he can do that. And he will be allowed to continue to think
that way, unchecked, until the church demonstrates for him, and those like him,
the correct way to interpret the scriptures in light of the eternal plan of
God. And that plan is to be confirmed
and revealed to the world by the church (Eph. 3:10), the kingdom of God, made
up of those who have been called according to the purpose of God -- the elect,
predestined to be transformed into His likeness in true righteousness and
holiness (Eph. 4:24).
How's
the church doing with that one? Has the
church, itself, matured in its understanding of the revelation -- as completed
at Pentecost and explained in the New Testament? Has the church worked together as the body
and grown more into the fullness of Christ?
Or, has part of the church tried to keep its discovered knowledge hidden
from the others -- even allowing division to occur in the body of Christ? Has the church been fulfilling it's Prime
Directive of maturing into the full knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, or has
the church ensured its continued immaturity by tribal competition and division
of the body?
Can't
we realize that whatever the world sees of God through Jesus Christ, the world
sees through the window of the church (and not the skylight of the building). We go back and shake our heads at the
primitive behavior God allowed those barbaric tribal Old Testament people to
have -- yeah? -- why is the behavior of a divided and arguing church any
different in the eyes of the world?
Division and chaos and competition and humanism in the church is
spiritual barbarianism. The barbarians
in the Old Testament didn't have the fully revealed plan of God -- they were
granted righteousness for their faith -- they acted on what had been revealed
to them to that point and they had faith that something better was coming (1
Pet. 1:10-12). We have the "something
better" -- it has been revealed -- so what's our excuse?
Let us listen, not react
When
will atheists come and ask Jesus to be their Lord and Savior? When the church, in the unity of the Spirit
in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3), and is growing into the fullness of the Lord
Jesus Christ. Otherwise, Jesus is not
Lord and Savior of the church.
Once
one gets over the reaction to things that Penn Jillette, and others like him,
say about the Bible, God, and Christianity, and listens to the critique, one
can see that -- yes, they are wrong and uninformed -- but they are allowed to
be that way, and the world gives then heed, because the church has not, itself,
demonstrated what is right by modeling through the power of the Spirit the
perfect eternal plan of God -- made before the creation of the world.
In
the Old Testament, God occasionally spoke to His people through "outsiders"
-- including other people who were outside of his "chosen people,"
but used anyway -- because His people would not listen to His revelation provided
to them (1 Cor. 14:21). Could God today be using even the words of
atheists, who are spewing criticism and false information about Christ and His
church, as a warning to the church that we must be more faithful in pursing the
truth of His revealed and foreordained plan?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)