Be Careful: People Say Weird Things About Grace

“Grace” is the most misused word in Christianity, in my opinion.

Anytime a Christian starts talking about grace, you can expect some error to come pretty quick.

Take the recent book I’m reading for instance. I got to a chapter on grace and read the following sentences:

“The grace of God means forgiveness has preceded repentance in our lives.”

[When they understand God’s grace] “they come to realize that repentance isn’t something they do in order to earn God’s forgiveness; it’s a heartfelt response of those who realize they have been forgiven.”

The whole section was on the Prodigal Son. He came home and didn’t even get words out of his mouth before his father forgave him. Instead the father threw a party.

There was no discipleship by the father and there was no repentance on the part of the son.

This sounds like a nice, happy theory, but the son coming home was the repentance. If the son had never come home there wouldn’t have been a party.

Yes, the father was ecstatic his son came home, but the son did come home!

The author of this book makes it sound like the son was forgiven while out doing all the weird stuff, so even if he never had come home he still would have been forgiven.

The son was eating with pigs. He came to himself. He knew he had messed up and decided to return home. That whole process was his repentance. “Repent” means to turn and go a new way. Going home was the new way.

This sort of nonsense gets passed off as biblical doctrine by way too many Christians.

In case you think I’m just railing on something I don’t like, my immediate thought was to look up verses using “repent” and “forgive.”

Guess what? There are eight of them in the New Testament (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; 17:3, 4; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 5:31; 8:22) . Every single one says repentance comes before forgiveness. Go ahead, look it up.

The most devastating one is Acts 8:22 about Simon wanting to buy spiritual power.

“Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.”

Get a load of that verse! This verse seems to imply that even with repentance God still might not forgive him! Sincerity of heart is the main issue (8:21).

Goodness. Be careful out there. Please read the Bible. You’ll be able to tell when people are teaching bad doctrine and you will cease saying it yourself.

Using the Historical Context of a Verse to Deceive People

As much as I think it’s vital to understand the context of a Bible passage to know its meaning, there is a popular idea that we also need to know the historical context of the audience it was first written to.

I get the idea and probably mostly agree with it. I’ve also heard it used in weird ways that deny the obvious meaning of a passage.

If I have to understand the historical context, the actual thoughts, feelings, and lives of the original audience, to understand any verse in the Bible, I need to be a history and sociology major to understand the Bible.

History changes as well. Whose history are we going with? We’re pretty good at rewriting history. In my years of listening to Christians I’ve heard a lot of theories about what people did in Bible times that were later proven to be wrong.

A recent example of this historical context deception I heard was a theology professor being told that when Paul says an elder should be the husband of one wife this clearly means elders should be men and not women.

He denied this interpretation. Why? Well, he said it’s only because we live in this time that we view the passage as meaning that. If you were in Africa in the first century you would have known the emphasis of that verse was forbidding polygamy.

How does he know what first century Africans thought of a verse in 1 Timothy?

And even if he was talking about polygamy, it still says the elder is to be the husband of one wife. It still says the elder is a husband.

How come when the professor interprets the verse his way he isn’t also swayed by his culture? No major voice in church history thought women should be pastors until the last hundred years or so. This leads me to believe that women being pastors is a societal emphasis.

Although it sounds good to tell people they need to know the historical context to understand a verse, and sometimes it is, you should also be aware that this idea is being used to deceive people in a biblical sounding way.

Satan can twist the best of ideas to mess us up. Don’t fall for his devices.

Read the Word and ask for wisdom from God. You’ll be fine.

People Don’t Need a Cool Take on Christianity; They Need the Gospel

I recently read a book written by a fairly popular religious writer. The premise of the book is that he befriended a guy who is secular and has secular friends and they wanted him to write a spiritual book that would appeal to their non-religious upbringing and lives.

So, he wrote this book making an appeal to secular people.

It was awful.

He used spiritual, angsty, floaty words, goofy metaphors, obviously trying to be cool, being down to earth and real and hip while simultaneously sharing his cryptic views from above.

As I was reading it I was thinking, “This book is not hitting the mark at all. This means nothing and is saying nothing.”

In the Epilogue he shared the response from the secular guy and his friends to his manuscript. None of them liked it! They all said it missed the mark.

He published it anyway and apparently people bought it. I didn’t, someone gave it to me.

While trying to avoid Christian lingo, he missed Christianity entirely. He never once brought up the Gospel. In the end, when you suck the life out of Christianity, you’re left with a quasi-spiritual pile of goo.

No one wants a quasi-spiritual pile of goo. At least hit them with the Gospel. If they don’t have any interest in that, at least you communicated it.

They now think they have rejected Christianity. They are right to reject his mess, but man, it breaks my heart that they reject Christianity because of how this guy portrayed it.

He was pleased with his book and all his flowery ideals he worded so well. He was bummed it didn’t work for his friend. But now he has made lots of money by foisting it upon the world.

There are people who like to feel religious and in the clouds while completely missing the entire point of Christianity. Those people will eat this book up and say it’s the most profound thing ever written.

OK, I just looked. It has 2,400 reviews on Amazon, 80% of which are 5 stars. Many said it was the most profound book written.

Christianity is in huge trouble.

If you’re going to communicate Christianity with people, here’s a tip: share the Gospel and drop your angsty, floaty attempts at being cool. Just share the Gospel.

Yes, the world thinks the Gospel is foolishness and the world will be way more receptive to your watered down angst, but the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Your watered down angst is the power of you trying to be cool.

No one needs that.

How Much Supernatural Activity Should be in a Christian’s Life?

My answer would be, It depends. What do you mean by “supernatural?”

It also depends on who you ask I guess. I’m reading a book about abuses in the Charismatic church written by someone in the Charismatic church.

He actually uses the Bible and thinks it is authoritative, which is nice. Very rarely, in my experience with Charismatics, is this the case. Most would probably say it, but their insistence that God is revealing things to them undermines their claim.

Even though he uses the Bible, he’s still Charismatic, which means he’s going to use the Bible weirdly at some point. Here’s a prime example:

“The statistics show that one-third of the Book of Acts deals with supernatural activity, and one-tenth of the Book of Acts tells of people who received personal direction for their lives through some supernatural means.

“The Book of Acts was meant to be a pattern book, not just a history book. If this is so, one-third of our Christian life should be comprised of supernatural experiences, and one-tenth of all the personal direction we receive should come from supernatural sources.”

Couple things:

1. Again, I don’t know what “supernatural activity” is. That’s a very squishy term, easily warped into who knows what. I’d like to see his list, which he did not provide. I doubt he includes preaching and teaching as supernatural activity.

2. Exactly who did those statistics and how were they devised? He said nothing about that. Is it by verse, by chapter? I don’t know. Nothing about the method used is revealed.

3. The Book of Acts is about a lot of people, it’s not a book about one person’s life. In no way can these “statistics” from Acts that covers history over many years and many people, be extrapolated into a normative experience for every believer’s individual life.

4. Although he admits that apostles were special people, he never takes the next step that perhaps that had something to do with their supernatural activity (see Acts 2:43, 5:12; 2 Corinthians 12:12), he then makes zero distinction between apostles and you and me or him. To ignore this is pretty careless.

5. The majority of his book is about Charismatics saying and doing completely ridiculous things in the guise of supernatural activity. Telling these people that even more of their life should be supernatural is not going to reduce the amount of ridiculous things Charismatics do.

In the end, I’m not a Charismatic. I am a Cessationist, I believe the sign gifts ceased with the completion of Scripture and the end of the apostolic age.

However, this is an inference, not specifically stated in the Bible. Therefore,I am always concerned about quenching the Spirit due to an inference, so I read Charismatic things every once in a while to see where they are coming from. Their use of Scripture is typically what does me in.

This is another example. This doesn’t mean they are wrong necessarily, but it does mean that they use Scripture terribly and this helps them none at all.

I appreciate the author’s desire to bring the Bible into consideration in the Charismatic church and his desire to correct the wrongs. But when he uses the Bible like this, I can’t imagine how he will end up helping.

He is sincere and I applaud his efforts to a point, but grieve that he appears to be grieving the Spirit in sloppy use of Scripture.

Was God the Father Angry With Jesus His Son?

One problem I have with Bible commentaries and Study Bibles is that the author(s) often have a favorite doctrine that they will see in every passage. This is a very bad thing as it distracts from what the Bible is actually saying at any given time. Here’s an example for you from my recent reading in Isaiah.

Here is Isaiah 12:1:

And in that day thou shalt say, O Lord, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me.

Here is The MacArthur Study Bible note on Isaiah 12:1:

Your anger turned away. For the future remnant who will recognize the substitutionary death of Christ for their sins, Christ bore God’s anger in their place. Otherwise, that anger against them would remain.

MacArthur is a big fan of Calvinism. Calvinism is based on Substitutionary Atonement, or rather Substitutionary Atonement is based on Calvinism. One or the other. You can’t have one without the other.

It seems the main point of the MacArthur Study Bible is John trying to convince himself Calvinism is biblical. He sees it everywhere even though it’s not there ever.

This idea that God was angry with Christ is insane to me. The Bible never says this anywhere. The idea is that God is angry and His anger has to go somewhere. He’s angry with you as a sinner, but if you repent and believe the Gospel, His anger merely shifts to another object. Instead of being angry with you, now He’s angry with His beloved Son in whom He is well pleased for dying for you.

Sometimes it’s expressed in relation to killing people and death. God wants to kill you, you filthy rotten sinner, but you’re lucky Jesus loves you! Now instead of killing you, God will kill His own Son.

God just has to kill someone. He’s a raving maniacal killer whose blood lust must be fulfilled. If He can’t kill you, He’ll kill His Son. If He can’t be angry with you; He has to be angry with someone, so He’ll be angry with His Son who died for you.

This makes zero sense.

When my kids were little, one of them would get in trouble. They’d do something disrespectful and make me angry. If they saw the error of their way and humbly apologized, my anger went away. It’s not like if they made me angry by disobedience and then repented I’d be like, “Oh man, I’ve got this anger here now though. I have to do something with it, guess I’ll whoop up on your sister instead.”

Repentance has a way of making anger go away. A soft answer turns away wrath. It doesn’t move wrath from one object to another; it dissipates the wrath. Israel, as a redeemed people, would no longer be an object of wrath. That’s not because God whooped up on His Son instead; it’s because Israel is no longer doing things that provoke God’s anger and they met the condition of faith that took care of their past sins.

It’s the goodness of God that leads people to repentance. Love is the prime motivator in all that God did in sending His Son and in all that His Son did in dying for us.

Love is the deal. Love eliminates wrath. Perfect love casts out fear. God doesn’t have to be angry with someone else because you came to Him.

God loves you and loves His Son. His Son has never once done anything to provoke His Father to wrath. There are zero reasons why God would be angry with Jesus Christ. Zero. Don’t believe anyone who says there are. They aren’t dealing with Scripture; they’re dealing with a humanly devised philosophy based on a caricature of the God of the Bible.

Why “Church” is only Mentioned 3 Times in the Gospels

I was reading a book that told me that Christians should be more ecumenical to show unity to a divided world. We should ignore our doctrinal differences, many of which they made light of, to do bake sales and block parties.

As much as I’d be fine with the churches showing more unity to a divided world, doing so by ignoring doctrine is not a tactic I’m thrilled about. If unity is the result of good doctrine, then bring it on. If unity is prioritized over good doctrine then only bad things will result.

Anyway, back to the author’s point, he went on to prove his point by saying that Jesus only used the word “church” three times in the Gospels, whereas He used the word “kingdom” 121 times.

The result of his math is that church is insignificant in comparison to building the Kingdom. The “Kingdom” to the author means doing block parties and bake sales to show the world how happy we are.

This sort of reasoning is the kind of stuff that gets published in our day. The author is a pastor. He has a book published. He has no idea what the Bible is talking about.

Throughout the book he used the Bible very sloppily. At one point he stated that we should throw block parties for our neighbors to fulfill the Great Commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. He then said, “This is why Jesus spent so much of His time at parties.”

I, for the life of me, can’t figure out what party schedule Jesus kept. I can think of the wedding at Cana, maybe the shindig at the tax collector’s house and Zaccheus’ house maybe. That’s three in 33 years. Not sure how that’s “so much of his time.”

But this passes as biblical scholarship in our day.

Back to the math of church used 3 times and kingdom used 121 times in the Gospel.

There’s a pretty straightforward reason for this: There was no church in the Gospels. The church is the Body of Christ, the mystery Paul spoke of where Jews and Gentiles were united in Christ. This was only possible after the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Jesus Christ came to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He forbade His disciples to go to the Gentiles. Matthew 10-5-7 is a fine proof text for my statement. This all changed after Christ’s death and resurrection. Now they were to start in Jerusalem but then go to the ends of the earth.

When speaking to Israel, Christ spoke of the Kingdom, because that’s what Israel was prophesied to get. That’s language they understood and knew their Messiah would usher in.

They missed the fact that the Messiah had to suffer and die in order to bring it in though. They didn’t see the two comings as distinct. They thought the Messiah would come and then bring in the Kingdom. That’s the question the disciples have at the beginning of Acts.

Once the Spirit comes, there’s a new program. The church is brought in. The disciples now go to Jews and Gentiles and promise them a birth into the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ.

It’s a large issue, deserves more space than this, but I’m tired. It takes time and effort to understand the Bible. It’s hard. What’s way easier is to have a flippant understanding of the Bible and then you can make it say the point you set out to make regardless of the Bible’s points.

That’s what this author did and he annoyed me.

Many Proof Texts Offer No Proof

I know I’m too picky when it comes to how people talk about the Bible. I’m too cynical and skeptical, but I can’t stop because my cynicism and skepticism have served me well so far!

I was reading a book and saw this sentence about Jesus:

“His perfect life qualified Him to be our substitutionary sacrifice (Acts 2:36).”

As I’ve covered many times before, I have some questions about the biblical support of Substitutionary Atonement. It sounds more like Calvinistic Philosophy than biblical teaching to me.

Anytime I come across a statement about Substitutionary Atonement with a Scripture reference tacked on, I always look up the reference. What’s the author’s biblical support for it?

Presumably, if you list one reference, that’s the verse you think supports your statement the best. When I read the sentence above I looked up Acts 2:36 to see if it said anything remotely close to what the author said.

This is a bizarre one. Here’s Acts 2:36:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.

I have no idea what this verse has to do with the author’s sentence. It is about Jesus, but other than that, I don’t know.

I’m used to references not saying what the author just said, but this one is out there! What does this have to do with the sentence?

Always look up references tacked on after statements trying to sound biblical. You’ll be shocked how often the verse has nothing to do with what was said.

I’m not harping on Substitutionary Atonement here either, this is just poor usage of Scripture. This is the kind of thing that burns people from listening to Christians. We just make stuff up and pretend the Bible agrees.

Make sure what you say is what the Bible says if you’re claiming to say what the Bible says. The best is to quote the Bible saying your point in its words. If your point has no Bible saying it, then your point might be wrong.

We are to rightly handle the word of truth. Let’s do that.

Asking God For Mercy

I came across a quote today that made me pause. You know how hard it is to let a questionable statement just float on by; someone must respond!

Here’s the quote:

“For anyone to pray, ‘God have mercy on me,’ is the equivalent of asking Him to repeat the sacrifice of Christ. All the mercy that God will ever have on man, He has already had when Christ died. This is the totality of mercy.”

I don’t know what your reaction is to that quote, but I immediately stopped reading and said out loud, “What?”

The larger context is about the death of Christ and the cross being sufficient for everything. Never mind the resurrection is left off. This sort of thing happens all the time. In an effort to elevate the cross, things are pressed out of measure and thus undermines the thing hoped to be elevated.

It’s similar to what I’ve heard said about forgiveness. John says we are forgiven of all unrighteousness, therefore, if you ask forgiveness for some recent sin, you are claiming that God has not forgiven you of all unrighteousness.

It’s an attempt to elevate the totality of God’s forgiveness. I get it, but to go on to say if you dare ask forgiveness you are somehow violating a rule or not understanding forgiveness, just seems goofy.

But people do this sort of thing all the time. We should say things the way the Bible says them and be content with that. When we get busy over-emphasizing stuff; heresy enters.

I’m not convinced that if I ask God to have mercy on me that I’m asking God to re-crucify Christ. That just seems weird, especially weird in light of verses like Hebrews 4:16:

Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

There is mercy available for us in a time of need. Certainly I can ask for God to have mercy on me without Christ being re-crucified. Frequently Paul and the other apostles say things like “Grace and mercy be with you.” It’s available not only for salvation but for living in general!

It’s not necessary to overstate things to make a point. You can call on God for mercy. Don’t let people intimidate you with their high fallutin extreme points. Stick with Scripture.

OK, I feel better now. Thank you.

BOOK REVIEW: Gentle and Lowly

I’ve been reading Gentle and Lowly: the heart of Christ for sinners and sufferers, by Dane Ortlund. I’ve heard this book praised by many people, not all from the same theological background either.

One of my hobbies in life is to analyze things that “everyone” likes. I enjoy being contrarian! I know that if many people like something, it’s probably wrong!

So, those are my upfront admissions! You know where I’m coming from.

The point of the book is that Jesus is a lot more loving than we think. He bases his points on Puritan writings, which I find slightly ironic. Puritans are Calvinists. Calvinists are the ones who have beaten wrath and judgment into our heads.

One of the reasons people don’t think God is as loving as the Bible says is because of Calvinism! Their stress on wrath and justice in the Gospel has diminished love. You can look at all the verses in the Bible that mention the Gospel and you will see love associated with it way more than wrath or justice. Yet Calvinism has majored on those and minored on love.

So, for a guy to use Calvinist writings to prove God is loving and not so wrathful is kind of odd. You will also notice he can’t quote a ton from most of them!

If Calvinism hadn’t taken over the Gospel, this book would not have been necessary.

At the same time, I also think people like the book because it emphasizes love and mercy. Both are fine things, but in so doing he does kind of make it sound like sin isn’t that big of a deal. I know that’s not the author’s point, I’m not accusing him of anything, I actually like most of the book as it is a needed corrective of the Calvinist wrath motif. But I do know people are hearing him that way.

“God loves to be merciful” sounds to most people like, “Should we sin that grace may abound? Absolutely yes, go for it!”

I think the two reasons people like this book are because for once a Calvinist emphasizes love, and his emphasis sounds like an ok to go sin.

Me, being a not-Calvinist, heard his Calvinism throughout the book. He never harped on it much, so it was not a hurdle to my enjoyment. Then I got to chapter 22! He let it all out in this chapter!

How much less could we comprehend what it meant for God to funnel the cumulative judgment for all the sinfulness of his people down onto one man. But reflecting on what we feel toward, say, the perpetrator of some unthinkable act of abuse toward an innocent victim gives us a taste of what God felt toward Christ as he, the last Adam, stood in for the sins of God’s people. The righteous human wrath we feel—the wrath we would be wrong not to feel—is a drop in the ocean of righteous divine wrath the Father unleashed.

After all, God punished Jesus not for the sin of just one person but many. What must it mean when Isaiah says of the servant that “the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6)? What was it for Christ to swallow down the cumulative twistedness, self-enthronement, natural God hatred, of the elect? What must it have been for the sum total of righteous divine wrath generated not just by one man’s sin but “the iniquity of us all” to come crashing down on a single soul?

So, there ya have it! Calvinistic wrath in all its glory.

God “unleashed” “divine wrath” on Jesus. It would be more than the wrath we would feel toward a child abuser. God views Jesus as worse than a child abuser is the idea. The “sum total of righteous divine wrath” “came crashing down on a single soul.”

There are no verses that say any of this. Yes, he includes Isaiah 53:6 that our iniquities were laid on Christ, no argument there. But the whole divine wrath on Jesus is a complete abstraction. The Bible nowhere says that God the Father had wrath toward His Son. “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” Isaiah 53 has several mentions of God being pleased with the Suffering Servant. There is no wrath. Why would God be upset with Jesus for doing the most loving, sacrificial work ever done to save us from our sin? It makes no sense.

Several times Ortlund says Jesus suffered hell. Again there is no place in the Bible where it says Jesus went to hell for us. The KJV uses “hell” sometimes instead of “the grave,” but other than that, there is nothing about Jesus going to hell. “Today you will be with me in paradise” is the only mention of where Jesus went after His death. Maybe he’s being metaphorical with the hell talk. That’s my best take, otherwise it’s all speculative.

During his explanation of suffering God’s wrath, Ortlund doesn’t quote many verses. There’s a reason for that! Here’s one snippet he throws in to give seeming biblical support:

And in venting that righteous wrath God was not striking a morally neutral tree. He was splintering the Lovely One. Beauty and Goodness Himself was being uglified and vilified. “Stricken, smitten by God” (Isaiah 53:4).

Isaiah 53:4 has more words in it that Ortlund leaves out:

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

There are some key words in here he conveniently leaves out: “we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God.” See, that’s not saying Jesus was stricken and smitten by God; it means that’s how we viewed it. When Christ was on the cross He was being mocked. “He saved others, he cannot save himself.” This was their ultimate victory. They overcame and killed the one who claimed to be equal with God. Humanity’s view is that God was against this so called Messiah. Is God really for a guy who we just nailed to a cross? I don’t think so! God is clearly against this guy.

So, where does all this orgy of God’s wrath on Jesus come from? It comes from extrapolating a lot out of “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Ortlund talks about this passage for a few paragraphs. Allow me to quote his opening phrase about Jesus being forsaken:

“It’s speculation.” (pg. 200).

Yup, it is!

The whole God’s wrath on Jesus angle is speculation, because it says it nowhere in the Bible. If the point were clear, Ortlund would not have to speculate. But he does.

If you read the context of Psalm 22, which begins with “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” You will note that the forsakenness is dealing with physical death. As the chapter goes on you’ll see many prophecies that were fulfilled while Jesus was on the cross. You will also note that the Psalm ends with a clear understanding that he’s not forsaken by God. Yes, he’s forsaken to the point of physical suffering, but essentially he knows he’s ok. His feeling is not the full story.

For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard (Psalm 22:24).

Jesus did suffer, but God did not despise or abhor the affliction of the afflicted. He wasn’t really forsaken. It looked like He was, we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, but in the end the Lord was with Him and heard His cries.

I guarantee you the thought of God when Christ was on the cross was not wrath against Jesus; it was sorrow. If our sin grieves the Holy Spirit, how much more must it have grieved God to see what was going on here?

In the end, this chapter refutes the entirety of the rest of Ortlund’s book. Ortlund tells me several times that God is my Father and the Father loves His sons. God only has love and mercy and compassion toward His kids. Except of course for His one Son who never did anything wrong; He blasted Him with His wrath! If God can be that upset with His one perfect Son, what chance do I have?

That’s exactly why Ortlund wrote this book, to balance out the wrathful extreme of Calvinist doctrine. I like that people like the book because he’s right when he’s right. He just can’t bring himself to admit that it’s Calvinism’s gospel that caused the problem in the first place!

Oh well. Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.

God was never wrathful about His Son this I know, for the Bible also tells me so.

Stick with the Bible. You’ll have a much better understanding of God.

Holiness and Pastors Oprah Likes

I’m reading a book by a popular pastor. He’s been on Oprah. He’s gotten in much trouble over the years from Evangelicals. I’ve read several of his books and totally get why he’s in trouble with Evangelicals.

His take on Christianity is typical in our day. He’d rather be cool and hip and smooth over the rough edges of Christianity rather than actually deal with the Bible. He has theories and finds a few phrases from verses as backup. He mocks all those serious Christians with their hardline Bible interpretations. “Everyone should be cool like me then everything would be cool, man.”

So yeah, I’m annoyed.

Here’s one annoyance:

He’s talking about the strong divide many make between the spiritual and secular world. Why are people called to ministry but not to making tacos? He actually used that example. Taco makers are lower than pastors in this take. I’d agree to an extent. I think the whole “call to ministry” thing is a crock, but alas, whatever.

Anyway, he doesn’t stop there, he goes on to state that everything is holy, spiritual, and of eternal value. Everything. He can’t just make the simple point, oh no! He has to go all the way. So, here’s a quote:

“Jesus comes among us as God in a body, the divine and the human existing in the same place, in his death bringing an end to the idea that God is confined to a temple because the whole world is a temple, the whole earth is holy, holy, holy as the prophet Isaiah said.”

I hope that paragraph troubled you. For several reasons. First of all, at no time does the Bible say the earth is a temple. Revelation 11:19 says God’s temple is in heaven. The earth is not God’s temple.

Secondly, did Isaiah say the whole earth is holy, holy, holy? Short answer: no. Long answer: absolutely not. Isaiah 6:3, which I assume is what he’s referring to, says, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty, the whole earth is full of His glory.” In this passage, what is holy, holy, holy? Seems pretty clear that the Lord Almighty is. The glory of His holiness is seen throughout creation, but Isaiah does not say the earth is holy.

Pastors and taco makers are equal before God. Both jobs provide a service that people can value. I can go with that point. But to say that all the earth is God’s temple and is therefore all holy is just silly. In what sense are believers saints? To be a saint means to be holy, set apart. Come out from among them and be ye separate. How does that even make sense if everything in creation is holy? Why does creation need to be redeemed if it’s already holy? If everything is holy, then nothing is truly holy, since holy means set apart. If everything is equally set apart, then nothing is set apart.

In an effort to make a point in one area, he’s just completely undermined Scripture in all kinds of other points. All the guy had to do was properly quote Scripture, but he couldn’t, he had a cool point to make. He bent Scripture to fit his point and now Pandora’s Box (which isn’t holy) has been opened.

Be careful with Scripture and also with any pastor who has been on Oprah.

Wrong Doctrine, Mystery, and Faith

The Introduction of Bondage of the Will is summarizing Luther’s words on two main issues of salvation:

1. Can man save Himself outside of God’s willing it and making Him saved? Luther’s answer is no.

2. How can God send people to hell for doing what God made them do? Luther doesn’t know.

On both points, the conclusion is that God does stuff that doesn’t make any sense to us. In fact, God often does stuff that contradicts Scripture.

I kid you not, that’s what the Introduction says: God does things that contradict Scripture. Of course he tones it down a bit to say “it seems” like it contradicts Scripture, but let’s be real here. Luther says stuff that contradicts Scripture is clearly what is being said.

Here’s a quote from Luther:

If I could by any means understand how this same God, who makes such a show of wrath and unrighteousness, can yet be merciful and just, there would be no need for faith. But as it is, the impossibility of understanding makes room for the exercise of faith.

The author of the Introduction then says in the sentence after this quote:

And it is here, when faced with appearances that seem to contradict God’s own word, that faith is tried; for here, reason rises up in arms against it.

I already had trouble with what Luther has said about free will. I already thought Luther contradicts Scripture on any number of points. But to hear him come right out and admit that he does, AND FURTHER, to say that he has to contradict Scripture in order to have faith is unreal.

Let me throw one verse at you to contrast with the two quotes above, one of my favorite verses because it clarifies so much, Romans 10:17:

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

According to the Bible, God’s Word, faith means listening to God’s Word, believing exactly what God says.

According to Bondage of the Will, Luther’s word, faith means what you have when what you think disagrees with God’s word or when you don’t understand it.

It’s always amazing to me to watch people believe things and then struggle with how what they believe does not agree with the Bible. This is where “mystery” comes in.

Back to the Introduction:

Everything that God reveals about Himself transcends man’s comprehension; every doctrine, therefore, must of necessity terminate in mystery, and man must humbly acquiesce to having it so.

This is completely false. If everything God reveals is revealed to make no sense, then why did He reveal it? What’s the point of God revealing things if even after revealing it we don’t understand it?

God reveals things to be understood; that’s kind of the point of revfelation. The secret things belong to God; the things that are revealed belong to us.

Are there aspects of what God says that leave us with wonder and further questions? Certainly, but to assert that every doctrine God reveals leaves us sitting here not comprehending things is just nuts.

It’s mind boggling when theologians come to see that the Bible doesn’t say what they believe, that they don’t use that opportunity to change what they believe. Oh no! On the contrary, they get busy saying how the Bible is wrong or unclear.

They then use their non-sensical doctrine that the Bible disagrees with to be a sign of mature faith! You have faith when you have no clue what you’re talking about!

The Bible says faith is hearing God’s word. Faith is not what you have when you don’t understand God’s Word. God said stuff to be understood. Understanding God’s Word is actually what Faith is.

“By faith, all the people in Hebrews 11, sat around wondering at the mystery of what God told them to do.” Not what it says.

By faith, all the people in Hebrews 11, did exactly to the letter what God said because that’s what faith is: understanding and acting on exactly what God says. Faith does not show up in mysterious unclearness and uncomprehendingness.

If faith means trusting God when you’re clueless, then Romans 10 is out. I sincerely would mistrust anyone who told me faith is what you have in confusion. “I don’t understand anything, but oh well, guess I’ll push through and just believe.” That’s not faith.

Faith is unshakable confidence that God speaks truth and regardless of what I believe, think, or prefer, what God says is true, right, and understandable and then acts on it.

I fail to see how Luther’s understanding of faith would foster spiritual growth. Luther’s end of faith is complete confusion, not certainty–all doctrine terminates in mystery. That has to mean that the more you grow, the less you know. That’s just crazy.

Unger’s Dictionary on The Lord’s Prayer

Unger’s Bible Dictionary is pretty sketchy when it comes to anything Jesus Christ said. They’re just fine in telling you where Ur is located, but anything deeper than that and they get weird quick.

Unger’s entry under Sermon on the Mount says the church can apply general principles, but certainly don’t need to do what Jesus says. It’s not consistent with the age of grace for some unstated reason.

If Unger doesn’t like the Sermon on the Mount, you can bet all your money he will do all he can to outright dismiss the Lord’s Prayer.

Here is what Unger has to say about the Lord’s Prayer:

“This prayer is in reality a prayer for the Kingdom and in the Kingdom. ‘Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven’ can only be realized in its contextual meaning in the coming Millennial Kingdom.”

Thus saith Unger.

Clearly God’s will is going to be done during the Millennial Kingdom, but the idea that a person cannot pray for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven right now is just plain silly.

“Your will be done” is like the quintessential prayer of all time. You actually can do God’s will on this earth right now, you don’t have to wait for the Kingdom to come.

But Unger says you shouldn’t pray it now.

I just don’t even understand. This age, before the Kingdom fully comes in, is actually the only time this prayer does make sense! It makes no sense to pray this in the Kingdom at all because everything you’re asking for is already present.

I suspect the real reason people like Unger don’t like the Lord’s Prayer is for the “forgive us as we forgive those who trespass against us” line. Many construe this as being opposed to grace, putting a condition on forgiveness that sounds like a law type yoke of bondage.

Any time these sorts of dispensationalists get anywhere close to the Bible saying you have to do something to get something, they will immediately theorize their way out of the obligation.

This is a misunderstanding of grace, the Bible, and common sense (if you can’t forgive other people, in what sense do you understand the greatness of God’s forgiveness to you?).

Unger has no verses listed as to how he gets from Point A to Point B. He just states it. He relies upon a theory that theologian-types invented over the plain words of Scripture.

Rather than dealing with the tough teachings of Scripture, people get busy finding loopholes to defend their disobedience. I’d be curious to watch these people as they stand before the Lord to give an account.

Telling God you didn’t listen to Him because you determined you didn’t have to, doesn’t seem like a winning argument.

It does, however, seem very consistent with human nature. Church history is filled with human attempts to explain why they don’t have to listen to God. In fact, the Bible is filled with the same thing.

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
–Matthew 15:8-9

Jesus spoke this regarding the Jews of His day. It was originally said by Isaiah regarding the people of his day. It can just as well be said about people today.

Guess what? God doesn’t care about your theories. Listen to Him.

Unger’s Dictionary on the Sermon on the Mount

Last year, for some reason, I read the entire Unger’s Bible Dictionary from cover to cover. It was not thrilling reading. I probably mostly read it to say I read it. Kind of like Mount Everest: instead of climbing it, you read a book about it because the book was there.

I learned very little, mostly because it was about obscure biblical names of people and towns, none of which are distinguishable after reading 1392 pages of them.

What I did learn is that Unger is pretty good until he attempts to explain anything theological. Then he gets, shall we say, peculiar.

One of the entries that stood out to me was “Sermon on the Mount, The.”

Quoting from The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary from 1988, under the heading “Its Application,” we are told this about Sermon on the Mount, The:

“Careful exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount must not confuse it with the era of grace initiated by the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ.”

His point is that Sermon on the Mount, The is not for the church primarily. He maintains that “the application to be literally the establishment of the future Davidic Kingdom.” Otherwise known as the Millennial Kingdom.

Putting those things together, Unger is saying that Sermon on the Mount, The is not for the church but for the Kingdom period when Christ literally reigns on the earth and Israel is regathered to their land.

He does concede that Sermon on the Mount, The does have “all-time moral application, and hence its principles are applicable to the Christian.” Nice of him to grant that. He thinks it’s nice for you to be merciful and pure in heart, just don’t expect any blessings from it.

According to Unger, “This discourse gives the divine constitution for the righteous government of the earth [during the Millennial Kingdom].”

The thing I do not understand is that if this is only applicable in the Kingdom where righteousness reigns, why would people need to be told to do these righteous things? Righteousness is already reigning. At what point would a person in the righteous kingdom be blessed for being evil spoken of or reviled? That’s not going to happen there.

At what point would a person be blessed to mourn in the Kingdom if righteousness is reigning, there would be nothing to mourn about?

Unger is not the originator of this interpretation of Sermon on the Mount, The. As far as I know, Lewis Sperry Chafer popularized the idea, which really wasn’t held by anyone until he got famous.

The position has never made sense to me. The idea that Jesus wasn’t speaking to us in actual application seems crazy. Unger lists no verses to prove his point; it’s all theory and speculation.

Quoting some actual verses from the Apostle Paul, who knows more than Merrill F. Unger,

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

The Apostle Paul says people who don’t listen to Jesus Christ’s words and doctrines of godliness are proud, know nothing, like to argue about words, and think that godliness is proved by making respectable amounts of money. Paul says to stay away from these people.

Sermon on the Mount, The says we should give things away, be taken advantage of, and should be content with mourning, persecution, and being merciful.

There’s a reason people try to eliminate the Sermon on the Mount: it’s hard and does not look like fun to your flesh. Anyone who pushes away from the teachings of Christ is listening to their flesh, not the Spirit of God.

Watch out for people who tell you it’s not necessary to listen to Jesus Christ. This is a dangerous error which will have devastating effects as time goes on. The fruit of this teaching will not be pretty. And, one who reads Sermon on the Mount, The and applies it, will clearly understand this point, for here is how it ends:

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
–Matthew 7:16-20

God Does Not Believe In You

I try to stay calm about inane Christian statements, I really do. But I just can’t help it.

The other day I received an email from a Christian organization trying to encourage me to minister to hurting people. I have no problem with such appeals, nor with helping hurting people.

They talked about God’s grace and how God shows compassion on people and never fails. All of that is fine.

And then they said this:

Can we be the ambassadors of God’s favor and say “I believe in you,” no matter what?

Seriously, I try to stay calm.

The organization that sent this email prides itself on their biblical integrity. They even take it upon themselves to teach others what the Bible says.

Yet if you read that statement, they are saying that God shows you grace because He believes in you.

Oh man. I try so hard.

God does not believe in you. He does not show you grace because He thinks you’re super-duper and just need a little self-esteem boost.

God shows you grace because without Him you can do nothing. Because without new birth you are under God’s wrath and a slave to sin. God, through the Gospel, puts you to death and raises you up to new life in Christ.

At no point in the Bible does God say He believes in us. Many points of the Bible say we are to believe in Him. That’s where the belief thing comes in.

We believe in Him to save us because we can’t save ourselves, nor does He expect us to save ourselves, because we can’t. Which is why He doesn’t believe in you. Which is why He sent His Son to die for you and provided everything necessary for salvation.

He does not show you grace for moral failures because He believes in you. That’s like the complete opposite of why God gives you grace. God gives you grace because without it you aint got a chance.

God gives grace to the humble, to people who have given up on themselves, in other words, people who have the same opinion about themselves that God has–without Him I can do nothing.

God gives grace to people who don’t believe in themselves, but rather believe in Him! If we’re not supposed to believe in ourselves, I’m quite sure God doesn’t either!

He gives you grace because without it you are worthless, hopeless, and useless. He puts that worthless person to death and raises you to new life in Christ as a person who is now worthy of eternal life.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
–Galatians 3:22

Substitution and Transformation

“The foundation and focus of the Christian faith is Christ’s substitution not our transformation. In other words, the language of Christianity is primarily substitutional not transformational.”
–Tullian Tchividian

When I read this quote, my brain went “Wait, what?”

Tullian is a hip pastor with a large church in his past. He was fired from said church due to an extramarital affair. He says things like this quote above that get a lot of applause, but probably also lead to extramarital affairs.

I really don’t get the statement. I have no larger context to judge his words by. All I have is this quote. So, I’ll examine the quote.

He seems to be saying that The Gospel is all about Christ. What happens to me is at least distant second, if not almost irrelevant.

I’ll grant some truth here. Christ’s Gospel is the foundation of everything. Me changing does not save people. So, if that’s all he means, then fine.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s all he means.

I think what he means is that transformation should hardly be talked about. That any talk of transformation is probably detracting from any talk of Christ’s substitution.

Transformation is a biblical concept. It is mention a number of times. Romans 12:2 would be the primary passage no doubt–be not conformed to the world bu transformed by the renewing of your mind.

2 Corinthians 3:18 says we will be changed into the same image of Christ from glory to glory. “Changed” is the same Greek word as “transformed” in Romans 12:2. The Greek word is metamorphoo from which we get our word metamorphosis.

Galatians 4:19 says that Paul labors until Christ be formed in them. “Formed” is the Greek word morph.

Transformation is a thing. It is also implied in many passages–we are now servants of righteousness not unrighteousness, we are new creations in Christ, old things are passed away and all things are new, put off the old and put on the new, raised up to newness of life, etc.

Meanwhile, substitution is mentioned zero times in the New Testament. It is mentioned twice in Leviticus concerning animal sacrifice.

In all honesty, I don’t see the substitution of Christ mentioned much at all. Substitution means in the place of.

Yes, Christ died for us, but nowhere does it say He died in the place of us, or instead of us. What it does say is that He died for us, and by faith we were crucified, bruised, and raised up with Him. “With” is different than “instead of.”

Tullian is emphasizing what Christ did to the exclusion of anything we do. Paul doesn’t put it that way. Transformation is the only way to know you are part of what Christ did.

Granted, my transformation is not as earthly significant as what Christ did for the sins of the world, but it’s pretty big for me! It lets me know if I’m in or not.

Tullian is not alone in this emphasis. Everyone wants everything to be about Christ, with no responsibility, transformation, or anything about me. But read the New Testament! It’s talking about what you do quite frequently!

Don’t make a false dichotomy where there is none. Everything Christ did, He did for our transformation. It’s the reason there is a Gospel.

Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
–Titus 2:14

Is Jesus a Friend of Sinners?

“If Jesus isn’t a friend of sinners, then He’s no friend of mine.”

I saw this on Twitter last week. It made me pause.

Lots of things make me pause. My brain hiccups. “Wait, what was that? Does that make sense?”

A reasonable response would take up more space than Twitter allows, so I’ll think it out here.

“Jesus is a friend of sinners” is from both Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34. It’s in the passage about how the people didn’t like John the Baptist cuz he was fasting, and they don’t like Jesus cuz He eats with people.

Jesus Christ does not call Himself a friend of sinners. If you note the wording of the verse:

“and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.“

It was Jesus’ opponents who called Him a friend of sinners, not Jesus Himself. They also called him a drunk. Was their estimation of Jesus correct?

Later, in John 15, Jesus says greater love has no man than this: to lay down his life for his friends.

Jesus then goes on to define who His friends are. It’s important for our ears to hear the words of Jesus Christ here:

“Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.“

So, here’s the deal. Is Jesus a friend of publicans and sinners? In a general sense, probably. What did Jesus call Judas when he came to betray Him?

Jesus said to Judas, “Friend, wherefore art thou come?” He calls Judas His friend. Jesus doesn’t lie. (Although it is a different Greek word!)

There is some truth in calling Jesus a friend of sinners, depending on what you mean by it.

Unfortunately, I think most people mean that being a sinner is ok with Jesus. I can go on sinning cuz Jesus is my friend.

I think that’s the sense of the phrase I saw. If so, I’d throw in some John 15. Then again, maybe they mean it simply as Jesus Christ loved me while I was a sinner.

It just depends. And that’s the problem with most of what people say about the Bible: It depends what they mean. I have little confidence in people to assume they mean something right.

But maybe that’s my problem.

A Botched Sunday School Lesson on Gideon

At our church’s Wednesday night group I have been going over Bible stories, and talking about Sunday School treatments of these stories in comparison to the Bible.

Most Sunday School tellings are not consistent with the Bible. Many details are left out and applications appear to be from left field.

This past week I came across the worst one so far. It boggles my mind.

The story was about Gideon. To refresh your memory: Gideon, who was afraid of the enemy Midianites, was hiding in a winepress threshing his wheat, was called by the angel of the Lord to deliver Israel from the Midianites. He wanted a sign. God gave him a sign. He was also told to destroy an altar to Baal, which he did at night, for fear of the townsfolk.

Gideon was then to go fight the Midianites. But first he asked for two more signs. Eventually he went with his shrunken army and defeated the Midianites.

The Sunday School lesson gave this application. Are you ready for this? Please sit down first. I assure you I am not making this up. This is real. Ready? Here goes:

Gideon felt very unsure most of the time about how God was going to follow through but God didn’t give up on him and reassured him that with His help he could do it.  We might feel small, young, weak, insignificant but with God we can become something special, powerful, a mighty warrior!  God can give us special powers if we trust him and do His will.

Apparently God granted me the super power of not having my head explode upon reading stupidity. I find no other reason why my head is intact.

Unbelievable. This is so wrong on so many levels. Telling kids they will have super powers will create all manner of weird ideas in their head. I’m Batman with Jesus! You know that’s how kids will hear that.

The thing I don’t get is what super power did Gideon have? He was a chicken throughout the whole thing. He never did anything super powerfully. That was, in fact, pretty much the point of the story. God did the delivering; there was no human super power visible at any point.

The real problem with such applications is that they disillusion kids. They will go home, try to obey God, and ask for a super power. No super power will come.

Will they doubt what their teacher told them? Will they rationally consider whether their teacher told them the truth?

Or will they doubt God? The Bible? The Church?

We bemoan the fact that so many kids walk away from the church as they get older. Is it any wonder? We’ve told them so many falsehoods, I’d walk away too.

Be careful what ideas you put in the minds of kids. They are listening, more than most adults. They will try it. If you promise super powers, they will get bummed when they don’t get one.

All this disillusionment will grow over the years, until they hit a point where their brain works, and they’ll rebel. They’ll call you on the lies. Unfortunately, most of them will leave God, the faith, and the church. The damage is done.

Be careful not to put words in God’s mouth. Be careful not to promise things that God will do that God never promised to do. Be careful that you understand a passage before attempting to teach it.

Be careful.

Tools of Faithful Titans

A couple weeks ago I finished reading Tools of Titans by Tim Ferriss.

It’s a massive book, 600+ pages, comprised of snippets of interviews Tim did with, what Tim considers to be, successful people.

Much of it was weird. Many push doing hallucinogenics. Many are overly obsessed with diet and exercise to the extent it consumes most of their waking hours, or at least it would if I were to do all that. Most also pushed transcendental meditation.

Many of their heroes and recommended resources were religious in nature, but mostly Buddhist, Taoist, of Gandhi type things.

Not a single one mentioned Jesus Christ. Six hundred plus pages and not one mention of Jesus Christ, not even in a sloppy way. No mention whatsoever.

At first this bugged me, “are you suggesting that no successful people follow Jesus? I mean, seriously?”

But as I thought about it more, this is actually a good thing!

What Tim Ferriss respects are people who are dominant, those who have followers, and material success.

Buddhism allows you methods by which you can attain material success. Meditation is a “spiritual” thing you do to get better physical results.

If a person followed Jesus Christ, they would never be on Tim Ferriss’ show, nor in his books.

Jesus Christ will not lead you to be materially successful.

Now, that doesn’t mean there aren’t those who manipulate His teachings to arrive at material success, there are, and they are called false teachers–their god is their belly.

But an honest following of Jesus will leave you disrespected by Tim Ferriss and other self-help gurus. Even if you did achieve financial success, following Christ would make you get rid of that money in a non-flashy, not gonna make it on Tim’s show, kind of way.

Hebrews 11 is God’s version of Tools of Titans.

All these people were massive losers in the world’s eyes. But in God’s eyes, they were eminently successful.

And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

The world has no respect for no-name poor people who suffer and then die. Tim Ferriss has no use for such folks. They provide no value to him or his worldview.

Even the great people of faith we do know did not have great material success.

Abraham never saw any of the promises he was given fulfilled, he died still wondering where the fruit was.

Moses couldn’t get anyone to listen to him ever.

Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were largely ignored and then killed by the people they were sent to help.

Paul died alone, no man stood with him.

Peter was crucified.

And, of course, our Leader, Jesus Christ, was rejected and even forsaken by His own disciples.

He asks you to follow Him in this rejection, in this lowliness and humility. Lose your life to find it.

This is all insane on an earthly level.

Tim Ferriss wrote a 600+ page book about how to be successful on this earth and Jesus was not mentioned once.

I like that.

Definitions of Sola Scriptura Undermine Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura, the idea that the Bible is our sole source for spiritual truth, is a fine idea, not actually applied by anyone ever.

We should uphold Sola Scriptura as our aim, yet honestly admit that much of our doctrine is based on other stuff.

In fact, many who hold to Sola Scriptura have never reada the whola thinga. How, pray tell, do you claim to base all your doctrine on a book you’ve never read, let alone endeavored to understand?

“My doctrine is based on the Bible,” say all manner of people who disagree with each other on basic doctrines.

How can this be true? Is the Bible this open for interpretation? Is it that confusing? Or are people using other things to decide what they believe?

Peter does say the scriptures contain many things hard to be understood. Above that, people twist them all out of proportion. (You can read Peter’s take on that here.)

The Bible does need to be interpreted, but the authors had one intent in mind and it would serve us well to discover that.

But that’s hard. So we fall back on other authorities while still maintaining the veneer that we hold Sola Scriptura.

Check out these definitions of Sola Scriptura that come right out and say Sola Scriptura isn’t actually a thing other than in word.

By Sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals).

There is one word in there that shoots this whole definition to pieces. Did you catch it? The word is “primary.” Primary implies secondary. Primary means there are other sources. It just does. Words mean things. Something cannot be primary and absolute at the same time. They cancel each other out. So, this is either an incredibly accurate definition of Sola Scriptura based on practice, or it’s bad writing.

Get a load of this definition I saw. This one cracked me up

For the Reformers, “Scripture alone” did not mean “Scripture all by itself.” Rather, Scripture was “alone” as the only unquestionable religious authority, not the only religious authority.

Oh, that’s too much, you guys are killing me. Sola doesn’t mean Sola. Again this is either a really honest definition recognizing reality, or it’s bad writing. I think it’s actually being honest. They know Sola Scriptura is just words without meaning, because they just denied the meaning with their words.

Again, Sola Scriptura is a nice idea, but no one does it. There are some who at least admit as much.

We don’t like Sola Scriptura because it puts the Bible in the hands of the reader, which is out of our control, and who knows what they will come up with.

If you let people find out what the Bible says, they’ll probably disagree with you and cause problems. So it’s best to leave the door open for other authorities so you can smash those who veer out of the way. Welcome to Church History.

Sola Scriptura: it’s a nice idea that no one does. Feel free to be the first.

An Example of Grace Gone Bad

Last week I read a “theology” book that drove me crazy. I did this on purpose. It’s fun to voluntarily be driven crazy. It’s why people own cats. I knew by deciding to read this book, I would go nuts at some point.

Boy howdy, did I.

This book was talking about grace and salvation. As many do when talking about grace, they go overboard. They take a fine idea and drive it into the ground until they begin teaching heresy.

Here is the quote I read word for word. Enjoy.

“For grace requires nothing of man but an acknowledgment of his undone condition and complete dependence on God. If an intellectual understanding were necessary to receive the gift of God, then there would be that in man which is meritorious in the sight of God.”

Oh my. Catch this sentence: “If an intellectual understanding were necessary to receive the gift of God, then there would be that in man which is meritorious in the sight of God.”

Did you get that? What he is saying is, “If you are intellectually able to understand the Gospel and respond to it, you have done a meritorious work and thus are not saved by grace.”

I mean, I’ve read some dumb things in my day, but wow.

Therefore, the only way a person can be saved is if they have absolutely no clue, no intellectual understanding, no mental assent to the Gospel. Otherwise, when they get saved they would glory in their superior intellect.

This is Calvinism gone way bad. This is hyper-grace gone way bad.

This means, the only people who can be saved are those who don’t understand the Gospel and thus never come to it knowingly.

I mean, come on. I can see how a person’s theological bias might drive them into this corner to say such a thing, but there’s no way a person can read the Bible and come away with such nonsense.

I am not saying we are saved by our intellect, I’m not saying a person has to understand it all before they can be saved, but I am definitely saying you kind of have to know what’s going on.

Paul told Timothy, “that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Is Timothy not saved because he knew? Was his knowing the Scriptures a meritorious work forcing God to have to save him? Give me a break.

I paced up and down the hall for about half an hour preaching to no one, since I was home alone, til I got that one out of my system. Wow. Not only did the book this quote came from go in the garbage, every book by this author followed.

Although the author of this quote wants you to be stupid, I don’t. I want you to use your brain.

Trivia Crack and The Ten Commandments

Trivia Crack is an app basically depicting the old Trivial Pursuit game.

I’m not that good at trivia. I like to tell myself it’s because I don’t know a lot of stupid stuff. I only know smart stuff. The definition of trivia, after all, is “Insignificant or inessential matters; trifles.”

Regardless, the one main fault of Trivia Crack is that users write the questions. Be warned, my son has written several. You know if my son is a question writer, you’re going to run into some dumb questions.

“How many commandments does Christianity have?” was a recent question I was asked. The accepted answer was “ten.”

This irritated me.

You can respond to the questions and correct them, I should have but didn’t know how to do it then. If you play the game, and I’m certainly not telling you to, and you get this question, please inform them for me that this question is wrong.

Although you don’t have to explain all the following reasons why it’s wrong, here is my brief list.

1) The Ten Commandments were for the Old Covenant Jewish religion. If you don’t think so, you need to brush up on some theology. In Deuteronomy 5, where Moses rehearses the Ten Commandments, he makes it clear that these were part of the covenant God made with Israel. No mention of Christianity in that passage at all.

2) Even if you don’t want to grant me the first point, you should agree that Jesus gave us a new commandment summed up in LOVE. Followers of Christ have one main commandment.

3) Even if you don’t want to grant me point 1 or 2, you can read the New Testament and see many commandments given over those books. 1 Thessalonians 5 has a list of 22 commands alone. All these commands fit under the One Command of LOVE.

4) Too often Christians have ripped off Judaism. I find this to be another example of the Church replacing Israel, rather than seeing a distinction between the two groups, and frankly, the two religions. There is much that joins them, but there is much that separates them. There’s a reason why there is a New Covenant. It has been proven that the Old Covenant, based on the Ten Commandments, didn’t work.

To sum up, the Ten Commandments were for Israel. This is a point that many Christians do not grasp, clearly seen by how many get fired up over putting Ten Commandment plaques in courtrooms and so forth.

As Paul said, “When the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” The Ten Commandments are rules written on a rock with no power.

Christianity is about new life in Christ. Please, I beg you, understand this and, if you get the chance, inform Trivia Crack that their question is wrong.

Have A Bible Shaped Doctrine, Not A Doctrinally Shaped Bible

I think theology and doctrine are important. Knowing what you believe is critical to spiritual well-being.

However, I have seen many make camp in a particular theology or doctrine, to hold to a doctrine at all costs, only to then make shipwreck of the rest of the Bible.

For instance, I recently read a book about Eternal Security, Once Saved Always Saved. From the start, let me say–I believe that the believer is eternally secure.

I also know that the Bible includes many warning passages and conditional statements about salvation. I don’t think this means you can lose your salvation, I think it means there are few who are saved, while many believe they are.

The author tried to counter the warning passages of the Bible and eliminate them from contention. I felt he did so poorly.

While talking about warning passages in the OT and Gospels, he concluded that this was for people under the law. He said flat out that people under the law could lose their salvation.

Really? In a book about eternal security he concludes that there was a time when people could lose their salvation? I thought that was unreal. Yet, in order to buck up his theological point, he has to make that conclusion otherwise he doesn’t know what to do with warning passages in the OT or Gospels.

Ironically, he quotes David at one point, saying that God was the rock of his salvation, yet the author then said no one who denies eternal security could make that claim! Wait, what?

Several times throughout the book he said things like, “Since we know eternal security is true, we know that this verse can’t be warning believers.”

In other words–since I believe this, whatever this verse means, it can’t mean the opposite of what I believe.

That is, quite possibly, the worst way to interpret Scripture.

If you automatically eliminate a possible application because it disagrees with what you already believe, you might as well just quit reading the Bible.

It is my contention that most doctrines in the Bible have a verse or two (at least) that will seemingly contradict it. I think God does this on purpose to keep us humble, to keep us from having our knowledge puff us up.

This author’s knowledge puffed him up. I think that in an effort to buck up his doctrine he undermined three-fourths of the Bible to do it.

This is not good. Have the confidence in God that he meant what He said. Take all that God says about a subject and go with that. Don’t stake your claim and throw out everything “contradictory.” You look like a moron when you do that.

The Bible is a large book. Let it shape your doctrine; don’t let your doctrine shape it.

God Can Heel

I was reading lyrics of a Christian song on the internet and saw this in speaking of God:

“He can save and He can heel.”

That cracked me up.

I assume they meant “He can save and He can heAl.”

There are people who like to have God on a leash, keep Him obedient to them, walking by their side, following their orders like a good boy.

Saying that God can heel might be a bit of a Freudian slip (however, I didn’t do well in psychology class, so I might be off on that).

Do we desire God to be in control, or do we desire Him to do our bidding? Do we just look for Him for free health care, or do we submit to His grace being sufficient? Do we desire to obey God, or have God obey us?

What end of the leash are you on?

 

The Absolute Worst Application of “It Is Finished”

Last year I read 26,448 pages, which was 93 books, about a book and a half a week. I bought very few of those books. When you are a reader, somehow books gravitate toward you. Plus I’m in good relations with a librarian, which helps.

People know I read and it is not uncommon for people to give me books to read for them. Plus, those who read good books often loan me books cuz they know I’ll read them. Plus I am from a family of readers, so I frequently get books from them.

When books are free, it is a temptation to assume you are interested in more books than you actually are. I have shelves next to my “reading chair” that are organized by books to read. I have several piles on several shelves where I know what books are there waiting to be read.

As the years go by, some books will fall down the piles, being skipped over cuz I no longer find them of any interest like I did when I first saw them.

There has been one book in particular that has slipped down my piles, was on the bottom shelf covered with dust bunnies. I remember picking up the book 8 years ago. In the last eight years I have seen that book several times and never gone ahead and read it.

Well, the last couple days I did. I should never have picked this book up. It was dreadful. It was about Jesus, and was written by a popular author whom I personally cannot stand, making me wonder what possessed me to pick it up in the first place.

But, I soldiered on, cuz that’s the kind of guy I am. I know what it is to write and be criticized, and I also acknowledge that this author is very well known in Christian circles, so he obviously is doing something more right than me.

But oh wow. I’ll give you one example.

He wrote a chapter on Jesus saying “it is finished” from the cross. His application out of this, and trust me, I’ve heard many applications on “it is finished,” the vast majority of which I find irritating, was the absolute worst I have ever heard.

“It is finished,” to this very well known Christian author, means that when life gets tough, and you’re not sure if you can go all the way to the end and accomplish a goal, just think of Jesus on the cross, who endured and did the whole job of dying for your sins.

And, I kid you not, he said that the next time you feel like quitting your diet, just think of Jesus saying “It is finished.”

When I read that, I wanted to jump in the car and drive to this guy’s house and slap him in the face.

But, then I remembered my goal in life to never slap people in the face, and even though I was tempted to fail, I thought of Jesus saying “it is finished” and I persevered and still have not quit on my goal.

Abba Aint Your Daddy

Ever heard this one?

Abba is a child’s word, one of the first words a little Jewish boy would say. Kind of like our word pappa. It’s a term of endearment, not an official title. This shows that God is our Daddy! How comforting! How joyous! He’s not a big scary God! He’s Daddy!

As a pastor, it saddens me to be lumped in with pastors who take liberties with facts. So many cookie cutter sermon illustrations are flat-out wrong. The “abba means daddy” one is no different.

It’s complete hooey.

I am preaching out of Romans 8 this Sunday and the verse that says, “ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” In looking up some info on the internets I came across this article from The Gospel Coalition written recently about this very issue.

Abba doesn’t mean daddy. In fact, after doing some more researching, “Abba” is a Syrian word for father. When the Bible says “Abba Father” it is using the Syrian word and then the Hebrew word for “father.”

There are some who think Paul’s usage of it in Romans is showing there is a unified love God has for all His children–Gentile and Jew by using both a Gentile and a Hebrew word for “father.”

It’s not a child’s word, it’s a Syrian word, a different language. The term means “father,” maybe even “my father.”It was not a childish expression comparable with ‘Daddy’: it was a more solemn, responsible, adult address to a Father.”

Certainly there is a father’s love at work with God, but in order to accentuate the fatherliness of God, there is no need to lie and overdo things.

Fathers are an authority, ones who discipline their children. Yes, there is a unique display of love going on there, one very descriptive of God’s love, but lets not trivialize it.

Every Day a Friday

Joel Osteen’s latest book is about being happy. Osteen cites a recent study that found that “happiness increases 10 percent on Fridays . . . I challenge you to let every day be a Friday.”

The book takes you through seven ways to increase happiness in your life so you can “choose happiness.”

Since the weekend is coming, people decide to be happier on Friday, why not make that choice daily?

I am not opposed to a Christian telling people to make every day a Friday, but there is irony in telling people to make every day a Friday because Fridays are so happy.

There’s this pivotal event that happened on a Friday according to Christian tradition. On a certain Friday, commonly referred to as “Good Friday,” the Son of God, a man of sorrow acquainted with grief, suffered and died for the sin of the world.

If Osteen told people to make every day a Friday just like the Friday Jesus had on Good Friday, I’d be all for this book. We should die daily, take up our cross, put to death the deeds of the flesh and be crucified with Christ. I’m all for that message.

Instead, Osteen takes the humanisticly pleasing message “celebrate yourself!” and choose to be happy. Imagine if Christ had read this book on Maundy Thursday? I can think of more happy ways to spend my Friday than dying on a cross for others’ sins.

Entertaining Bible Prophecy

I have found that a good source of entertainment is to read books on Bible prophecy written at least 40 years ago. I will admit that I have a very dull life and very low standards of entertainment though.

I recently read a book (from my stack of books I have to read) on Bible prophecy that made me laugh several times. Ah, good times, good times.

First was when they said the verse talking about exiles coming back to Jerusalem on eagle’s wings was referring to Jewish exiles flying on airplanes back to Israel in the 60’s.

Second, every prophecy was fulfilled by the Soviet Union. As you may recall, a funny thing happened to the Soviet Union on the way here from the 1970’s.

Third, there is no mention of Islam in anything, whereas Islam is now the bogey man of prophecy in the modern versions of prophecy books.

Fourth, it’s just funny.

In sum, I mostly agree with this author’s take on things, but I disagree with the intent to find fulfillment to prophecies in the news as such. Sure, there may be general trends, but to nail it down as a nation or a person or a mode of transportation when so much can change so quickly, just makes Bible prophecy look stupid.

I fear that books like this are not read for their entertainment value but rather as a way to discredit prophecy and those who study it. That is unfortunate.

But alas, others misfortune often makes the best entertainment.

Reading Piled up Theology Books

I have a goal for this year of reading all the books that are stacked on one of my shelves. When I bring a book into my house it goes on this shelf. If no new books are capturing my attention, I go to this shelf and get a book to read.

Problem is that my stacks have been accumulating and the cream has risen to the top, so all I have left are a bunch of books I’ve determined for years I have no interest in reading.

One assumes that upon their arrival in my home I had an interest in reading them, but alas, the interest died quickly, the books sit and now I have two stacks of non-interest books doing nothing.

If I make it a goal I know I’ll do it, that’s how I roll. That’s also why I don’t make many goals!

Anyway, I’m plowing through these books, some of which have been interesting, others, well, I’m still trying to recall when I thought reading “The Birth of Tragedy” by Friedrich Nietzsche would be interesting.

That was a toughy for me. I started reading that book three times before finally finishing it. I have no idea what it was about. Something to do with tragedy plays and Greek guys and something.

One thing I can detect is my theological interests and growth through the years. Books that would have appealed to me in previous years no longer appeal to me. Others I had no interest in, now intrigue me.

Here are some of the books from my stack I’ve recently read and my thoughts on them:

A Body of Divinity by Thomas Watson. Took me a year to read this one. It was OK, but his use of scripture references were misleading, which is a pet peeve of mine. I also don’t like his Calvinism. I gave it a 6 on a ten point scale.

Dispensationalism by Lewis Sperry Chafer. This book nearly killed me. I didn’t like it one bit. I see it is one of the few Chafer books not in print leading me to believe many others didn’t like it either. I’m a dispensationalist and I thought this was dreadful. Barely got a 4.

The Voice of the Devil by G. Campbell Morgan. This was a typical Morgan book. Says fine things in fine ways. In this one he says fine things about Satan in fine ways. Gave it a 6.

Jews, Gentiles and the Church by David Larsen. I liked this book. I gave it a 7. It’s about Jews, Gentiles and the Church.

Anger by Gary Chapman. I tell ya what, I never struggled with anger as much as I did reading this dreadful psycho-garbage book pretending to be Christian. No use for it. Made me mad. Gave it a 5.

Those are some of the highlights, which really aint all that high. I push on. Hoping to make it through another book soon after I’m done writing this. It’ll be lucky to get a 6. Goodness.

No Other Gods Before Me

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

This is the first of the Ten Commandments. Recently I read a Christian take on this that said,

“What are some gods that people might put before the true God? This does not just mean stone idols. ‘Gods’ includes anything–like computer games or snowboarding–that you put before the true God.”

Really? Does Exodus 20:3 mean computer games or snowboarding?

I’ve heard this many times and every time it bothers me. Perhaps I’m too sensitive on the issue, it’s a possibility, I am known by some as a sensitive kind of guy.

But to me this has no reference at all to snowboarding or computer games. Oh sure, it’s a fine way to make kids feel guilty for everything they enjoy doing, but there are many other verses that you can make that point with.

What’s ironic is that the more I see Christians say the first commandment means “don’t enjoy video games too much,” the more I see tolerance towards the belief that Muslims worship the same God and all religions lead to that God.

As we redefine the first commandment we open the door to violate that first commandment. Let’s be man enough to let God’s words mean what God’s words mean.

Leave your guilt-ridden, fun-squashing sermons to the right verses, like “friendship with the world is enmity with God.” Which is a verse that also squashes twisting God’s word to meet a philosophy.

The Lion of Judah is a Metaphor, He’s Not a Real Lion

Was reading a book written in 1692 talking about Jesus Christ, the Lion of Judah. He was speaking primarily in regards to the intercession of Christ for believers and he says,

“They say, lions are insomnes, they have little or no sleep; it is true of the Lion of the tribe of Judah, he never slumbers nor sleeps, but watches over his church to defend it.”

I certainly agree about the assertions of Christ, but lions never sleep? Pastors are notorious for using false sermon illustrations, even pastors from the 17th century.

I’m willing to give him a pass on this one, the information available about lions in the 17th century is not what we have available today. A quick internet search tells us lions sleep up to 20 hours a day, which is about as far from insomne as you can get.

I will also give him a pass because he begins his statement with “they say.” Passes the buck to “they,” which is also a good pastor move.

Anyway, be careful out there. I’ve also discovered this guy’s verse references don’t always say what he says they say. When in doubt: check!