Without Excuse

Posted on March 26, 2012 by Paula Fether

This phrase comes from Rom. 1:18-20:

God’s rage is being revealed from heaven against every kind of irreverence and injustice committed by people who unjustly suppress the truth. And it’s because what can be known about God is obvious among them, since God has shown it to them. For his invisible qualities can be seen by means of the creation of the world; we catch a glimpse of them— as well as his unknowable power and divinity— by his achievements, so that people are without excuse.

This is typically used in debates with unbelievers, who then respond by pointing out that nature doesn’t tell us anything specific about God. Then the Christians concede and merely state that people instinctively know that all this couldn’t happen by accident. But I think we can do better than that.

Lately I’ve been reading/watching more about ancient knowledge and technology, as well as some incredible math and geometry “coincidences”.¹ Along with universities who aren’t necessarily telling students everything (as with evolution), and who aren’t immune from poor logic, the text of the Bible has also been under relentless attack as never before. At first it was from the angle that the text was unreliable or historically inaccurate, but there has been too much evidence to the contrary.² So the tactic changed to allegorization of pretty much anything and everything, because of the Bible’s similarities to other ANE (ancient near-east) writings, but that too is faulty.³ Now, through popular fiction which is essentially being promoted as fact, the claim is that the Bible is just a small part of one singular story: that either the world was seeded by aliens, or all the religions and secret societies were just trying to preserve (while hiding it from the unwashed masses) ancient knowledge of the “vibrational” essence and unity of all existence.

Knowledge is not evil or scary, in spite of the pervasive claim that this is what the Bible teaches. Many people erroneously (and quite irritatingly) cite as proof “the Tree of Knowledge” when in fact it is “the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”. God never feared or tried to hide knowledge/wisdom in general, and in fact there are many, many injunctions for people to get more of it. But he did warn us of wanting to know things that come with great spiritual danger, identified as consulting mediums or invoking angels. Today, the world tries to mock such a warning by presenting such things as good and beneficial. But rather than using the old frontal assault (attacking the Bible), the method now is to re-interpret the Bible as somehow teaching these dangerous spiritual practices. The “church” at large has already fallen for the first stages: contemplative prayer, walking labyrinths, practicing mind-emptying meditation techniques, using talismans (“touch your TV screen for a blessing”, “send a donation and you’ll get a blessed hanky”), etc.

So there is nothing dangerous about studying the technology and knowledge of the past in the areas of math or philosophy, but be very careful not to passively accept the conclusions many of the researchers or teachers jump to. I’ve often exposed the faulty logic that underlies such leaps, and this is especially important on topics that touch on the foundations of our faith. For example, in many documentaries or articles on “sacred geometry”, they either infer or conclude that since there are many uncanny numerological similarities between the Bible and esoteric knowledge, then the Bible is not from God or is no more so than other religious writings.

But the logical error here is the same as for evolutionary claims concerning genetics. That is, evo errs in looking only at genetic similarities while ignoring the vital differences; so also do the “Bible code” or other numerology theories focus on the similarities but ignore the differences. In addition, all the alternative Bible interpretations ignore the problem of evil or try to write it off as “bad vibrations” or an illusion (tell that one to the people who have suffered the most!). This failure to emphasize the differences is also behind the oft-repeated claim that “we all worship the same God”.

So exactly what is it about “nature” that the passage in Romans uses as proof of God? Design, engineering, programming, and information. No matter what the topic, be it biology or astronomy or math or physics or electricity or communication theory, ingenious design is undeniable. The latest studies of ancient knowledge also show an incredible unity as well, a universal language if you will. And this, of course, begs the question of who the Designer could be. People have tried in the past to write off belief in a God or gods to primitive culture and fear of nature, but as knowledge has increased it has only proved more rigorously that the universe is the product of intelligent design. A classic quote comes to mind:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, W.W. Norton, New York, 1978, p. 116)

Once again the plot of the enemies of God is thwarted; their own headlong rush away from him has only served to prove that God truly is everywhere. As it will obviously be in the coming Tribulation, the question is no longer whether there is a God and which God it is, but whether we will accept him or reject him. The denial that is atheism can stand no more since there is simply too much evidence for intelligent design in the universe, from the microscopic to the macroscopic. Now who are the “religious zealots” or “nutters” or “science deniers”? Whose faith is truly blind? Whose religous views are holding back scientific progress?

But none of the theories about vibrations or calculations or ancient aliens can account for morality and evil, because like evo they don’t face the problem of origins. If we are all “god”, how did we ever become otherwise? If everything is vibration, what distrubed it? If it all began with a “big bang”, what made it “bang” and where did “it” come from? If there is a prototype or original human, what produced it? If there was great knowledge in the ancient past, where did we get it and how was it lost?

The Bible, however, answers them all. If those who so love to apply Ockham’s Razor would be honest with themselves, they’d conclude that the Bible’s explanation is the simplest and least embellished. But this brings up an important point: God often uses the very scientific laws he created to work miracles.

For example: In Ex. 14:21 the Bible tells us that the way God dried up a path through the Red Sea was to “drive the sea back with a strong east wind”; in Joshua 3:16 God did something similar at the Jordan River by “piling up the water” at a town called Adam. Why didn’t God just speak as he did in creating the world? We aren’t told, but the point is that finding a natural or scientific cause is not proof that God was not involved; the timing and predictability of various miracles is what makes them such. And of course, who ever would think that the sea or a river could be dried up in a matter of hours, or that water could turn instantly into wine? Who would consider it natural for the blind to be healed with mud spread on their eyes— or that someone could rise from the dead after three days and nights in a pinpoint fulfillment of prophecy? No matter how elaborate or clever a scientific/natural cause could be found, the context cannot be ignored.

Who invented the laws of physics? Who created energy? Who decided to make everything with atoms, or determined that we could calculate the order and even the size of the universe with a few basic mathematical principles? Who invented language, or music, or poetry, or love? How did the first humans even learn how to eat or procreate or cultivate or mine or cook or use their imaginations? Who programmed animals to do incredible things that their tiny brains can’t possibly account for? ⁴

Truly, and scientifically, people are “without excuse” for knowing that there is a Designer, a Programmer, an Engineer— a God. As for the specifics, remember what Paul said to the Greek philosophers?

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship— and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone— an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
– Acts 17:22-31

First Paul uses their shrine to “The Unknown God” as a hook to introduce his topic (NOT, as I’ve pointed out before, to sanction or affirm their religion!). Then he appeals to reason: by definition, God would not need what people make but is the source of everything and everyone. But notice the curious statement about God marking out the appointed times and boundaries of lands as a way for people to find him. Here again we see order and limitations and historical progression— things that don’t happen by accident. Notice also that the intelligent and educated Greeks did not ridicule or dispute Paul at this point. Finally, Paul presents the logical conclusion: that since there is one God who made everything, and now you know who he is by his having raised Jesus from the dead, you are “without excuse”— God “commands all people everywhere to repent”.

So while “the heavens declare the glory of God”, it is the Body of Christ by which people know his identity and characteristics. Now do you see why it’s so vital that we know the gospel clearly, and we don’t compromise on his identity? Otherwise the lost are left in the dark, since Jesus called us to be “light” (and NOT in the sense of “light beings” or “light workers”, but just “earthenware jars” containing the Light of Christ to shine truth on the world). The reason people don’t know which God is the right one is because we have failed to tell them— and in many cases that’s because we ourselves do not really know him. We have swallowed the lie that all gods are the same or that “Christ” is some form of consciousness; we have been pressured to trade the Jesus who is the only “way, truth, and life” and who rose bodily from the dead for a “light worker” or “ascended master” or just a good teacher. Like many of the religious leaders of Jesus’ day, “They loved praise from people more than even praise from God” (John 12:43).

Sadly, such who are afraid to be mocked due to standing firm in the truth are many, and many of them are leaders in the Christian community. They want to be seen as tolerant and loving toward people, more than faithful and loving toward God. They dishonor him equating him with the gods of other religions, whose Son they redefine as someone the lost don’t really have to know to be saved. Thus they render the gospel unimportant or mythical or esoteric. Yet by claiming to know the Bible (and bragging that they know it better than these “fundies” who take it at face value rather than as part of ANE “wisdom literature”), they incriminate themselves much as did the Pharisees in John 9:39-41: “… since you say that you see, your guilt remains.” That is, they are “without excuse”.

Calvinism and Universalism: Separated At Birth?

Posted on November 4, 2011 by Paula Fether

Both C and U can scream all they like about “misrepresentation”, but I’ve written plenty about the details of both in this blog to support what I’ve summarized here. I have noted that their adherents often have not thought through to the logical conclusions of their beliefs, which accounts for much of the outrage. Continuing on the theme of degree versus kind, let us note how very much alike these two presumed opposites are:

C- God’s sovereignty exists in a vacuum (love/mercy doesn’t matter)
U- God’s love exists in a vacuum (holiness/justice doesn’t matter)

C- God makes some people love him eventually
U- God makes all people love him eventually

C- Evangelism really doesn’t matter because all the elect are guaranteed to be saved
U- Evangelism really doesn’t matter because all people are guaranteed to be saved

C- Prayer really doesn’t matter because God will always do what he has decreed
U- Prayer really doesn’t matter because God will always do what’s best for us

C- In the end, there is no free will to reject God because God will do whatever is necessary to turn some people toward him
U- In the end, there is no free will to reject God because God will do whatever is necessary to turn all people toward him

I’m sure more comparisons could be made, but the point is that in both systems God forces people to accept him, regardless of the means or time it may take. The end result is inevitable, whether it applies to some or to all. And both systems have their internal inconsistencies, for example:

C- If most will spend eternity in hell because God is sovereign, then God is a cold-blooded monster. If God gives most people false hope by commanding the gospel to be spread to those he had reprobated, then God is a deceiver. If God fills the scriptures with commands for us to choose while knowing all the while that we have no such ability, then God is psychotic and wicked.

U- If no one will spend eternity in hell because God is love, then any and all suffering of any duration should never happen. Either suffering is incompatible with God’s love or it isn’t, regardless of whether that suffering is temporary or eternal. Would a loving God allow babies to die of disease, hunger, or violence? And for annihilationism, how is either love or justice served by ending people’s existence, since a loving God would have chosen not to make anyone who would reject him— meaning God is the worst kind of “fair weather friend”?

Unbelievers have long ago seen through these contradictions. If God is love then he is not sovereign (evil obviously happens, so God must be powerless to stop it), but if he is sovereign then he is not love (he is able to stop evil from happening but chooses not to). The Cs and Us simply ignore the contradictions/logical conclusions or engage in the fallacy of “special pleading”, while the anti-theists engage in the fallacy of “false dilemma” (or “non sequitur”) and declare that God cannot possibly exist because he is self-contradictory. I encourage you to pause and take a look at this article and the excellent conversation following. One comment seemed particularly well-stated in exposing unconditional election as the common root of both views:

As English Puritanism evolved, it did lead to unitarian universalism, in both the US and England. And rather quickly. Part of this is due, at least in part, to its emphasis on the role of election. Rather than the emphasis being on choice (which emphasis I see all over the pages of the New Testament), the imbalanced emphasis on election seems directly related to a universalizing trajectory. I simply do not think the moral intuitions of men and women can sustain at one and the same time election as Calvinists understand it and the moral life of choosing. If they do not give up on teaching election traditionally taught, then they cannot for long live with the conclusion that we were born to go to hell and only a few born to go to heaven. This is too morally repugnant to keep present to the soul as a continual theme. It is interesting how long people will hold on to the doctrine of election (traditionally conceived), even if it leads to universalism. A strange situation.

So it would seem that to put God in any kind of vacuum (love or sovereignty) is a self-defeating position. But what happens if we remove God from the contrived vacuums? Many have tried and failed to reconcile both the sovereignty and love of God, but debates such as this, the Trinity, etc. never seemed to have been deemed of great importance to the apostles. Can it be possible that they considered such questions rather like a fish pondering the existence of water— a kind of “goes without saying” thing? The answer, as I’ve tried to explain it here many times, is love, and very well-stated in yet another comment at that article:

I would preserve free will, even if I were allowed to choose between election of all to heaven and free will with not all saved, for the same reason that God did: one cannot have a real relationship of love without the possibility of rejection and of choosing the loved even in the face of difficulty. I think that love is the higher and more primary rationale over moral responsibility, and that moral responsibility is the corollary of freely willed love. That is, it is necessary to make how God deals with rejection of his love (i.e., hell, annihilation) moral.

One would think that the Universalist would see this clearly: love isn’t love if it isn’t free, and if it’s free then it must allow love to be rejected.

Yet one would also think that the Calvinist would see this clearly: if God is truly sovereign then he has the right to allow people to have free will, and can even let them influence his decisions or actions.

And one would think as well that the anti-theist would see this clearly: only a loving God would, in spite of his sovereignty, allow his creatures to defy him and reject his love.

In the Bible, God is described as sovereign, just, holy, etc., but love is the only thing he is said to be; God doesn’t merely have love, he is love. Therefore, his sovereignty can never operate without it. Justice and mercy are not incompatible but complementary; each by itself would deny the nature of God. Jesus’ sacrifice is what allowed mercy without violating justice. So there will be ultimate justice as well as ultimate mercy, and which we receive depends completely on our personal choice regarding the love of God extended by grace through faith in the risen Jesus.

But keep in mind that all these things extend beyond this life; justice isn’t denied forever though it may be delayed in this life. Yet at the same time, even eternity isn’t guaranteed to change people from rejecting God to accepting him. It’s quite probable that this particular choice will be denied once we leave earth; otherwise we have to concede that people could choose to reject God after having been in heaven.

The objection then arises, “But that’s crazy! Nobody in hell would choose to stay there, and nobody in heaven would choose to leave.” Yet we know from experience that this is not true; many who have been in prison are released only to commit their crimes again and be sent right back. Anti-theists tend to take the attitude that to bow to God is far more distasteful than the agonies of hell, and some have stated openly that they would never regret their choice. (This was actually the point of an early episode of Star Trek called The Menagerie: “Humans’ history shows them to have a hatred for captivity, even if it is pleasant and benevolent”.) Of course nobody wants to suffer, but given a choice between suffering and bowing to God, many people’s pride is so great that they would prefer suffering. This, I believe, may be at least part of what the Bible means by “the secret of lawlessness” (2 Thes. 2:7). And it is the sin of pride which made Satan what he is, and will be forever.

At the heart of such choices, besides pride, is really faith: the Christian trusts God to be like a father rather than a slave owner, while the unbeliever trusts that either there is no afterlife or it won’t be like the Bible says it will. The Christian trusts that there will be justice at last for victims and soothing for the oppressed, while the anti-theist isn’t concerned about unpunished evildoers or innocent victims.

But what about the Calvinist and the Universalist? They fare no better than the anti-theist, because the C denies the injustice of sending babies to hell while the U denies the injustice of sending murderers to heaven. The fact is that all three perspectives fail to follow their beliefs to their logical conclusions, and all three have a distorted definition of love and power.

To repeat what I’ve said often, this life is a test and the world is under the temporary juristiction of Satan. We should expect only bad things to happen here, but the fact that good things happen too is proof that God still puts limits on Satan’s sovereignty, stolen by trickery as it was. Our task is to choose where to put our faith and to have that faith tested, and we cannot demand a chance to change our answers after the test has been graded because that would be most unfair to those who passed it legitimately.

When you consider where each argument leads and examine whether they are consistent or not, you have a choice to make. And in light of the turmoil in the world these days, those of us who have put our trust in Jesus should have a special sense of urgency. If we love the lost we will do everything we can to implore them to reconcile with God through Jesus, because terrible times are about to come to the earth. Yes, it’s been bad enough, but Jesus told of a time when “there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now— and never to be equaled again” (Mat. 24:21). If God is love, sovereign, just, merciful, and holy— not just a few of those but all of them— then we can only conclude that the time of choosing is temporary:

So while it is still called Today, if you hear his voice don’t harden your hearts… And who did he swear would never enter his rest? The disbelieving. Now we can see that they were not able to enter because of distrust. So then, beware that while the promise of entering his rest is left open you are not left out, because we too have been brought the good news. But hearing the word did them no good because it was not mixed with faith.
(Heb. 3:15-4:2)

Calvinism must come to grips with the damage it does to the love of God, and Universalism must come to grips with the damage it does to the holiness of God. Focus on the love of God and remember that love must be free; this will answer any objection about various scriptures typically offered as proof that God is either unloving or weak— or self-contradictory. We cannot watch people run toward the edge of a cliff and do nothing to warn them, or to deny they’ll fall to their deaths; we must speak the whole truth if we care. But above all, we must know the God we worship.

One of a Kind

Posted on April 23, 2011 by Paula Fether

It’s that time of year again, when most people focus on bunnies and eggs and other ancient fertility symbols. But tomorrow the Christian world celebrates the most important day of all: when Jesus rose from the dead. This, not good behavior, good theology, or good feelings, is what sets the Christian faith apart from all others. Whether people write Jesus off as a fable, a madman, a prophet, or a good teacher, they have to admit that no other widely-known religious, philosophical, or political figure has ever predicted he would rise from the dead or claimed to be God. It isn’t Jesus’ teachings or example that made the difference; there have been exemplary figures throughout history. The crux, if you will, is the Resurrection. Jesus is truly one of a kind.

This year I decided to just list past articles on Resurrection Day, in order by date:

Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection all happened as predicted, and because of that I have chosen to place my faith in Him alone as Savior, the One who made God’s offer of reconciliation possible. I freely accepted His offer and forsook all others. Because of that, and nothing else, I am guaranteed a place in heaven as an adopted child of God (Rom. 8:15, 23, Gal. 4:5-7, Eph. 1:5, 14, 2 Cor. 1:22, 5:5, Heb. 7:22, 1 John 5:1). This is no kind of elitism or “holier than thou” claim, but an expression of gratitude and hope.

This year, let us all pray that many more souls will be told this simple message and believe, for the time is very short.

Universal Deja Vu

Posted on March 30, 2011 by Paula Fether

I had every intention of trying to focus only on the positive aspects of the Christian faith and try to start a new building instead of repairing the old. But to just ignore the false teachings racing through the Christian community would mean that there’d be no one left to occupy that new building. I care too much for my brothers and sisters in Christ to allow that to happen. And this very concept will turn out to be ironically significant in the quotes below.

The topic again is Universalism, one that seems to be making a resurgance (ref. earlier article). Here are statements from the latest article in a series called Blogging Heaven and Hell. I have quoted Sue many times and have much respect for her as a Greek scholar and Christian egalitarian. What she has suffered from professing Christians is horrible and the perpetrators will get what’s coming to them. But this too will turn out to highlight great irony in the teaching she is now promoting as at least equally possible as its opposite view. She is quoting a book by a Robin Parry, so please read her article first.

if we understand that hell does not last for ever.

Parry has forced his desired conclusion into the argument he makes for proving it. This is poor, poor reasoning.

Judgement is corrective and restorative, rather than eternal and destructive

Once again, Parry asserts his desired conclusion as its own definition. He’s only making up what he wants the Bible to say.

hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

In THIS LIFE we have correction and hope people change their minds. But no such hope is presented in scripture for the NEXT LIFE.

If we saw someone doing something that would lead to their death, we would forcibly prevent them from doing this action.

So we can force our will onto another adult? We can plead, we can reason, we can cry, but in the end the decision is the individual’s, not ours, as if we are God.

We would not stand by and watch our own children commit suicide and simply say that they had chosen it.

Are we talking about all adults or only our own children? Not all adults are God’s children (John 1:12), as I mentioned in a comment on my earlier post Unintended Consequences. Becoming a child of God is contingent NOT upon the reconcilation Jesus made possible but on our acceptance of that reconciliation offer through faith in Jesus alone… in THIS LIFE. So Parry has substituted any given adult for our own dear children as if the two are the same, much the way Islam attempts to assign moral equivalence between dying for one’s faith and killing for one’s faith.

The last point for Parry is that universal salvation best fits the metanarrative of the Bible. He sees the Bible as being composed of three central narratives. The first is the fall of humanity from immortality, the second is the exile of Israel, third is the death of Christ. Christ rises from the dead, Israel is restored o the land and humanity is saved from eternal death.

Parry has ignored large chunks of scripture to form his metanarrative. Humanity’s fall, if Universalism is true, should never have resulted in millennia of suffering, especially when Uni continally cites the suffering of the innocent as justification for calling this life, not the next, the hell scripture talks about. Wasn’t it only Adam and Eve who needed correction? Why did God wait so long to send Jesus, or better yet, why did God stand by and watch His children commit suicide and make Jesus’ sacrifice necessary in the first place? If God will not allow eternal suffering, then why would He allow temporary suffering?

I would add to this that a strong argument for universal salvation is that in the Hebrew Bible there is no direct teaching of eternal conscious torment.

Suzanne is arguing from silence, and as I’ve mentioned before, ignoring God’s timing: Acts 17:30 says that God previously ignored ignorance but now, since Jesus has come, commands that everyone repent (change their mind). There is no excuse for rejection of the gospel of the risen Jesus, and no remedy for those who leave this life in that state of rejection. God can be trusted to account for ability and opportunity, and would never blame someone for that which they cannot control or grasp (all claims of Calvinism to the contrary notwithstanding). He will judge fairly. But that includes the central issue of our faith: the risen Lord Jesus. We cannot call ourselves Christians without it.

So my question is whether Christ came to bring salvation to the few and eternal conscious torment to the many, or if he came in order that all may be saved.

As I’ve said many times, Christ did NOT come to bring salvation only to a few; He came to save ALL (again, claims of Calvinism to the contrary notwithstanding); He came to draw all to Himself (John 12:32). But not to FORCE all, or to change our wills first and then call our repentance free, or any other such thing. Salvation is by faith because of what Jesus did. In my Reconciled book I explain why He had to die and why we must believe He rose again and give only Him our allegience to be saved. How can Christians, of all people, not understand this? What is the point of being a Christian at all when there is more justice to be found in the concept of karma than in Universalism? Why not be an atheist and just enjoy life… or a monster and torture and kill because Jesus will save us anyway?

I regret to see evangelicals presented with the notion that only one side of this debate is valid and tenable.

Here again we have the equivalence argument, that somehow salvation by faith is the same as salvation by force. But Universalism is every bit as intolerant of opposing views as any other belief. It vehemently denies the teaching of eternal suffering for those who leave this life having rejected Jesus as Savior. It openly declares the opposing view invalid and untenable. We have seen a parallel in this approach with the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, where the argument in favor of teaching evolution in public schools was that all views should be considered; once that was allowed, evolutionism quickly disallowed all other views and vigorously denounces them to this day.

You may see that as a thinly-veiled slippery slope argument, but the point is that Uni and non-Uni are not two equal possibilities but diametrically opposed to each other. Either people do have to accept Jesus as Savior or they do not; either Christians are to tell the world to trust Jesus in order to be reconciled (2 Cor. 5:18-20) or they are not. (This is not even in the same league as the Calvin/Arminius debate, since that is a purely academic issue over how salvation happens to an individual; both sides agree on what the gospel is and that it must be told to everyone.) This Uni debate is over the very definition of our faith and our actions as believers. Quite simply, if one has adopted the beliefs of Uni, one no longer needs faith, the Bible, or even to care about justice or mercy, since whether we like it or not in this life, we will be spending eternity with God. But consider the very last chapter of the Bible, Rev. 22:11-16–

Let those who do wrong continue to do wrong; let those who are vile continue to be vile; let those who do right continue to do right; and let those who are holy continue to be holy… Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. I, Jesus, have sent my messenger to give you this testimony for the churches.

Suzanne is not my enemy; Parry is not my enemy. And because they are not, and neither are those who follow them, I am compelled to raise the alarm on this teaching that would drain the power from the gospel since no one has to believe it, and that would discourage study of the Bible since it no longer matters. (I am always puzzled by any teaching that uses the Bible to justify dismissing the Bible.) Jude 1:3-4 says,

Dear ones, I had intended to write to you about our common salvation but now must write to urge you to contend for the faith that was once and for all handed over to the holy ones. For some people have slipped in whose judgment was written about long ago. They violate what is holy, they trade our God’s favor for a license to indulge, and they disown our only Owner and Master Jesus the Anointed.

Though Uni does not consciously promote a license to sin, it removes the incentive and divine condemnation of sin in this life, for there is to be no penalty, no justice against perpetrators, no vengeance for the victims (see Rev. 6:10). We all know that there is little justice in this life, but Uni makes sure that it will never be had in the next, because those who do indulge in sin will go to heaven with the most pious believer. What scripture actually teaches however, if we look at all of it and not just parts, is that this reconciliation has a condition attached, and that while there is universal equality of opportunity, there is not universal equality of outcome. God’s blessings are for His children, and His curses are for His enemies. Only then will there be justice; only then will the victim bask in the comfort of heaven and the perpetrator be expelled from the presence of God.

This is Parry’s great error; the apparent disparity between salvation for some and eternal hell for some is not solved by presuming that God is less just than karma, but that while the offer of salvation is available to all without regard for how sinful they’ve been, each person must accept that offer in order to receive it. Salvation is a gift, and a gift has to be both offered by the giver and accepted by the intended recipient. It is offered to all but not given to all. Remember this passage?

Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so also must the Human be lifted up, so that everyone who trusts in him may have eternal life. Likewise, since God loved the world, he also gave his only son so that everyone who would trust in him would not be destroyed but have eternal life. For God did not dispatch his son into the world to pass judgment on it, but to save it through him. The one putting trust in him is not condemned, but the one not trusting is condemned already for rejecting the name of the only God-Man.

How to follow Jesus

Posted on March 2, 2011 by Paula Fether

1– Meet Him

The real Jesus is described in the Bible as:
1. The Jewish Messiah
2. The Son of God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, the King of Kings
3. The agent and sustainer of creation
4. The “spotless lamb”, the sacrifice for the sins of the world
5. The first to rise from the dead in an immortal body
6. The great High Priest of the temple in heaven
7. The mediator between God and humanity

2– Accept Him

Jesus only requires that we trust Him to reconcile us to God. That means we rest instead of trying to work for that which is offered freely. It also means we want to be reconciled, we want to be on good terms and in a close relationship. If we come to Jesus simply to escape the wrath of God then we treat Jesus as a mere “get out of hell free” card instead of a Person who loves us. Fear of hell may motivate us to listen to the gospel (the “good news” about Jesus), but it is not the same as the gospel. It is Jesus we should want, not only the “life preserver” he threw to us.

An illustration: Suppose a man buys a ring for a woman he hopes to marry. When he offers her the ring, she does not have to accept it. But if she does, it isn’t just the ring she is accepting but the man. In the same way, it should be Jesus we want, not just the salvation He bought for us. But this also means we give up former, conflicting beliefs. At weddings we often hear the phrase “forsaking all others” as a pledge of faithfulness or loyalty by both the man and the woman to never again enter into an intimate relationship with anyone else. In the same way, we can’t just add Jesus to whatever else we want or whatever god we might have worshiped before. Salvation, like marriage, is “narrow” by nature; there is no point in either of those if it isn’t exclusive and uncompromising.

3– Walk with Him

When two people are estranged they don’t “walk together” but live separate lives, in a state of hostility. When they reconcile, they don’t continue living separate lives but “walk together”, sharing their lives and enjoying each other’s company. So it is with the one who has reconciled to God through faith in Jesus. You don’t just accept the gift of salvation and then put it on a shelf to gather dust or visit it once a week (or twice a year), but instead you talk daily and often with Jesus and learn to please Him– not because you must, but because you love Him as you would a dear brother. You study the Bible to get to know Him better and apply its teachings to yourself as you grow in understanding.

If you walk closely with Jesus, you cannot help but see other people in a new light. You want them too to experience this reconciliation, this peace, this love and hope and assurance. You lose interest in the world and its ways. You stop asking “who can I control?” and start asking “who can I help?” You don’t look up or down at other believers, but across, neither elevating nor debasing yourself, treating others as neither priests above you nor servants below you. You realize that while you will someday stand alone at the Judgment and give an account of your own life, you stand shoulder-to-shoulder with other believers in this life.

4– Live in His house

As in any “family”, the community of believers (or “body of Christ”) sometimes has to face problems that arise from human frailty. A healthy family doesn’t ignore harm done to its members, whether it’s done to oneself or someone else, and especially if it grieves the “parents” (Holy Spirit of God). It faces the problems and seeks a solution, honoring the rules set by the “parents”. For example, if a family has a rule against bringing wild animals into the house, they have to deal with anyone who does so, as gently as possible but as firmly as necessary. Likewise, if a fellow believer is teaching or doing things that clash with what scripture says, other believers must confront the erring one for the sake of the Body’s health and safety. We ask God where the lines are drawn and honor Him by not crossing them. Sometimes a family has to expel a child who is uncontrollable, and sometimes the Christian community has to expel a believer who refuses to admit or give up a sin. If we truly love God and His people, we will not allow anyone to infect, injure, or destroy others; love does not stand idly by while its beloved is harmed, even if the one doing harm is beloved as well. We bend a lot and try to be forgiving, but there can be a point where this very forgiveness becomes an endorsement or enabling of sin.

5– Keep your eyes on Him

These are the basic principles of what it means to follow Jesus. No individual scripture passage will violate them, and if it appears to, we must be misunderstanding it. Some may argue that “the specific overrules the general”, but that would be like saying the family rule against wild animals in the house doesn’t apply to deadly vipers because they don’t have legs. How could we possibly think that there are times when one believer can rule over another, or that some forms of perversion are okay because they allegedly don’t hurt other people– which ignores the fact that they grieve God? How can we accept “the Golden Rule” but make excuses for mistreating others?

There was a time when Jesus walked on water, and Peter was able to do the same as long as he kept his eyes on Jesus. In the same way, if we focus on Jesus and the basics of this relationship, we won’t “sink” into rationalizing sin or looking for “loopholes”. God is not the kind to confuse us or contradict Himself, or to play favorites; in fact, He has a habit of choosing the weak and lowly over the strong and aggressive. In Him there is no “might makes right” or “first come, first served”, and He gives strong warnings to those who would prey upon the weak or demand “seats of honor”.

Summary

Following Jesus is a relationship and a life, not a religion to perform. And if it is not a religion then we need to resist treating it like one: sacred buildings and furniture, a separate clergy or priestly class, rituals, claiming authority over individual conscience or families, controlling outward behavior by force instead of appealing to the Relationship, and all the other trappings of religious clubs or businesses. We cannot wear the cloak of religion while denying we’re in one; we cannot run a business and say it’s a relationship. If we don’t hire a spouse or child, we shouldn’t hire priests or officers. We must follow Jesus in such a way that no one will mistake us for practicing a religion, and will instead ask us how they too can walk with Him.

What does it mean, then, to “worship” God? It simply means to live in the Relationship, because your actions will follow your heart. To worship is to honor and praise, and that’s something we can do every minute of every day. We don’t need appointments or schedules to arrange meetings with spouses or children, and we don’t need them to meet with God. We are not God but have His Spirit within us as His “seal” or pledge or guarantee that the day will come for the “wedding feast”. And if we truly love and belong to Jesus, we will eagerly await that Day and invite as many others as we can to the “wedding”. Don’t take the attitude we sometimes hear of someone getting “hitched” or a “ball and chain”, because that’s not how people view the one they claim to love.

Does Jesus have your heart, or just your bank account and compliance with rules? The answer you give to that question is the difference between saved and lost. And if He has your heart, then there is no need for the appearance of a club or business or religion. Just live, and live like Jesus matters.

I’m hoping to continue on this positive, proactive path as a constructive phase of my walk with Jesus. I spend so much time trying to expose and oppose what is wrong with Christianity, that I think there needs to be a clear presentation of the ideal and its practical outworking in daily life. Just as a dieter needs replacements for high-calorie foods, ex-”churchians” need something to fill the vacuum. People are more willing to jump if they can see a safe place to land.

If you’d like to help with this reconstruction effort, please post ideas in the comments here. After a while I may make it a separate part of my website as more of a library instead of a blog.

References

Descriptions of Jesus:
1. John 1:41, 4:25-26, Acts 2:31, 17:3, etc.
2. Isaiah 9:6-7, 1 Tim. 6:15, Rev. 19:16
3. Col. 1:15-20
4. John 1:29, 36, 1 John 2:2, 4:10, Rom. 3:25, Rev. 22:3
5. 1 Cor. 15:20, 42-44, 53, Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5
6. Heb. 3:1, 4:14,6:20
7. 1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 8:6, 9:15, 12:24
John 12:44, Acts 16:31, Rom. 5:10, 10:9, 2 Cor. 5:18-20
Mt. 20:20-28, 23:8, Mark 10:13-16, 35-45, John 8:12, 12:35, Acts 15:11, Romans 12, Eph. 2:8-9, 1 Thes. 4:1, 1 John 1:7
1 Cor. 5, 13, 2 Cor. 2:5-10, 1 Thes. 5:14-21, 1 John 4:1
Mt. 7:12, 14:22-31, 1 Cor. 1:26-29

Cross-examination

Posted on January 7, 2011 by Paula Fether

That’s a title loaded with meaning for Christians of course. But today I’m using it to refer to arguments against theism and especially the Christian faith. We all have a tendency to take the first or first few rounds of a debate as all there is to discuss, and then form conclusions based upon what may be incomplete information. But if we follow the wisdom of Prov. 18:17, we know we must keep going back and forth until no new arguments can be made. That’s the ideal of course, but I think we frequently quit too soon.

Below is a direct quote from a message board, name withheld to protect privacy. My response follows and presumes I have accurately understood the poster’s arguments. Even if I have not, I think it might be a good reference should the points I argue against come up in the future. Also to clarify, the quoted comment was not directed at me personally, so when the commenter refers to past arguments made s/he is not referring to anything I had said.

I still think that assigning emotions to a God is very…Greek. Zeus had his way with my wife last night should not be a basis for a modern belief in a Creator. Yet, God with His personality can and will have His way with your wife if that is what it takes to get “through to you”, right? From your own words, He will even invade your Free Will and start throwing out things like Pride, Self-Determination, and Drive. (Which always made me wonder how pro athletes can have any type of relationship with this God?).

Faith, Hope, and Love are the things that pushed me out of religion. I can’t have a God that REACTS to the place and person I live in! How is Neptune sending the Kraken to destroy Jopa any different than God rooting around in your life like Job? It’s not. The same flesh that created Zeus also created Jesus. Because neither of the two is benign. They CAN be good to you…or, they CRUSH your life to make a point that they are GOD!

Love is from Awareness. A dog owner will swear to you that the basic building blocks of love are even there in the animal kingdom. Just look at their dog.

Another point you make and is often made is that there is basically no point to life if there is no God. Nothing matters and lets all rape and kill each other. Ok, let’s be real here, your not gonna do that and just look at the vast number of people who DO believe in a God…that rape and kill. For God sakes that is a terrible argument. All the things that matter in your life now will remain of paramount priority the next second after you realize the incarnation of the Person God is utter bullshit. Your kids will still matter, actually, now that the concern for the afterlife is over you start to really panic about making your time on earth count. That’s a drawback I’ll be honest. As I write this I’m wasting 10 hours of my life at an office. Such is life.

I am puzzled about how much stress a “loving” God puts on you though. I know…He doesn’t. But, it will occur to you someday that it does. You’d be amazed at how much strain it places you under being attached to Him like a child. I see it in my eldest son’s eyes as he vexes himself over impressing me. I know that it will never be entirely possible for him to let that go, no matter what I say or do. God should be better than that, but He ain’t. It’s in that relationship that I learn that I’m projecting my life into the Art of God. Art imitates Life; God imitates Life. Like Art, that is why He seems so real. Look at it…my God that looks just like a flower..it looks real. Religion is a another form of Art that imitates Life; it does not birth Life.

Free Will/Awareness…we are actually very young as a species in dealing with them. I’d give anything for an alien species much older than us to show us how they dealt with Awareness, but then they’d just kill and eat us. Such is Life.

Now I’ll list the points I see in this quote and respond.

1. God is without self-restraint or a character that restricts His actions

Unlike the Greek pantheon– the lenses through which you seem to view all religions– the God of the Bible is described as being the very definition and standard of love, justice, compassion and mercy. But many don’t realize that being just or holy necessarily involves opposition to that which is not just or holy, hence the wrath of God and hatred of all that is “wrong”. Some might say that God has no right to be or set the standards, but then who does? Are we to dispense with all notions of right and wrong or justice, simply because anyone who does so is allegedly arrogant? And if not even God can set the standards, then we have put ourselves above Him as His judges, and thereby shown the greatest arrogance of all. Can it be anything but arrogant to say that our Creator cannot make rules for us?

You mentioned that we should observe the behavior of dogs; that works for this issue very well. Do humans own, train, and restrict dogs? That is evil by your definitions and judgment of God. Yet we know that any pets we have benefit by our restrictions and rules, because we know more of the dangers of the wild than they do. Can it be so hard to admit that maybe God knows of spiritual dangers we cannot see, and by listening to Him we are safe from them? Here again we face the issue of whether we have the right to judge God.

As for faith, hope, and love, you’re actually arguing that people shouldn’t love either, because it’s only action/reaction on the order of amoeba. But who are you to decree that God must not interact with His creation? And if you’d read Job to the end, you’d see that when a puny human shakes his puny fist at his Creator, that Creator laughs at such an incredible display of ego and self-delusion. Yet you call this a matter of God “rooting around” in our lives, as if He is a rodent or mosquito. Should your dog order you to stop “rooting around” in his life by decreeing what he shall eat and drink and when he shall relieve himself? Talk about a control-freaky god!

As for your dog’s love of you, understand that dogs are pack animals who are loyal to their pack (whether dogs or people) and bow to the authority of the alpha or leader. In the wild they know nothing of the level of love humans experience, because their brains simply cannot grasp such a level of abstraction. Sure, some of them can be impressive in their ability to learn our commands and we become very attached to them even for such a little thing as being cute. But when dogs show by nature a devotion we seldom exhibit ourselves, do you actually believe they are conscious of what they’re doing, and that they could choose not to love us when we are hypocritical toward them? Apples and oranges.

2. God invades a person’s free will

Some Christians believe that; I do not. They distort the sovereignty and power of God so much that it is divorced from His character, to the point where He actually more resembles Satan by forcing people to be sinners and then punishing them for sinning. I view this belief, commonly known as Calvinism, with the deepest contempt.

You mention Pride, but pride in and of itself is not what God hates, but only pride in self. God gives us life and gave up His own life for ours, so what can we brag about? It’s that kind of pride, the kind that says “who is God to rule over me?”, that God hates. You wouldn’t keep a dog that continually snarled and snapped at you, and if it also attacked others you might even have it euthanized so it would no longer pose a danger. In the same way, per the scriptures I’ll list under point 4, God does not kill people out of some twisted sadistic pleasure, but to limit the amount of damage such people can do to others. And that’s only when He directly intervenes. The general mortality and hardships of life are due to the sin of the first human who was made from the earth. And God, in His allowance of our free will, did not keep it from happening, for a love and obedience that is forced is fake and artificial. I have other posts in my blog that go deeper into that issue.

You also cite self-determination and drive as things God allegedly hates, but on what basis do you make this charge? Does the Bible not hold up as role models those people who stood strong, showed boldness and conviction, and stepped out in faith when others were afraid to budge? Does the NT not tell us to strive, contend, and race to win? This charge is completely false; it is a straw man. It shows that you lack understanding of the faith you are criticizing.

3. Judging God by His followers

As you’ve observed, you can’t judge any god or philosophy by its followers, because there are people in every such group who do things against their own group’s teachings. So I agree that using the behavior of the followers of any given religion as an argument is not wise. What we **can** do is judge them by their own standards, but the problem there is in making sure we know what those standards are. A frequent counter-charge is that the outsider does not understand the teachings, and that is a much stronger argument. As a lifelong student of the Bible, I can vouch for the fact that even many Christians don’t grasp what it says, largely because of poor logic or an inadequate grasp of ancient grammar, customs, and figures of speech. Many believe that the criteria I just listed are wrong in themselves and not to be used. So people being fallible as they are, and sentient beings with wills of their own, it should come as no surprise that there are differences in how people practice their religions or philosophies.

For the record, the NT teaches Christians to “die to sin”; the apostle Paul forcefully refuted the argument that we have “a license to sin”. If we love God and claim to be reconciled to Him, how can we then ignore Him or continually irritate Him? Would we treat any human being that way if we claim to be reconciled to them? So the “license to sin” argument is another straw man. Christians are told in no uncertain terms to live cleaner, holier, morally superior lives compared to the rationalistic self-indulgence of the world. And as for how we live generally, nobody has more purpose and motivation than the Christian, for we are charged with not only good stewardship of all God has given us, but also with telling others the Good News that instead of having to work or earn a place in heaven, we simply must trust God by accepting the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as the means of our reconciliation. Because of those things we are to live each day in an effort to please our Savior.

4. The alleged “stress” of pleasing God

I think you may be equating “pleasing” with “appeasing”. The gods of most religions are to be appeased only; that is, the people view their gods much like Zeus with his handful of lightening bolts waiting for an excuse to throw them, eagerly watching like a vulture to see if anyone slips up (many Christians mistakenly view the God of the Bible this way). So the people walk on eggshells, fearing and hoping that whatever trinket they presented will stave off the punishment and buy them some time. But the God of the Bible is not Zeus; He does not enjoy punishing people and “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezekiel 18:23, 32, 33:11), and waits for people because “He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

Pleasing God is a completely different matter. Those of us who have freely chosen to return God’s love feel no stress in pleasing Him, but enjoy doing so. If you’re married, do you feel stress in making your spouse happy? Only if the relationship isn’t what it should be, which makes it not pleasing but appeasing. But if the relationship is close and healthy, each spouse pleasing the other is not only without stress but very enjoyable. It is the same with children; they only feel stress if they are not pleasing their parents but only appeasing them. As one enjoying a lifelong close relationship with God, I can tell you I feel no stress but only joy in pleasing Him.

5. The alleged collective consciousness of our “species”

… meaning we as humans possess a single shared memory, such that our experience with free will/awareness can be called “young”.

I have watched nature shows on Discovery Channel that made me laugh out loud because of the ridiculous notion that animals can know whether other animals have “been around” for a short or long time, evolutionarily speaking. An animal has no collective memory; it has no clue whether another animal is its historical adversary or a recent one. It only knows instinct and possibly the training it received from its parents, and whatever personal experiences it has already had.

Likewise, people only know the past by what they’re told from others. If a group of people has a long history of rejecting the idea of free will, then they will think anyone who believes in it is a crackpot; the reverse is true for a group holding to free will. This is the only sense in which being “young” as a group (not a species) can influence how people deal with ideas like free will and whatever “awareness” means (I presume sentience or self-awareness). I see no evidence for any single, collective, species-wide consciousness that determines our ability to deal with these issues.

Closing Thoughts

People are easily persuaded, and non-theists are no less vulnerable to that fault than theists. It can take a lot of effort to dig up all the pertinent arguments on an issue, or as I like to put in the signature of my message board posts, “Those who know all the answers haven’t heard all the questions”. One of the things I appreciate about the internet is how it exposes us to a wider variety of opinions than has ever been possible before. But as the movie line goes, “With great power comes great responsibility”, and so it is with the vast amount of information available to us today. “Choose wisely”, as another movie line says, and that is done by thinking through the ideas you hear. And on the matter of our eternal souls, this practice takes on great importance.

Does God Really Care?

Posted on October 15, 2010 by Paula Fether

Many years ago I blogged about a rebuttal to the book When Bad Things Happen to Good People. It addressed the issue of how a good and loving God could allow terrible suffering in this life. And the basic answer was that this life is not the only life, such that there is only injustice if God never pays people back in the next life. But as I also discussed in a recent post, Holding Satan’s Leash, what God allows in this life depends on much more than we may think. There is a cosmic battle going on, and the rules of the battle involve God not violating human free will.

The reason I’m bringing this up again is because of a book that was published recently, This Little Light. People have always done great evil in the names of their gods, but what this book does is show that “not all that glitters is gold”, or as Tozer said, not all that breathes the name of Jesus and comes wearing the cloak of Christianity is genuine. The way is narrow and few find it, but it seems that this has been forgotten by the multitudes that throng to the churches each week, and the clergy who either violate and destroy people or the ones who enable and cover for it.

That’s also why I’m so against The Institution, the thing that legitimizes control and power between believers. Regardless of the size of the congregation or where it meets, the real issue is the hierarchy, the clergy/laity class distinction. I fight this every day online, and most professing Christians lash back with hatred. They talk about how beautiful it is, how all those theologians can’t be wrong, how 2,000 years of church history can’t be lying to us. Then they tell me how rebellious I am, how antinomian, how conceited, and that I shouldn’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater”.

But I wonder how Calvinists justify their view of God in the light of this book’s testimony? The Calvinistic view teaches that God, by decreeing everything, turns a blind eye to most suffering (because, as they teach, He hates the non-elect— but apparently the elect don’t fare any better in many cases), and this book confirms it. Many victims of clergy abuse have had seared into their souls a connection between “faith talk” and unspeakable suffering, and take the words “God loves you” as a stab in the heart since He allegedly had some good purpose in, for example, allowing a “pastor” to repeatedly rape and abuse a child. What possible purpose could there be in that, even if the perpetrator winds up in hell (as also the non-elect victim will!)?

Rather, we should remember that the world is in the hands of “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4, Gal. 1:4) and then thank God that anything good ever happens. We who learn of this abuse are also being tested: do we bend over backwards to help the victims, or do we punish them by blaming them and making excuses for their abusers? What kind of God do we represent to them? Do we exhibit this love and justice? Remember that Jesus said we’ll all be judged according to the measure we used for others (Mt. 7:2). If you blame victims and excuse criminals, God will do the same to you on Judgment Day.

Which brings up another point: God is perfectly justified in sending evildoers to eternal hell. How could He be just or loving otherwise? Those who teach universalism and say that a loving God couldn’t do this are saying they care nothing for justice for the victims, that God loves perpetrators more. No wonder Paul said that if this life is the only life, we Christians are the most pitiful for believing a lie (1 Cor. 15:19)!

And surely God can be trusted to discern whether an unbeliever ever had a legitimate chance to hear and respond to the gospel. Is He not merciful? Does He really care more about the sparrow that falls to the ground (Mt. 10:29) than a “divine decree in eternity past”? Yes, as I’ve argued many times, an adult of sound mind must hear and respond to the gospel in order to be saved. But I think we are playing God to coldly consign to hell someone who was horribly abused and cannot respond to the gospel. Are they really in their right mind, any more than someone who was abused while hearing the music of Beethoven is in their right mind if they become afraid or ill at the mere sound of that music? There is surely a huge gap between the person who decides rationally to reject the gospel message, and the person who is unable to decide rationally.

We Christians need to understand that this world at present is under the control of Satan, though that control is bounded and temporary. Satan must think he can ultimately win by one method or another, one of them being that God will not be able to withhold help to victims of terrible suffering and thus violate free will and Satan’s current control of the world. We have to stop promising physical deliverance in this life and remember that the kingdom of God is “not of this world” (John 18:36).

An added bonus of this teaching is that we have an answer for why we thank God when good things happen. Many scoffers say, “Good things happen to atheists too, so why should anyone think God answered your prayers?” We can rightfully thank God for any and every good thing that happens, whether the direct result of prayer or not, since it is yet another instance where He outsmarted Satan and is beating him at his own game. The atheist has no one to thank, and no explanation for the concept of justice since they know very well that many crimes go unsolved.*

We may not be able to say anything that would help or soothe these victims of severe abuse, but we must be careful about the implications of what we say to the lost. Empty platitudes and shallow catchphrases only work among the comfortable. Think through to the logical conclusions of your beliefs, and be prepared to give answers (1 Peter 3:15) that accurately reflect the reality of this life and the next. It is not hateful to tell the truth and it is not loving to withhold it. Understand why God allows suffering, and what our hope is grounded in. Grapple with these questions instead of those silly devotional guides that only help you and not the suffering.

* Karma fares no better; it always blames the victim and tells them to do better next time, even though they can’t remember a thing from their alleged former life! And Hindu-type meditation, which they claim helps not only the practitioners but the whole world, has a dismal track record for the latter. One would expect India to be a veritable paradise with all those people meditating for thousands of years, but as a group they have fared worse than the unenlightened countries, especially those that have had a large Judeo-Christian influence.

Science Fiction

Posted on September 14, 2010 by Paula Fether

LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

In “The Grand Design,” co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” Hawking writes.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

I think Hawking has sacrificed science on the altar of God-hate. What makes a brilliant mind spew such utter nonsense, such laughable anti-science?

Science is all about observation and experimentation and falsifiablilty, but there has been a resolute march away from the concrete to the purely mathematical, because if you can cook the formulas with enough imaginary ingredients, not only will people think you’re smart but you also get to invent whatever you want. Formulas can’t account for the mass of the universe? Invent “dark matter”. Run into the brick wall of abiogenesis? Say it started a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away where we can’t observe it– and so our pet theory can’t be falsified.

But what of Hawking’s statements then? Doesn’t “The Grand DESIGN” mean there was a Grand Designer? Design cannot be denied; just a surface-skimming of the natural world tells us that the only alternative to explaining how bees and flowers exist because God designed them as interdependent from the start, is to make-believe that they just happened to evolve at precisely the same rate— for millions of years. Yeah, that’s the ticket— time is the magic wand we need so we can pretend there’s no God. Multiply that by the number of inter- and multi-dependent biological systems and you get a glimpse of the absurdity of design without a Designer.

Then there’s the even more ridiculous claim that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Pul-eeze! Paint this picture for me, Steve: there’s nuthin’. For a bazillion years (whatever that means when there’s no way to measure time). No matter, no laws, no forces, nuthin’. Now tell me how ANYTHING HAPPENED. To nuthin’. Explain that, Steve. I know I’m a peasant and a fool for my psychological crutch and all, but do try. I need something more than BLIND FAITH here, Steve.

If this is the depth to which eminent physicists have sunk, we have only the bleakest future ahead of us, as science is transmorgrified into a bizarre religion of Lord Dark Matter the Magical. It lives in a rainbow and lollipop universe where the observable laws of physics are discarded in favor of beliving things can cause themselves to exist, and we are told to blindly swallow the dogma of our betters when they say We now know the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks.* (That’s a REAL science site, by the way, so be sure to look at their other articles.)

And these atheists have the gall to mock OUR faith. Whatever.

* ADDED: see also this article

Holding Satan’s Leash

Posted on September 7, 2010 by Paula Fether

Job 1

8 Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”

9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has?… 11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”

12 The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”

Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

Job 2

3 Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.”

4 “Skin for skin!” Satan replied. “A man will give all he has for his own life. 5 But now stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face.”

6 The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life.”

1 Cor. 2

7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Rev. 20:3

He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

Did you notice what I did? Satan has to obey rules that God sets down. If this were not the case then we should expect a world where nothing good ever happens. While “good” seeks to persuade, “evil” seeks only to conquer, so a world where evil is more powerful would quickly do away with all good. Therefore, since there is some good in the world, good must be more powerful than evil. This is the rebuttal to the old charge that a good God would not allow evil in the world. And we see from the quote of 1 Cor. 2 that God has hidden some things in order to accomplish His goals for us. This in turn tells us that there is much more to human history than meets the eye.

We are the prize to be won in a cosmic chess match. God, the Master Chessplayer, knows all possible moves and will win the match without violating the rules of the game: human free will. Satan’s strategy has always been to outwit God and force Him into a corner that would make Him violate the free will He sovereingly granted to us, but Satan is not omniscient. We see a glimpse of this in the passages in Job, where God proves a point to Satan just by showing him someone who is “good”. Satan thinks God is wrong and that people are only good if God blesses them, but of course this is not always the case.

We are living in very trying times, facing a global meltdown of finance and government, but what we suffer in life shouldn’t surprise us. We are told over and over that all God wants from us is to trust Him. If everything is peachy there is no need for such trust, but if we stay true to Him through adversity we prove our faith. We need to remember this; we need to always picture our adversary as on a leash held by God. The time will come when that dragon is finally put in an eternal cage, but in the meantime we need to stand firm in our faith.

One God Fits All?

Posted on September 3, 2010 by Paula Fether

When Jesus said “open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest” (John 4:35), who’d have thought this could one day apply to the Body of Christ itself? Of all the people on the face of the earth who should know the gospel and be united around our faith, it should be us, yet a large number of Christians don’t seem to know what makes them such. But scripture tells us: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:4-6).

But Jesus also had this to say about a past/future congregation: “These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead” (Rev. 3:1), and Paul said in 2 Tim. 3, ” But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days… having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.” This late in the “church age”, we should hardly be surprised that such conditions exist now. But at the same time, we have to go about the task of spreading the gospel— even if that means witnessing to professing believers as the largest mission field of all.

There are very disturbing teachings coming from “Christendom” these days. Take this quote from Tony Campolo for example:

When it comes to what is ultimately important, the Muslim community’s sense of commitment to the poor is exactly in tune with where Jesus is in the 25th chapter of Matthew. That is the description of judgment day. And if that is the description of judgment day what can I say to an Islamic brother who has fed the hungry, and clothed the naked? You say, “But he hasn’t a personal relationship with Christ.” I would argue with that. And I would say from a Christian perspective, in as much as you did it to the least of these you did it unto Christ. You did have a personal relationship with Christ, you just didn’t know it. And Jesus himself says: “On that day there will be many people who will say, when did we have this wonderful relationship with you, we don’t even know who you are. . . ” “Well, you didn’t know it was me, but when you did it to the least of these it was doing it to me.” (emphasis mine)
— (source)

A slight variant of this teaching is that since there is only one God, then every god is that one God. But aside from the fact that Campolo ripped Jesus’ words completely out of its context of judging how people treated Tribulation believers, esp. Jews (or we’d have to say that salvation is not by faith but by good deeds alone), his reasoning is absurd. Can I say that I’m really married to Johnny Depp but just don’t know it?* Can someone who worships a tree or a rock be worshiping the one true God and not know it? Can you visit me at my house but say you really went to England to visit the queen? Jesus wasn’t saying that all worship of any god or thing is really worship of God; that is nothing but scripture-twisting. He was simply saying that how people of that time treat His followers shows their attitude toward Him.

Such wild interpretations can only be sustained by ignoring the many scriptures that teach against them and show that salvation must be by faith in the Jesus who died for our sins and rose from the dead, and that He is the God not of every religion but of “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”— which unmistakably distinguishes Him from even the so-called god of Islam, for not all of Abraham’s descendants are “children of promise” (Rom. 9:6-8). And even the Jews of the first century had to accept the crucified and risen Jesus as Messiah (Acts 2:38), for no one can have the Father without the Son (1 John 2:22-23, 5:10-12).

If everyone who worships something is really worshiping the one true God, then of what purpose is the Great Commission (Mt. 28:18-20)? And what sense can we make of the words of Paul in Rom. 10:9-15?

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

If in fact people can be saved by sincerely practicing their own religion, then it would be better to never send out missionaries to them! But the predictable objection is raised, “Then what about those who aren’t told?” There are several ways to answer this, but I think it really boils down to whether or not we trust God to be just and fair and merciful, that all who sincerely seek Him (Acts 17:27, Hebrews 11:6) will be told the gospel. The God who knows the number of hairs on your head and sees when a sparrow falls to the ground (Luke 12:5-7) cannot send someone to hell on a technicality. And no, rejecting the gospel one hears is not a technicality (or “cold doctrine”), but rebellion.

That reference in Acts 17 is very applicable on another level as well. Look at vs. 16 through 31 and note especially the last two verses:

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.

In the past God overlooked people worshiping God in ignorance, but now He does not. In fact, He COMMANDS all people everywhere to repent. And of course, the Greek word “repent” doesn’t tell us what is to be repented of, but only the context. And what is the context? Ignorance of the one true God. Certainly, Paul was using the “unknown God” inscription as a “hook” or way of introduction, and not validating their worship as having merit before God. But even if some take it that way, it seems obvious from the “command to repent” part that this age in history is one where worshiping in ignorance just doesn’t count.

God has stated clearly that He will not share his glory with another (Isaiah 42:8, 48:11), that He is a “jealous God” (Ex. 20:5, 34:14, Deut. 32:16 etc.), and that there is no name besides the Jesus who rose from the dead by which anyone can be saved (Acts 4:10-12). If there were no “other gods”, then God Himself spoke nonsense in the very first of the Ten Commandments! Worshiping anything or anyone but the God who sent Jesus His Son to die for our sins and rise again is worshiping an idol, and those who do not know God by name/identity are lost. That’s scripture. That’s the gospel.

* To my husband John: you know I’m being facetious.

Hypostasy

Posted on June 23, 2010 by Paula Fether

This unusual word is used in some theoretical physics and medical journals. But it comes from the word hypostasis, whose religious/philosophical meaning is “an underlying reality or substance” that refers to either all three Persons of the Trinity or the “hypostatic union” of divine and human in Jesus. But we need to be aware of teachings that can lead away from Biblical truths while intending to do the opposite, or “apostasy”.

Every coin has two sides, and every argument (well, many of them) has the potential of supporting unintended points. This is true of one of the newer and more dangerous teachings by Christians today: that the Son (Jesus) is eternally subordinated to the Father, called “Eternal Sonship” or “the eternal subordination of the Son” (ESS). I’ve argued against that teaching more than once in this blog. But this error resulting from an attempt to have Christians model the divine/human has an unexpected “evil twin” that appears to argue the opposite yet only ends up supporting it.

This opposite argument, which I will call “the Humble God” view or HG, makes its argument from scriptures such as the following: Ps. 113:6, John 14:9, Phil. 2:5-11, Mt. 20:28, Micah 6:8, Isaiah 57:15, Ps. 138:6, 1 Peter 5:5, Luke 15:21-28, etc.

Re. Ps. 113:6, it should be noted that the Hebrew word is “condescended”, not “humbled”. God “looks down upon” His creation and has pity on it. Condescension means stooping down to a lower level to help, and presumes that the condescender ranks above the other. Humility on the other hand means putting oneself in the lower rank or position. So when God stoops down to help people He is condescending to us, while when Jesus became human He humbled himself (Phil. 2:5-11). Only Jesus models humility, while the Trinity models condescension. In fact, “grace” is condescension, for it is favor bestowed from the greater to the lesser. This is entirely different from when the greater becomes the lesser.

Re. John 14:9, no one disputes the oneness of the Father and the Son, but this supports the fact that Jesus is divine, fully God, and says nothing about His humanity. Phil. 2:5-11 was already mentioned and has the same issue as John 14:9. In fact it is more explicit in that it states Jesus humbled himself after “being found in appearance as a man”. And it is in this state that Jesus “came to serve” in Mt. 20:28; it was in His humanity that he was humbled. Likewise, in Micah 6:8 it is people who are to “walk humbly with God”, not “walk with the humble God”. That God “dwells with the humble” ref. Isaiah 57:15 should come as no surprise, since that’s exactly what Jesus did as a human being; similar comments can be made for Ps. 138:6 and 1 Peter 5:5. The reference to the “prodigal son” in Luke 15:21-28, like the other references, speaks of compassion and condescension, not the father putting himself below his son in rank.

All that the scriptures tell us about humility is said to human beings in relationship to other human beings, not between God and His creatures. To lower God in this way is to make Him equal to His creation— the very serious error of panentheism, as well as being almost identical to the view that even God is lower in rank than people when He helps us.* What Jesus did humbly, He did as a human being, and this is not true of any other Person of the Trinity. The ESS argument holds that because Jesus is also divine then men can be divine (play the role of God to women’s role of subordinate Son, while saying men and women are equal in essence). The HG argument thinks that because Jesus is also human then God is also human. That is, the first tries to deify man, while the second tries to humanize the divine.

Both arguments seem unable to grasp the uniqueness of Jesus, that though He is fully God He is also fully human, and that this hypostatic union is true only of Him— not of any other human or any other Person of the Trinity. And both views have their motives, trying to justify some human institution or relationship by presuming to know more about the inner workings of the Trinity than scripture has given us. This over-reliance on heavy inference is, as I’ve said before, much like the over-reliance on theoretical physics: it’s of little practical value but makes some people look smart and get popular. But with Paul I would say, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). It’s fine to make inferences, but not to use them as necessary building blocks in a larger argument.

* There are no page numbers online, so “search this document” for something like “the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position”.

MacArthur and the Trinity

Posted on May 8, 2010 by Paula Fether

A friend alerted me to the article Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ by John MacArthur, and I felt the need to comment. At this time I don’t see any date stamp on it so I don’t know when it was written [EDIT: apparently 1999; see near end of document]. But while I had hoped this would denote a change in today’s relentless drive to demote Jesus, the more I studied it the more disappointed I became. It’s commendable for him to re-examine his beliefs, but I think he makes several errors in his argument.

I want to state publicly that I have abandoned the doctrine of “incarnational sonship.” Careful study and reflection have brought me to understand that Scripture does indeed present the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son as an eternal Father-Son relationship. I no longer regard Christ’s sonship as a role He assumed in His incarnation.

In order to make “You are my Son, this day have I begotten you” mean something other than “incarnational sonship”, it has to be allegorized and the meanings of ‘today’ and ‘begotten’ have to be changed to something entirely new. He knows the normal meanings as he used them in his former view:

“Begetting” normally speaks of a person’s origin. Moreover, sons are generally subordinate to their fathers. I therefore found it difficult to see how an eternal Father-Son relationship could be compatible with perfect equality and eternality among the Persons of the Trinity. “Sonship,” I concluded, bespeaks the place of voluntary submission to which Christ condescended at His incarnation (cf. Phil. 2:5-8; John 5:19).

“Begetting” still speaks of a person’s origin; this has not changed. Its metaphorical use would only apply if we were to say something like “The new law begat a great increase in bureaucracy”, yet even then the begetting refers to causation, not some abstract philosophical concept. As for the subordination of sons to fathers, this is a temporary situation. Though the father/son relationship will always exist, the authority will not; when the son grows up he is no longer under his father’s authority, and he will then truly be his equal.

But his former view’s flaw was not in a clash between inequality and eternity, but in failing to recognize two vital points: that a father must precede his son in time, and that a son is only temporarily under his father’s authority. Further, he neglects to address the fact that Jesus at His incarnation became both God and Man, and it is His humanity that was subservient to the Father, never His divinity. So there is no conflict at all in the scriptures; Jesus took on humanity at a point in time, and this humanity was unequal to divinity. Therefore MacArthur has set out to solve a problem that doesn’t even exist.

1. I am now convinced that the title “Son of God” when applied to Christ in Scripture always speaks of His essential deity and absolute equality with God, not His voluntary subordination. The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ time understood this perfectly. John 5:18 says they sought the death penalty against Jesus, charging Him with blasphemy “because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”
…
If Jesus’ sonship signifies His deity and utter equality with the Father, it cannot be a title that pertains only to His incarnation. In fact, the main gist of what is meant by “sonship” (and certainly this would include Jesus’ divine essence) must pertain to the eternal attributes of Christ, not merely the humanity He assumed.

The Jewish leaders were looking at a man, who they presumed was not also God; this is what they objected to. The reason the Son could be equal to the Father is because Jesus was also God. We should also note that the Hebrew expression “son of”, such as in “a son of Israel”, means “one in the group”, e.g. an Israelite. Thus Jesus’ titles “Son of God” and “Son of Man” identify Him as both divine and human, that is, One of the class “God” and One of the class “man”. So John 5:18 does not force us to replace one with the other at all, but instead shows the Jews’ lack of understanding and faith. Yes, Jesus was saying “I am God”, but He was not saying “I was always the Son”; MacArthur’s argument is a non-sequitur.

2. It is now my conviction that the begetting spoken of in Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place in time. Even though at first glance Scripture seems to employ terminology with temporal overtones (“this day have I begotten thee”), the context of Psalm 2:7 seems clearly to be a reference to the eternal decree of God. It is reasonable to conclude that the begetting spoken of there is also something that pertains to eternity rather than a point in time. The temporal language should therefore be understood as figurative, not literal.

Here is a case of redefinition of scripture that otherwise would not fit the theory being promoted; it is an example of eisegesis. That is, because he misunderstood the fact that one aspect of the nature of Jesus is eternal and divine while the other was begotten and human, he was forced to impose a novel interpretation on scriptures that clearly oppose this view, his assertion in the article that “most theologians recognize this” notwithstanding. What is apparent “at first glance” has to be reinterpreted to fit, and that means ignoring the meanings of the words in their context. Is everything else in that context subject to redefinition, such as “I have installed my king on Zion, my holy hill” and “you will rule them with an iron scepter”? Keep in mind that these metaphors point to realities: God WILL install His King on Zion, and Jesus WILL rule absolutely. Likewise, Jesus WAS incarnated at a point in time and BECAME the “Son” at that moment. The metaphor is intended to convey to us a change in relationship that applied to Jesus’ humanity. Where is this alleged “eternal decree”? How does any “begetting” happen in eternity past? The word means that someone or something was not, and then was. To attribute this to God is blasphemy! Yet in spite of understanding this, MacArthur continues to assert this new meaning:

To say that Christ is “begotten” is itself a difficult concept. Within the realm of creation, the term “begotten” speaks of the origin of one’s offspring. The begetting of a son denotes his conception–the point at which he comes into being. Some thus assume that “only begotten” refers to the conception of the human Jesus in the womb of the virgin Mary. Yet Matthew 1:20 attributes the conception of the incarnate Christ to the Holy Spirit, not to God the Father. The begetting referred to in Psalm 2 and John 1:14 clearly seems to be something more than the conception of Christ’s humanity in Mary’s womb.

It is not difficult at all to understand “begotten”, unless one is determined to make it mean something else and is having trouble finding a working substitute. The Spirit’s involvement in Jesus’ incarnation doesn’t change a thing; both He and “the power of the Most High” were involved, of course along with Mary. There is thus no warrant, logically or scripturally, to leap from here to a forced redefinition of Psalm 2 and John 1:14; this is another non sequitur.

Christ is not a created being (John 1:1-3). He had no beginning but is as timeless as God Himself. Therefore, the “begetting” mentioned in Psalm 2 and its cross-references has nothing to do with His origin.

But it has everything to do with the fact that He is of the same essence as the Father.

Again, this simply does not follow. The begetting clearly speaks of His incarnation at a point in time, while in His divinity He is eternal and equal to the Father. Very simple and clear as related in scripture, though there will always be particulars about this duality that our minds cannot grasp.

My previous view was that Scripture employed Father-Son terminology anthropomorphically–accommodating unfathomable heavenly truths to our finite minds by casting them in human terms. Now I am inclined to think that the opposite is true: Human father-son relationships are merely earthly pictures of an infinitely greater heavenly reality. The one true, archetypical Father-Son relationship exists eternally within the Trinity. All others are merely earthly replicas, imperfect because they are bound up in our finiteness, yet illustrating a vital eternal reality.

The previous view was correct, but the new one is not, as it is based upon the requirements of Eternal Sonship instead of scripture and sound reasoning. It would be just as reasonable to apply this principle to other aspects of Jesus, such as His relationship to the church as His Bride. Is this too a “picture” of some relationship that has existed in eternity past? Is everything people have done— including patriarchy and polygamy— to be read back into the eternal Trinity? Where does it stop?

If Christ’s sonship is all about His deity, someone will wonder why this applies to the Second Member of the Trinity alone, and not to the Third. After all, we don’t refer to the Holy Spirit as God’s Son, do we? Yet isn’t He also of the same essence as the Father?

Of course He is. The full, undiluted, undivided essence of God belongs alike to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is but one essence; yet He exists in three Persons. The three Persons are co-equal, but they are still distinct Persons. And the chief characteristics that distinguish between the Persons are wrapped up in the properties suggested by the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit… That such distinctions are vital to our understanding of the Trinity is clear from Scripture. How to explain them fully remains something of a mystery.

This is the “elephant in the living room”; what about the Spirit? We are talking about THREE Persons, not just two. But this attempt to explain why the Spirit is not also a “son” actually exposes the error in MacArthur’s defense of Jesus’ sonship as eternal. That all three Persons are of the same essence should go without saying, such that marking one of them “Son” is superfluous. What’s the point, especially in eternity? Jesus as divinity was not created, but His humanity certainly was, and from “the seed of the woman”. This was His “sonship” at a point in time, as clearly illustrated in Phil. 2:5-11.

In the Trinity debate on which I did a series of articles, this same argument was used: that the only way to tell one Person from another is through hierarchy; that is, without a pecking order there would not be three Persons. But these titles, rather than denoting hierarchy, show that Jesus became human at a point in time. Again the interpretation seems to go backwards. And if, as MacArthur admits here, the Trinity is beyond our understanding, then one must ask why this is such an important question to answer, seeing that it has absolutely no bearing on the gospel. We all agree Jesus is fully God and fully Man, and that there is one God in Three Persons; why all this splitting hairs about the inner workings of God? MacArthur’s conclusion seems to acknowledge this question:

this basic understanding of the eternal relationships within the Trinity nonetheless represents the best consensus of Christian understanding over many centuries of Church history. I therefore affirm the doctrine of Christ’s eternal sonship while acknowledging it as a mystery into which we should not expect to pry too deeply.

I must strongly object to the assertion that this new view “represents the best consensus of Christian understanding over many centuries of Church history”; it is unknown in church history except as heresy. MacArthur simply asserts his new view as not only correct in spite of it being a mystery, but claims that all the faithful scholars always held it as well. But again we must wonder what this is all about, what motivated it. And just as in politics we say “follow the money”, in theology we could say to look for what pet teaching depends upon it. And the prime candidate is patriarchy / male supremacy, as I’ve written about many times. If one wishes to make the logically impossible a reality (equal in essence, unequal in role), one needs a model. If one’s goal is to justify saying women are equal to men while forcing them to play a “role” that is neither temporary nor voluntary but based upon essence, then one must invent this in the Trinity, even while continually ignoring the fact that Three cannot map to Two.

Logically, there is simply no way to stretch Jesus’ “sonship” into eternity past without making Him a lesser God. Though the father/son relationship is of equal essence in humanity, it still denotes a progression, which cannot be true of Jesus’ divinity. There is simply no way to justify this whole exercise apart from a desire to support another untenable teaching. Jesus is God, Jesus is Man, and the same Spirit indwells every believer; that is what scripture teaches. I still await any coherent justification for dismembering the Trinity in this manner.

(EDIT: This really is another example of “vaporware“, per yesterday’s post.)

Thanks!

Posted on November 20, 2009 by Paula Fether

Last year I wrote about the approaching Thanksgiving holiday, and I think the events of the past year have brought some of the issues into sharper focus. Now more than ever, I would hope that people are waking up to what we are about to lose.

I thank God that I grew up in the America that was, the America that at least partially honored the Constitution and remembered a few facts about our founding and founders. But the next generation will not remember because they will live in a much different country.

They won’t remember fully-stocked grocery stores, plentiful clothing, single-family dwellings, and above all, freedom. We are already losing the right of free speech, a free press, and freedom of conscience. And they won’t remember when people could choose their own career, their own education, or their own car.

But if and when freedom is restored, those who taste it for the first time will understand what had been lost. But I hope that they will do a better job of passing down to succeeding generations what really matters: not simply to spoon-feed their values to them, but to explain what produced those values and why they matter. Flag-waving is all well and good, but without saying why this country was great, we fail to pass along the convictions that they stem from.

So also we fail as Christians to tell our children why we believe instead of only what we believe. And just as political ingratitude is the result of forgetting what formed this country, spiritual ingratitude is the result of forgetting what it took to secure our salvation. To be grateful to God is more than saying thanks, but living a life dedicated in word and deed to pleasing Him.

And that life includes, for me at least, thanking those who come here to talk about things that really matter. You contribute great insights and ask probing questions, and even hang out just to chitchat.

Tanx!

Apostles on the Witness Stand

Posted on October 1, 2009 by Paula Fether

We’re all familiar with the many charges of contradiction in the text of the Bible, but most come from those outside Christianity. However, there are many professing Christians that say the same thing, only they resort to arguing that some parts are either allegory (contrary to the context) or non-divinely inspired. But today I’d like to focus on the charge of lying, because some move beyond the “human error” charge to deliberate falsification. Let’s cross-examine some of these charges.

Charge: Paul lied to King Agrippa

In Acts 26 Paul gives a defense before the king, and in Acts. 26:15-23 he tells of his experience on the road to Damascus. But when we check the account in Acts 9:3-9 we see much less detail, only that Jesus told him who He was and that he should go to the city to await further instructions. Did Paul lie? If so, then all the gospel accounts lie as well, since they each have unique content.

But rather than a case of lying, this is merely a case of faulty thinking skills (aka fallacious reasoning). If I say, for example, that there is one apple on the table when in fact there are 10, am I lying? No. The only way I’d be lying is if I said there was ONLY one apple on the table. Or if I said that I live in the United States, have I lied because I didn’t give more detail such as my state, city, and street address? Again, not at all.

In the same way, Paul has not lied either. The defense he made to Agrippa in no way negates or contradicts the account in Acts 9, but simply adds detail. Did Paul write Acts? No, Luke did, so we have more reason to accuse Luke of lying that we do for Paul. Yet as a historian, especially one of that culture and time, Luke was not obligated or expected to give every detail in every account of an event. Neither are the four gospels contradictory just because they don’t adhere to modern western standards of historical recording. The order of events was not as important to the ancient historian as the lesson learned. Even so, the facts themselves were of course expected to be true and accurate, however we may wish more detail were included.

Verdict: Not Guilty.

Charge: Peter lied about his angelic vision

In Acts 10:5,22, 32 we see accounts of an angel giving instructions to Cornelius. First the angel says “Send men to Joppa to get Peter”. (Notice that I didn’t add all the details: “Your prayers… Now send… He is staying…”. Did I just lie? No, I gave the primary point of the message.) Next the sent ones relay the message, and they say, “We came from Cornelius… he is righteous… an angel told him to ask you to come… so he could hear what you have to say”. (Did the messengers lie by adding “so he could hear…”? No, this does not conflict with vs. 5 at all.) Then Cornelius repeats the original statement, then adds his own statement, “we’re here to listen to what the Lord told you to tell us”. (Did Cornelius lie? No. First, he didn’t say that the angel said those exact words, and second, it has been presumed by all parties involved that the sending for Peter was for a purpose: to hear a message from God. This is not any kind of lie or deception or embelishment of a story, but a reasonable understanding of the purpose of the summons.)

Now in Acts 11:13-14 that purpose is given as the words of the angel. Did Peter just lie by attributing words to the messengers that were not recorded earlier? Not at all. Even if they didn’t say them (and remember that the quote marks are not part of the original writings), it was understood as the purpose of the summons by all parties involved.

This sort of error in reasoning is why some believe that Eve lied or was forgetful in her statement to the serpent about what God had said. We do not have recorded for us that God said anything to Eve, but neither do we have recorded for us that Adam said anything to her. So to presume who told her what is reading into the text, as is charging her with either lying or forgetting. And her own testimony was that God said the words, a statement never denied or corrected by God, Adam, or anybody else.

Verdict: Not Guilty. But now let’s take a look at an incident in the OT that illustrates another type of error in reasoning.

Charge: Samuel (and God!) lied to the people of Bethlehem

In 1 Sam. 16 we see that God tells Samuel to use a cover story to protect himself from Saul. The cover is true; Samuel will make a sacrifice. But this is only to concel the actual purpose of the trip: to anoint the next king of Israel. God could have simply overridden the impulse of Saul to kill Samuel, or kept him from finding out, but chose instead to arrange this story. Did God lie? Did He make Samuel lie? Isn’t it a lie to conceal something, to leave out important details?

Now we cannot deny the fact of deception on God’s part. But is it any less deceptive for captured soldiers to escape prison camp by traveling in disguise? Would it be a sin to lie in order to get a criminal to release hostages? If we do not think of these as wrongdoing, then neither should we call it wrong to devise a cover story to protect someone from harm. This is a far cry from, say, if God said someone was with Him in heaven when they weren’t. So we see through this example that lying which God forbids involves intent to cause harm.

Verdict: Not Guilty, since protecting the innocent is not a sin.

When we remember that to charge someone with lying we charge them with a deliberate intent to harm in some way, and not mere forgetfulness or inspecitivity, it becomes obvious that the examples given in this post only incriminate the plaintiff instead of the defendent. But we should also note that to report someone telling a lie is not the same as endorsing it, any more than reporting a murder is the same as condoning it. We must learn to make this important distinction, one that applies to any given text.

The Bible is more than doctrine; it is history, poetry, and example as well. There has been plenty of time for scholars to study textual evidence and liguistics, and for skeptics to present evidence they think undermines the credulity of the Bible in whole or in part. No other text has been so thoroughly scrutinized, so by this time there is not really any grounds for questioning the accuracy of the words.

Instead, our challenge now is about interpretation, about learning more of the context, but most of all, about thinking clearly and logically. We can trust the words as being those which God wanted recorded, whether as doctrine, example, warning, inspiration, or insight. Once we understand what God is communicating to us in these various ways, our ultimate challenge then is to walk in step with Him.

Church of the Animal Farm

Posted on August 14, 2009 by Paula Fether

Most people who are familiar with Orwell’s Animal Farm quote the phrase, “Some animals are more equal than others” and rightly so. But the biggest message is how that phrase came to be.

Throughout the book, the reader notices a steady but subtle change of “truth”. Statements and phrases are continually changed just a little, and history is rewritten to back up each twist. At the end, a bold statement of democracy and equality has been turned completely backwards, every principle turned upside down. Deceit and coverups, with threats, were the instruments of transformation.

Today we hear of “change agents”, but like the pigs in the book, they are really “double agents” whose stated goal is to lead the masses from the Rock of the gospel to the shifting sands of moral relativism. Read these excerpts from– NOT any Christian blog or discernment ministry– but The Denver Post:

Buddhism is not only accepted as a mainstream American religion, it is a path increasingly trod by faithful Christians and Jews who infuse Eastern spiritual insights and practices such as meditation into their own religions.

“There is a definite trend and movement that will not be reversed,” said Ruben Habito, a laicized Jesuit priest, Zen master and professor of world religions at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. “We are in a new spiritual age, an inter-religious age.”

Long have I and others warned that “contemplative prayer”, “the silence”, “labyrinths” etc. are not Christian at all but Buddhist, which only drew outrage from fellow believers who insist that Buddhism has nothing to do with it. But clearly it has ALWAYS had everything to do with it; even the secular press recognizes this. And of course they approve. They repeat the revisionist history that the apologists for mysticism have been using:

Judaism, Catholicism and Islam have rich traditions in contemplative practices, yet these had all but disappeared from everyday congregational life.

For many Christians cut off from the past, or alienated from the faith of their upbringing, Buddhism has served as the bridge to ancient wisdom.

“The problem is the contemplative tradition in the Christian Church has had its ups and downs over the centuries,” said Father Thomas Keating, a Trappist monk and leader in the Centering Prayer movement, a modern revival of Christian contemplative practice.

“We sensed that the Eastern religions, with their highly developed spirituality, had something we didn’t have,” Keating said. “In the last generation, 10 to 20 years, some didn’t even think there was a Christian spirituality, just rules — do’s and don’ts and dogma they didn’t find spiritually nourishing. It’s important to recover the mystical aspects of the gospel.”

Christian contemplative practices were lost or weakened in the Protestant Reformation and later in the Great Awakening — religious revolutions in colonial America that advanced the themes of Protestantism.

“There is growing permission to turn back to some of the early church practices and pieces that helped us to be whole,” said the Rev. Stuart Lord, an ordained Baptist minister and new president of Naropa University, a Buddhist-founded institution. “I’ve been studying Buddhism and meditation for about seven years. I look at it as helping a person lead a fuller Christian life.”

Mystical practices are completely absent from the NT writings; there is not the slightest hint of them being taught, tolerated, or presumed. Much in scripture speaks of FILLING the mind with FACTS about God and our salvation in Jesus ALONE, of faith in a Jesus Who can only be identified by FACTS about Him as testified by eyewitnesses (yes, dry legal terminology). It is only when the MIND is thus “transformed” that we become like Christ, being changed by HIS power and not our own.

Mysticism focuses on self, on the person practicing it. Like Warren’s “Purpose-Driven” books, what is allegedly “not about you” is in fact all about you, what you do to basically conjure up God in your life. But the gospel, as we see in the NT, is all about Jesus, His sacrifice, His power, His resurrection, His Spirit, His work. The “mystery” the NT speaks of is not one bit like the mysticism of other religions, but about that which is no longer a mystery: the ekklesia, the community of believers, the Body of Christ.

And who can deny the division this mysticism has caused? They point to our doctrinal divisions but ignore their own “doctrine” as being just one of many, clearly a double standard. But as in the previous post, if Christians will NOT divide over the very definition of the gospel, they care nothing for the lost and, like bland salt or lukewarm water, will be discarded by Jesus Himself (Mt. 5:13, Rev. 3:15).

I urge any reader who has promoted or been practicing this Buddhism to consider, for the love of Christ, what scripture says instead of all those popular authors.

Pertinent scriptures on “the mind”:
Rom. 12:2, 1 Cor. 2:16, 14:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, 11:3, Eph. 4:23, James 1:8, 1 Peter 5:8, etc.

Pertinent scriptures on “mystery”:
Rom. 11:25, 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 1:9, 3:3-9, 6:19, Col. 1:26-27, etc.

Theory vs. Reality

Posted on August 6, 2009 by Paula Fether

Suppose you and your spouse are very wealthy, but unable to have children. You decide to adopt, and visit the local orphanage. There you look over the children and a set of twin boys catches your eye. You interview them at length, and discover that though they both have had behavioral issues, they are nearly indistinguishable. There is no reason to choose one over the other, and since you have the money and wanted two kids, you decide to adopt…

ONE of them.

“Why was I not chosen? Why am I to be left here alone? Why will you separate us?” asks one of the twins. You reply, “No reason, at least none you’d understand. Neither of you deserves to be adopted, with the trouble you’ve been in, so just accept the consequences of your actions.”

To the chosen one you say, “Rejoice! Do not grieve for your brother. You have been chosen for reasons known only to us, and you will love us and be grateful. You cannot refuse us and have nothing to say about it. But rejoice anyway, for you will live in luxury! Between now and the time we take you home, tell all the orphans that we will be back to choose another, but we’re not telling which one. Give them hope.”

Nice scenario, eh?

That’s Calvinism. Oh they’ll scream that this isn’t what they teach, but I’m not ignorant and have read reams of Calvinist literature. This is EXACTLY what they teach. I’ve heard many personal testimonies as well, where emphasis is put on the fact that no one deserves to be saved. But for God to choose salvation for a few while leaving the rest “in the orphanage”, giving false hope for them by commanding the “chosen” to spread the gospel to all, would be the most despicable evil. It is cold-blooded and nonsensical, the worst example to set for those God has commanded to have the highest standards and the greatest love.

Such illustrations elicit the most scathing indignation from many Calvinists, even some of the nicer ones. Although they claim “misrepresentation”, it is the stark reality they hate. Perhaps they have not thought through the implications of their core beliefs and are shocked by such exposure. But I would challenge them to come up with an illustration of their own which is less shocking and offensive, while faithfully representing their belief. If they cannot, isn’t it because their belief system is so complicated and requires so much explaining that, like theoretical physics, there are no comprehensible models to represent it?

Jesus used simple parables and illustrations to convey deep and profound ideas. I’m following Him.

Consequences

Posted on July 13, 2009 by Paula Fether

Surfing the net today I came across a very sad testimony from an atheist claiming to have been a Christian until not long ago. I hope that in commenting on this article that the author and others in similar circumstances may rethink all of this, because eternity is a long time to have regrets.

I did truly believe in God for most of my life and worshiped and prayed to him daily. I believed he was at work in my life at all times and using me to touch other people’s lives.

Believing in God is not salvation (James 2:19). The Jews of Jesus’ day believed in the God of the Old Testament, yet they too needed to be saved. They worshiped God, they prayed, they felt as the Greeks did (Acts 17:28) that they lived and moved in God’s presence. But they were required, when Jesus came, to accept Him as Messiah; to have one was to have the other, and to lack one was to lack the other (1 John 2:22-23).

Last fall, I finally moved past guilt and admitted to myself that I no longer believe in Jesus or the god of the Bible. Surprisingly it was a relief. Not because I wanted to run wild and sin freely, but because I no longer felt the weight a Christian carries. The weight of guilt, unworthiness and fear of god’s judgement.

Jesus said that His burden was light, so anyone carrying a heavy burden is not following Jesus. This rejection of the gospel is what happens when evangelists, preachers, etc. dangle sinners over the fires of hell and try to scare them into heaven. Instead, as I’ve written often, we should emphasize the fact that God wants us to be reconciled to Him (2 Cor. 5:16-21). Sin is certainly the reason we were alienated from God, and Jesus paid the ultimate price to rob sin of its power and purchase the gift of salvation for any and all who would accept it. A person who understands this and accepts it is a person who carries the lightest burden, who lives in gratitude and love, who rejoices like a child finally adopted. “Perfect love drives away fear” (1 John 4:18), so we know that someone who lives in fear of God’s punishment is out of relationship with Him.

The list of 20 grievances against God are typical atheistic fare, but I’ll comment on just a few.

Throughout history, Christians have justified horrific actions by the Bible and its teaching.

Professing Christians have done that. And they did it in clear violation of the Bible’s teachings, especially the New Testament. Yet atheists never seem to focus this accusation on Islam, whose Quran teaches it explicitly (and I would be willing to bet it has a tiny bit to do with death threats, but that’s just me).

The only reason I was a Christian was because I was indoctrinated into the religion as a child as a result of the culture and region of the world in which I was born.

Being raised as a Christian does not make one a Christian. Being indoctrinated is not being saved. Yet this is what happens all too often in Christian homes. The parents either take or send the children to “church services” or “Sunday school” and then wonder why this externally-imposed “faith” is rejected when the kids leave home. The churches are filled with these cultural “Christians”.

Christians are not at all ethically or morally different from non-Christians.

Mark Driscoll, are you paying attention?

Today, powerful church leaders steal, lie and molest young children. The church repeatedly attempts to cover up these atrocities, only to reluctantly apologize as a last resort.

Southern Baptist Convention, are you listening?

What we’re seeing in this sad report are the consequences of a fear-based evangelism, a very ironic term since the Greek word means “good message”. What’s good about telling people what low, worthless scum they are? And if they are such, why would Jesus have died for them? Did Jesus not die for beloved creatures, for those made in His own image? They are lost and estranged, not vile and literally dead.

Please refer to my article Go To Heaven! and its links for details on all this. We are responsible for telling the world about the GOOD thing Jesus did for us all, not focusing on the BAD things people do. A man-centered message is only that; let’s make it Jesus-centered. Lives are at stake.

Series: The Hunt/White Debate, Part Fourteen

Posted on July 10, 2009 by Paula Fether

CHAPTER THIRTEEN: SALVATION OFFERED TO ALL by Dave Hunt

Though Christ commands us in the Great Commission to preach the gospel to every creature, Calvinism teaches that the elect are regenerated without it and the non-elect cannot accept it. If the gospel is the power of God “to the salvation of everyone that believes” (Mark 16:15), then that power to save is not “regeneration”. Why do the regenerated need to hear the gospel? According to White, regeneration is only the first step, so he must agree that there are people who are regenerated but unsaved. Yet if, according to Sproul, “the man, being regenerated, is saved already”, White must be mistaken about his assertion that regeneration is not salvation— a point he has used against Hunt many times. So if there is confusion, it is caused by Calvinists themselves, not their opponents.

Then Hunt spends considerable time illustrating the OT practices and teachings that establish God’s offer of salvation for “all people” and not merely “all kinds of people”. Likewise for the NT, where the notion of “all kinds” of people is conspicuous by its absence. But Calvinism must interpret verses like John 3:16 as “For God so loved the elect…”. Then another contradictory quote from Spurgeon is given, along with noting that not even Spurgeon can get away with hiding his absurd conclusions under the blanket of “mystery”.

Response, by James White

Again, nothing new to report. The redefinition of terms already covered for verses like John 3:16 is simply asserted again. And who can make sense of God showing “love to the world” but only for His elect? Is God mocking the reprobate, saying “See, I love these few, but not you!”? He still tries to inject the Calvinist twist onto that famous verse, asserting it as the clear and proper meaning, but assertions are not proofs. The gymnastics required to turn “whosoever” into “who I chose”, especially when it depends upon a minority interpretation of the Greek, is sheer desperation. As always, nothing like this would be tolerated if done by non-Calvinists.

Defense, by Dave Hunt

Hunt notes the obvious fact that White did not touch on the issue of whether regeneration is salvation. And if Hunt is reading into the account in Acts about salvation for Gentiles, then why is White allowed to go to such great lengths to read his interpretation into John 3:16? Turning this Calvinist insistence that “world” means “all kinds of people” back on White, Hunt lists several verses that are reduced to absurdities not even Calvinists could accept were they consistent in their substitutions.

Final Remarks, by James White

Other than White’s ignorance of the Hebraic idiom “children of” meaning “people of”, nothing new to report.

Final Remarks, by Dave Hunt

Hunt expresses shock at White’s continual denial of God’s frequently expressed desire to save everyone. If White can brush off anything he deems irrelevant, even when it directly addresses the topic at hand, then there is little incentive for Hunt to keep trying. And he notes, as I did, White’s mistaken interpretation of “children of”.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN: BIBLICAL ASSURANCE OF SALVATION by Dave Hunt

Hunt begins this final chapter by explaining the difference between the assurance of the Calvinist and that of the non-Calvinist (my note: of course, not all non-Calvinists accept assurance, but that is outside the scope of this debate). For the non-Calvinist, assurance of salvation comes solely by faith in the work of Jesus, not us; for the Calvinist, it comes by presuming oneself to be one of the elect. But few if any Calvinists are absolutely sure they are elect, since they teach that many reprobates think they are saved. This effectively removes all assurance for the Calvinist, who can only hope (and strive for good works just in case).

He also notes that in spite of quotes from Calvin and others showing basic theological errors regarding works and baptism, White considers them great theologians. Yet it was Calvin who expressly stated his belief that God deliberately fools many of the lost into thinking they are saved.

After a diversion back to the question of free will, Hunt refutes the argument that if we are free to accept salvation, then we must be free even in heaven to reject it. The flaw in that is the scriptural assurance that the saved become like Jesus, having the same “mind” and “likeness”, such that we can only rebel if Jesus can. If it is His righteousness that saves us, then it is His righteousness that keeps us. This takes all the focus off man and onto Jesus.

Response, by James White

White begins by denying Hunt the right to believe in eternal security since he doesn’t accept the Calvinistic definition of sovereignty. But this means White is actually demanding that Hunt adapt the Calvinistic definition! How is the non-Calvinist view of sovereignty in conflict with security? And why does White persist in claiming Hunt denies God’s freedom? Why is he, even to the end of this debate, still trying to get Hunt to change the subject?

As for White’s question about the difference between the “false faith” of Calvinism and that of non-Calvinism, surely he can grasp that in the former it is by God’s decree, while in the latter it is by man failing to accept the gospel. This is what Hunt was talking about. And he continues to equate faith with works.

Defense, by Dave Hunt

Again Hunt has to correct White’s mischaracterization of the non-Calvinist view of sovereignty; again he points out that Calvinism severely limits God’s freedom; again he explains that if Christ’s death “actually saved”, then the elect were saved at that time, before any of them could first be regenerated. He wonders how White can disagree with Calvin on such serious issues as infant baptism yet call him a great theologian, and why faith is such a big issue when people are elect and regenerated without it. And finally, he wonders how White can accuse him of showing no concern with false professions of faith, in spite of Hunt’s many books and articles on exactly that topic. Shall we say with White, “No answers will be forthcoming”?

Final Remarks, by James White

Nothing of substance to report.

Final Remarks, by Dave Hunt

Hunt finds a way to respond to White’s non-statement, but only to express more dismay at his words.

FINAL AFFIRMATION, by James White

One last time, White asserts his view of sovereignty and freedom, declaring the Calvinist interpretation of scripture to be the consistent one. One last time he uses the “t” word. One last time he insults Hunt as incompetent, putting himself above him as a “guardian” of truth. Was Calvinism affirmed? Let the reader decide.

FINAL DENIAL, by Dave Hunt

After having to correct once again White’s baseless charge of “tradition”, Hunt focuses on the topic of debate and its central teachings. He notes that the promised refutation of the “calumnies launched at… Calvin” has yet to be offered, as well as any attempt to address the problem of how Calvinism limits God’s freedom, love, grace, and mercy. Regarding the issue of uncertainty of salvation, one could also ask why Calvinists are sure they are preaching the correct gospel.

As I mentioned at the beginning, I spent considerable time studying Calvinism at the request of a friend. However, when I had finished my studies of both sides and supplied him with links and books for the opposition, I was met with resistance and hostility. I was not to be afforded the same courtesy I had shown to my friend, all because I rejected Calvinism. Sadly, in my experience this reaction has proven to be typical.

But when one considers the fact that both sides preach essentially the same gospel message in evangelism, one wonders why this system is so important to its adherents. What practical difference does it make? Both sides reach out with the same gospel, both believe in training new converts and exhorting them to live lives that please their Savior, and both (regardless of accusations to the contrary) hold scripture in the highest regard.

So Calvinism is truly a divisive force in Christianity, and needlessly so. While this is certainly not the only topic believers have divided over, forgetting to distinguish the vital from the disputable and secondary, it is a prime example of such divisive forces. By studying this debate we are better able to warn others about division and get them to think more deeply about the gospel itself and the nature of God. I would have preferred that Calvinism had never taken root, but it may be one of the ways in which God tests our character by observing how we treat those who disagree with us.

Part Thirteen

Series: The Hunt/White Debate, Part Thirteen

Posted on July 10, 2009 by Paula Fether

CHAPTER ELEVEN: TURNING THE BIBLE INTO A CHARADE by Dave Hunt

No one would dispute that scripture is filled with commands for us to spread the gospel, and that the gospel is to accept Jesus as Savior because he died for our sins and rose again. But according to Calvinism, most of the people who will ever have heard the gospel were reprobate, making them unable to respond. And since God saves by His own eternal decree, then of what purpose is repentance and faith? Of what purpose is hearing the gospel? Of what purpose is all the Bible says about choosing? If Calvinism is true, then most of the Bible really is a charade.

The quotes from Calvin and others prove beyond doubt that Calvinism believes God ordained the fall of man. But as Hunt rightly asks, how does this not make God the author of sin? If White wants to assign guilt by association, he should realize that this teaching is identical to that of Mormonism. And the standard rebuttal from Calvinism, that God can violate the very principles He gave mankind about justice and mercy, is exactly like the Islamic principle of “abrogation”, where Allah can be as nonsensical, fickle, and incomprehensible as he pleases while holding his creatures to much higher and stricter standards. But it was Jesus Himself who said, “If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!” (Mt. 7:11). So here we have explicit scriptural backing for the principle of using our own sense of mercy, evil though it may be, to show that God’s must be higher and greater.

The narrative Hunt gives about this is exactly what I have heard for years from atheists who testify to the reason they hate and reject God. But they have heard the Calvinist teaching and rejected it, not the Biblical gospel. It is only Calvinism which paints this picture of a God who would create sinners and then condemn them for being what He made them to be. So it is only Calvinism which can be held responsible for so maligning the character of God as to harden the hearts of many. Calvinists claim that it is only “the offense of the cross” that does this, but in my experience I have only heard these lost souls speak of the particular view of God given by Calvinism.

Response, by James White

White immediately launches into a diatribe against his opponent, seemingly oblivious to all that he himself has said about such fallacious tactics. He would not, as I have stated several times, tolerate such behavior from Hunt. Again White seems to think this debate is entitled something like “Why Dave Hunt is a Heretic” instead of “Debating Calvinism”, demanding that Hunt turn from the real topic and put himself on the witness stand. And he has the gall to accuse Hunt of “harsh rhetoric”! White offers no new arguments but simply rehashes his earlier assertions about how various verses are to be interpreted. He continues to chide Hunt for not veering from the topic of what Calvinism teaches and acts as though Hunt has never addressed any points he’s made, even while claiming he misunderstands and twists them.

After many words White finally settles down enough to respond to Hunt’s point about Calvinism turning the Bible into a charade. But his response is merely to state what Hunt has already shown to be a non-answer: God can decree that which is in violation of all we know about His nature. In all the paragraphs following he never even discusses why he believes this is not a cruel joke by God against the reprobate.

Defense, by Dave Hunt

Hunt addresses White’s wild accusations and emotional outbursts with calmness, and reminds him that he has in fact discussed those passages White accuses him of ignoring. That Hunt disagrees with the Calvinist interpretation does not amount to ignoring or misunderstanding anything. He goes on to describe the Calvinist concept of “free will”, which turns out to be much like the statement in Orwell’s book Animal Farm: “Some animals are more equal than others”. In Calvinism, some wills are more free than others. And in that same vein, Hunt calls such contradictions “double-talk”.

Later he notes that what White says about how God saves— that God “uses the preaching of the gospel to bring His elect unto salvation”— is an admission that regeneration isn’t what precedes faith. Finally, Hunt states a pivotal truth: that “Calvinism puts the blame on God instead of on Christ-rejecting men.” Either man has no choice but to sin and thus no responsibility for sin, or man does have this choice and thus not this responsibility.

Final Remarks, by James White

I was unable to find any new or pertinent point to comment on in this section.

Final Remarks, by Dave Hunt

Hunt simply observes as I did that White has not addressed the point of this chapter at all.

CHAPTER TWELVE: GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND MAN’S WILL by Dave Hunt

The Calvinistic definition of sovereignty, as noted many times, is what drives it to the logical conclusion that God must be the ultimate author of sin, regardless of their attempts to break all the rules of logic to avoid it. This is a terrible slur upon the honor of God and the concepts of love and justice. It also raises many unanswerable questions for Calvinism concerning many passages of scripture as well as our own experiences.

Hunt then spends the bulk of this chapter listing all the scriptural references that speak of the will of man, all of which is rendered meaningless or a cruel hoax if there is no such thing or it is redefined to turn “not free” into “free” simply by declaring it to be so. Then Hunt discusses the power of God and how this is not violated by man’s free will any more than sovereignty is.

On the matter of punishment and reward, Hunt argues against Augustine’s claim that “when the reward shall come, God shall crown his own gifts, not your merits”. But I am surprised he did not mention passages such as Mt. 6 which mentions rewards half a dozen times, or 1 Cor. 3:8 and 14, Eph. 6:8, Heb. 11:6, or 2 John 1:8 among others.

Response, by James White

Seeing White’s response, filled once again with name-calling and bitterness, I am reluctant to even read through anything else he may have to say. Hunt has been more than gracious in spite of it, but there comes a point when one must walk away from an uncivil and mean-spirited opponent. However, Hunt is obligated to complete the debate, especially since he is the only participant who remembers the title.

Defense, by Dave Hunt

Hunt continues on in spite of everything, addressing once again the arguments White keeps repeating and the teachings of Calvin. This system, Hunt explains, reduces God to one that cannot endure the freedom of His creatures, is too small to live by His own standards, and cannot be loved without forcing them to love Him. This is a very strange sovereignty indeed.

Then Hunt notes White’s claim of accepting “everything the Bible says about man’s will” while he brushes off all the ones Hunt listed as being “irrelevant”. And by example he shows that White confuses Hunt’s rebuttals to his claims with Hunt saying it’s what White argued. And Hunt is justified in responding to White’s claim about God hardening hearts, “If they were ‘dead’ and ‘unable to respond positively to God’, He wouldn’t need to harden them, would He?”

Final Remarks, by James White

I made myself read White’s response, but couldn’t find where he actually address what he was supposed to respond to, at least nothing he hasn’t already said more than once. Did he not read what Hunt said about “hardening hearts”? Or did he not comprehend it? But rather than actually face Hunt’s arguments White prefers to introduce an extreme philosophical view that free will is completely impossible. But this view is in the same class as things like theoretical physics, which are completely based upon mathematics and nothing on reality. I’ve studied this elsewhere and it leads to the absurd conclusion that not even God has a free will, which White should have known would contradict his many claims to the contrary.

Final Remarks, by Dave Hunt

Hunt agrees with my assessment of White’s mere repetition of prior claims and failure to offer anything new.

Part Twelve ~ Part Fourteen

Series: The Hunt/White Debate, Part Twelve

Posted on July 9, 2009 by Paula Fether

CHAPTER TEN: REGENERATION BEFORE FAITH AND SALVATION? by Dave Hunt

Hunt now addresses the issue of the order of salvation, commonly known in Calvinism as “regeneration before faith” (RBF). He cites Acts 16:31 which states that belief precedes salvation. But what about “regeneration”? Calvin believed that people were regenerated and justified at infant baptism, a time long preceding the possibility of faith. Inconsistently, today’s Calvinists reject this teaching of Calvin yet retain the assertion of RBF. It should be obvious that giving up Calvin’s teaching on infant baptism necessarily removes the very basis for this RBF, since one led to the other (without the ability to exercise faith, infants had to be chosen by God). Modern Calvinists have only moved the starting point, meaning they have no logical reason to reject infant baptism, since when God elects is irrelevant.

Quoting several prominent Calvinists, Hunt shows their unequivocal belief that regeneration must precede faith, which means faith is not the cause but the effect of the new birth. Quoting White: “A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved” (also a nearly identical quote using “regenerated” instead of “saved”). The problem is that this is the exact opposite of what scripture tells us. Along with Acts 16:31 Hunt adds Rom. 10:9, Luke 8:12, John 3:15-16, 5:24, 6:40, and many more, especially 1 Tim. 1:16 which says to believe in Him toward everlasting life.

Hunt also relates a quote from Sproul which betrays the inconsistency in Calvinist teachings: “Once Luther grasped the teaching of Paul in Romans, he was reborn.” Shouldn’t he have said, “Once Luther was reborn, he grasped the teaching of Paul in Romans”? Hunt proposes that Calvinist hold to such inconsistencies because their system demands it; without RBF, there can be no TI, no UE, and no IG.

As for White’s emphasis on man’s inability, Hunt asks what ability has to do with placing faith in Christ so as to receive Him? Faith is not a work so it cannot be a matter of ability. It requires no ability to receive a gift. He then mentions 2 Tim. 3:15 with the emphasis on the faith of a child, but this too speaks of the order of salvation: “… the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith…”. The only way Calvinism can keep asserting RBF in light of such verses is to equate, without any scriptural warrant, drawing with regeneration. But even then, this would mean that Jesus “regenerates” all men to Himself!

Then Hunt examines the issue of ability by showing, through scripture, that “cannot” does not always signify inability, but frequently unwillingness as well. Knowing this, it removes all basis for the Calvinist to claim any scripture saying that depraved sinners lack any ability to believe in Christ. As already explained, Calvinism errs in equating spiritual, figurative “death” to physical, literal death, such that no “regeneration” is even necessary in order for a person to place faith in Christ, and hence no special “ability”.

Response, by James White

White seems to begin his response with an excuse to ignore more of Hunt’s argumentation, judging it to be so full of errors as to exceed his word count limit. This is his second such complaint and excuse.

White accuses Hunt of confusing regeneration with “the entirety of salvation”, but must infer that Hunt even said this. After repeating earlier assertions on faith being a gift, White lumps all of Hunt’s quoted scriptures under “empty rhetoric”, never grasping the fact that neither he nor Hunt can manufacture scriptures that mention the Calvinist invention of “regeneration”. How can Hunt be expected to quote scriptures about “regeneration” when none exist? And whether White used the term “special” to describe the ability to be saved or not, he does teach the concept, which is what Hunt responded to. Yet when Hunt only appears to teach something by inference, White wants the right to treat it as an explicit teaching.

And if I had a nickel for every instance of the word “tradition” in White’s writing, I’d be rich.

He goes on to insist that “draw” does indeed mean “regeneration” but never explains that verse he has yet to face, where Jesus said He’d “draw all men” to Himself. And of course he berates Hunt for allegedly failing to explain only the verses he’d like to use. Then he complains about “Hunt’s refusal to see these texts outside of his” interpretation, which of course is a complaint Hunt could launch against White just as easily. And the expanded quote he offers to replace the shorter “misleading” one Hunt provided does even more damage to his argument, since it clearly states what he denies it states: that man is “incapable… to submit himself to that gospel” nor to “understand and embrace the gospel”. In addition, there are no scriptures that provide such minute details in what the lost can or cannot do; it all must come from inference based upon the presumption of Calvinism in the first place. Why White keeps expecting Hunt to argue from that premise is truly puzzling.

White then claims that he is “not talking about good works”, yet has he not insisted, as all Calvinists do, that faith is a “work”? Is faith a “work” or not? Does Hunt have to spell out such things before White even knows what argument he’s making?

Defense, by Dave Hunt

Hunt begins by reminding White that his fellow Calvinists do in fact equate salvation with regeneration, then proceeds to explain the logical and scriptural impossibility of a regeneration that is apart from faith. That is, since White insists that regeneration is the first event in this alleged process, and faith another, then what does he do with all the scriptures that only mention faith in conjunction with salvation? Where is this regeneration? Scripture only knows “believe and be saved”, but Calvinism adds regeneration or “quickening” as a prerequisite. As Hunt notes, this means that between regeneration and faith is a person who is alive but unsaved! (Or as another non-Calvinist Herb Evans put it, “born again unbelievers“.) And it is Christ Himself who equated being “born again” with being saved. If regeneration is the point of rebirth, then White must conclude that Christ was mistaken in equating it with salvation.

Then it’s back to the issue of ability and what is meant by “come”, examining various passages of scripture to try once again to explain what he means, with a final question about exactly what this “regeneration” is without faith.

Final Remarks, by James White

White begins this section as he began the previous one, accusing Hunt of confusing terms. But as we’ve seen, Hunt is only trying to get White to define them according to scripture. If scripture, and Jesus Himself, equates “born again” with salvation, who is White to call this “confusion”? The rest of his response is a repeat of Calvinism’s assertions, still not recognizing Hunt’s right to view all this through a non-Calvinist framework. Who else should debate against Calvinism?

Final Remarks, by Dave Hunt

White has done nothing to face Hunt’s argument that the regenerated are unsaved until they exercise their God-ordained faith, then defends his non-confusion of terms. And he has every right to ask how the OT saints could exercise faith when “regeneration” wasn’t even hinted at until Jesus came.

Part Eleven ~ Part Thirteen