Design of Providence

Worship Signals

2012-01-27T10:00:00.001-05:00

All credits to the original artist:

The Story of a Christian

2012-01-24T18:36:00.002-05:00

Gather round, chil'ren, it's story time.

Once upon a time there was a Christian. He was active in his local church and had obtained a small leadership role. He was well liked by people in his community. He was not famous by any stretch of the imagination, but he was by no means an inactive believer. He studied his Bible daily and when he wrote, he often wrote with scripture references galore. He also wrote frequently, and could have been known by some to have always had his nose in the good book.

Then one day he heard of another active church leader. This church leader was teaching strange things. He was teaching things that our Christian believed were wrong and against the Bible. So the Christian did what he thought he should do: he called the other gentleman out on it. He openly wrote that the man was committing error, and if he didn't repent, he should no longer be a member of the church.

This was not well received by the vast majority of people in the church. Most people called our Christian words that are equivalent to "Bible thumper" and "Pharisee." Some said he was disrupting the body of Christ. Some said he shouldn't worry so much about what others believe and just focus on his own faith. It got so bad that church bodies turned against our Christian and kicked him out, seeking instead to keep the church unified. In fact, even the government leaders opposed our Christian, and would banish him to other parts of the country to keep him far away from anywhere that he could disrupt the perfect unity and peace of the brotherhood.

During times of quiet, our Christian would settle back down to his ministry, but as soon as he spoke out against what he perceived to be heresy, the personal attacks and accusations of disrupting the brotherhood would return, and again our Christian was kicked out of his ministerial role. Many people thought our Christian was stubborn and dogmatic, yet he never changed his ways. In fact, to his dying breath, he continued to speak out against the error he perceived to be prevalent in the church.

Who was this Christian, you ask?

It was Athanasius, the deacon - and then bishop - of Alexandria in the early to middle fourth century. At times it seemed like, at least in the eastern Roman Empire, he was the sole voice against the Arian heresy that enveloped the church for almost sixty or so years. It was from this time period that the phrase Athanasius contra mundum ("Athanasius against the world") came into being, referring to Athanasius's near isolation in upholding biblical doctrine within a sea of heresy.

Those who look back on history always have a kind of superiority, and ask ourselves "How did that happen?", as if people long ago were incredibly absurd in thinking, and it could never happen again in our day. The fact is, things like the genocide that occurred during World War II happened for the same reasons the genocide happened in the Rwandan civil war, or even now in some regions of Sudan. We can't look back at those who lived in the 1930's and 1940's and act like we would never let this happen in our time when we have and still are.

I get so tired of hearing the same tired arguments people use in favor of either false teachers or heresy that it becomes daunting to even discuss the subject. Yet we have to wonder to ourselves how such people would be if they lived in times of the past? Would they be champions for the faith of those who came before, or would they be the opponents?

How many people, for example, would be there alongside the Arian supporters, condemning Athanasius for speaking out against Arius and his beliefs? How many today would accuse him, as many did back then, of disrupting the unity of the church? How many would support the move by many Roman emperors to exile Athanasius because he refused to cooperate with the church?

It doesn't stop there. How many would accuse Martin Luther of harming Johann Tetzel's ministry, and defend his indulgences by pointing out all the people who claimed to have been blessed by it? How many would attack John Owen for criticizing the Church of England, again disrupting the unity of the church? How many would lament John Bunyan's refusal to just cooperate with the Church of England, even to the point of his own imprisonment? When consistent, the person's standards would find them at odds with the greatest theologians and Christian men in history.

This should not entirely surprise us, of course. The apostle Paul wrote long ago that people would begin to "not endure sound teaching," and will instead, with "itching ears," begin to "accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions" (2 Tim 4:3). He wrote that God sends upon the church "a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 The 2:11-12). Men stood up for Arius against Athanasius because they preferred Arianism to scriptural truth - should we be any more shocked that men will stand up for error today against scriptural truth?

There is the popular claim that the devil wants to divide the church, and while that is true, I think we should not look to every question of authority or method of discernment as an attack from the devil. Indeed, if there is anything the devil would like more than a disunited church, it is a church united on shaky ground, accepting error and heresy for the sake of superficial peace. Indeed, those who would have us promote superficial peace over doctrine, discernment and theological discrimination are no different than those false prophets of old, who cried out to the people "Peace! Peace!", when, in fact, there was no such peace (cf. Jer 6:14, 8:11).

Yet we must remember what the apostle Jude wrote, when he instructed us to "have mercy on those who doubt," adding: "save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh" (Jude 1:22-23). Frustrating as it might be to reach out to those who claim to be of the faith and yet hold to great error for superficial reasons, we must remember that we, at all times, held to great error at one point, and were led astray. As ambassadors of reconciliation (cf. 2 Cor 5:19-20), it is our job to bring the truth of Christ - in its fulness - to all who would hear it, both within and without the church. God bless.

Re: Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus; Muslim Version

2012-01-21T11:41:00.000-05:00

After the "I hate religion but love Jesus" became viral, it was just a matter of time before people attempted to do their own take on. There was a Roman Catholic version I came across, and then there was this...a Muslim version. The video itself can be watched below:

While I wasn't an overly huge fan of the original video (see here), this video literally made me fall out of my chair (yes, literally). The best way I could sum it up is that it is every bad Muslim argument made against Christianity that has been refuted over a hundred times already. I write that last sentence not to be disrespectful, but to speak plainly - anyone who has studied apologetics against Islam in the past twenty years (indeed, since the time of John Damascene) knows that everything mentioned in this video has already been responded to a thousand times over.

I decided to write a response precisely to give that: a response. This video is not just a "Hey I'm Muslim and this is what I believe," but it's clearly an evangelizing tool to bring people to Islam, and it is specifically aimed against Christians. Therefore, I present this for anyone wondering if what the gentleman says in the video is truthful, or perhaps they just want to see a response from the other side.

Let me give just a few notes on my method for this. I've transcribed the entire video and written down the lyrics, which I'll respond to in piecemeal. As I'll be quoting scripture, I put the lyrics in bold so that people can visually see when I'm quoting the video and when I'm quoting something else. Whenever a passage from the Quran or the Bible is sourced in the video, I'll put it in brackets.

You say Jesus was God, and God had descended
We say Jesus was man, for Jesus was dependent

Here's the first sign of a problem: we're dealing with Muslim presupposition versus Christian presupposition.

Some people might read that last sentence and think, "Well duh, genius." There is, however, a point in my making that statement: Muslim comparative religion is an exercise in circular reasoning. In Judeo-Christian history, God always revealed forward: what came before confirmed what came later (for example, Messianic prophecies fulfilled in Christ). In Islam, however, God reveals backwards: all previous revelations (the Bible) must be read in the context of a future revelation (the Quran). The man says "you say...but we say...", and the Muslim point of view is accepted as the accurate one. This, despite the fact that Islam's view of Christ and God's teachings takes place 600-years after the final revelations of God, in a land separated from Christ's people, and dealing with men who had no connection with God's people at all. We are supposed to forgo the writings of men who were eyewitnesses to the events for the opinion of a man who claims to have spoken to an angel and who had no other way of confirming himself except by his own revelations.

Despite what many Muslims might say in regards to Christians and blind faith, all Muslim presupposition boils down to "I believe the Quran is the final revelation because the Quran says so." Whereas Christians can freely look backwards and read the Old Testament in context to confirm gladly the New Testament (just as the apostles did to the Jewish people), Muslims are forced to essentially rewrite and reword the Bible in order to have it fit the Quran. Keep this in mind as we progress through this video, as it will become more and more apparent.

Our God is all great, and cannot be comprehended
You say God was murdered - or do you believe that he pretended?
You see God gave us brains, and God gave us logic,
But I guess God wanted us to use them in everything else except for this topic

I find it interesting that the gentleman in the video leads us to question whether or not God died or "pretended," given that all four gospels (which he will quote from as the video progresses) confirm that Jesus died on the cross (Matt 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30), something the Quran explicitly denies (S. 4:157). Even secular or non-Christian history is against the Quran on this. For example, the Talmudic traditions concerning Jesus - while denying his messianic status - confirm that he was, indeed, executed.

Yet to get to the heart of the matter, the man asks us "Can God be murdered?" and guesses that God wants us to use our logic on everything except this topic. The very nature of the question, however, comes at the crucifixion from a Gnostic mindset: either Jesus was fully man and could die, or was fully God and couldn't die. He seems to not understand the basics of the hypostatic union, which has been talked about for centuries and which many have used their "logic" to examine and discuss.

The basics of it is this: Christ was fully man and fully God. At the Incarnation, the Son in the Trinity did not cease being God, nor did he become half-man, half-God like the demigods of Greek mythology. The eternal Word took on flesh and dwelt among us, as scripture says:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. [John 1:14]

The word used for "dwelt" (ἐσκήνωσεν) is the same language used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) in regards to the Tabernacle, the place where God dwelt within the Holy of Holies. Here, now, God dwells among men not in a building, but in Christ, the Incarnate Word.

So yes, it would be impossible for God, as an entire entity, to be murdered - it would not, however, be impossible for the God-man - the eternal God taking on flesh and dwelling among us - to be murdered.

It's like wearing a cross and proclaiming that you love Jesus,
Well if God was murdered on the cross, the cross really shouldn't please us
I mean would you be wearing an axe if it was used to chop your mother up into pieces?
You see this is what happens when you believe in faith but fail to believe in reason

Let's ponder for a moment: what does the cross represent? If all it represented was an empty murder with no meaning, then I suppose the gentleman would have a point. However, that isn't the case: the cross represents the great humility of the Son in the Trinity, and the victory of God over sin, conquering death through death and sanctifying His true chosen people.

Cross symbolism, in fact, did not start with the later Christians, but with Christ himself. He said that those not willing to take up their cross and follow him were not worthy to be believers (Matt 10:38; Luke 14:27). He said those desiring to follow him had to take up their cross (Matt 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). The earliest Christians spoke of the power of the cross (1 Cor 1:17; Gal 6:14), and said that by it we are reconciled to God (Eph 2:16; Col 1:20). So the cross as symbol was not an invention 200 years after Christ nor 2000 years after Christ - it was right there in the midst of Christ's ministry and the early church itself.

I will concede there are those who wear the cross and blaspheme doing so. Many celebrities and false Christians wear the cross yet knowingly act against for what it stands, and thus they quite literally "walk as enemies of the cross of Christ" (Phi 3:18). Many more treat the cross as a kind of idol, forgetting he who died upon it and what that death stood for. That does not, however, mean the use of cross as symbolism is in and of itself disrespectful to God, as if we are enjoying the murder rather than what came about from that murder.

Permit me to put it another way. When I go to the Vietnam Wall and run my fingers along the names imprinted there, I am not doing so to glorify death and destruction in war, nor am I doing so because I believe running my finger along a few names is going to do something magical or spiritual to the person whose name that represents. Rather, I do it out of respect for what that wall represents. I run a finger along a name and act in a respectful manner because I recognize behind that name was an individual like myself (if not younger than my current age) who made the ultimate sacrifice which I could never imagine giving myself. I recognize that the wall represents a memorial to those who died during the war, and I honor it as much as I can in that regard.

In like manner do I glorify in the cross. I do not do so because putting two sticks together will heal me of diseases, or because I think it's cool that Romans used to drive nails through people's bodies. Rather, I glorify in the cross because it was on that cross another person took the full brunt of God's wrath on my behalf and paid in full the debt that was owed to God for my sins.

You see we used to worship the creator until Satan turned us to the creation
We began to worship the people, and neglect the one who made them

On the contrary, we don't worship creature over creation, because the Son of the Trinity is not creation. That was the position of some historical heresies, such as Arianism (which believed the Father created the Son), but not historical Christianity. Scripture confirms that the Son coexisted with the Father before all existence - indeed, it was through the Son that creation came into being. Scripture tells us:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. [John 1:1-3]

Christ himself confirmed this - first to the Jews, by confirming that he held an eternal nature similar to God:

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." [John 8:58]

And then in his prayers to the Father:

"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." [John 17:5]

No mere creature would ever speak this way. If they did, then they were either serious about what they said, or they were great blasphemers (as the Jews thought Jesus was in John 8:58). If, however, Christ was serious in saying what he said, then Christians are in their perfect rights to worship him, and not as creature but as eternal creator.

We begin to believe that God had died, but how can a god even be created?

This was the first sign to me that the gentleman in the video either has absolutely no idea what Christians have already said in response to these kinds of arguments, or he is completely ignoring them. No one believes that God was "created," either at the incarnation or elsewhere. Various heresies throughout history have often taught that (for example, Arianism), but that is not what historical Christianity has believed. Neither God nor the Trinitarian Son came into existence at the incarnation (see previous responses). To argue this way is to misunderstand what Christians believe.

A miraculous birth, and therefore the Son of God was begotten
See, the creation of Jesus was easy, but you seem to have forgotten
That God says "Be," and it is, just like with Adam, [S. 3:59]
A concept too complex for the church to merely fathom

I believe what the gentleman is trying to argue here is that you don't have to be God to be virgin born, but God can just make a man born if He so wills this. This is certainly true, but in arguing this way he ignores everything in scripture that attests to the deity of he who was incarnated, as well as Christ's own statements regarding his eternal nature (again, see my responses above). Whether or not God could make a man be virgin born is not an issue to anyone, and therefore to argue this way is just a non sequitor.

By the way, I find it interesting the gentleman says the incarnation was "a concept too complex for the church to merely fathom," when I highly doubt this man has read any of the historical Christian works. How many Church Fathers has he read? How many of the Reformers has he read? How many of the most famous Christian theologians in the past 300 years has he read? I invite him to read works on the incarnation by Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Charles Spurgeon, and then tell me that the church is unable to "fathom" the incarnation.

But he was the creator of the universe, for all we know even more
And so what if we can't see him, I mean what you acting like, our universe is small? I mean there's still so much we've still yet to explore
I mean there's still so many things as human beings we still haven't seen, touched, heard or saw
I mean our eyes can't even handle the sight of the sun
So how can we possible handle the sight of our Lord?

I would wholeheartedly agree that we cannot fully comprehend God. However, the explicit purpose of Christ is to truly make God known to us. As scripture says:

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. [John 1:18]

The language in this passage emphasizes that no one has literally seen God in a deep, knowing sense, but the "only God" (the true meaning of μονογενὴς) who "is at the Father's side" - that is, Christ has a close relationship with the Father, one that emphasizes his coeternal and coexistent nature. This is why Christ, and only Christ, can say "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). No mere prophet could ever make such a claim.

Just to add something else Christians have often brought up: it is somewhat ironic that Muslims claim we can't fully know God on any major level...when Allah has ninety-nine names that describe who he is. Clearly from the Muslim perspective, there is some level by which we can understand God.

You see Jesus used to pray [Matt 26:39], but in your opinion who'd he pray to?
I mean if Jesus was God, surely prayer would be of no use

This is a common argument for Muslims to make on the internet, but - like so many others we've already covered - has already been responded to countless times by Christians. What we have here is the presupposition of unitarianism rather than Trinitarianism. That is, we cannot assume it is the Son praying to the Father (as it in fact was); rather, we have to assume Jesus is either completely God, or isn't God at all. This presupposition says that God is one Being and one Person, not God in Trinity. Therefore, it is no surprise for the gentleman to argue that if Christ was God he could not pray, because he is not coming from a Trinitarian mindset wherein the Person of the Son can pray to the Person of the Father.

I am also curious how this gentleman would respond to one of the previously cited verses of scripture, where Jesus prays these words:

"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." [John 17:5]

Some Muslims are quick to say, "Yeah, but that's still Jesus praying!" They seem to completely ignore what he prayed, which is: 1) a request to be glorified alongside God the Father; 2) a declaration that Christ had this glory before the world existed - in other words, before creation. What mere creature would dare to ask God to glorify them along his side, and then declare that they had this same glory before all creation even existed? Again, if Jesus was a mere prophet, then he was a great blasphemer. If, however, he was the divine Son within the Trinity, and was praying to the Father within the Trinity, then all of this makes perfect sense.

In fact, John 17:5, along with John 8:58, are two passages of scripture to which I have yet to see Muslims give an adequate response. What these verses say is crystal clear, and only with blind eyes can one ignore the truth therein.

Or did he only require it when he needed to know the truth?
Like when God wasn't sure if it was the season of the fruit? [Mark 11:12-14]

This is another popular argument for some Muslims, and is known by Christian apologists as the "fig tree argument." The idea is that if Jesus is God, he must be omniscient, and if he's omniscient, then surely he must have known that it wasn't the season for fig trees.

This argument, however, blinds us to the larger picture. That the fig tree had leaves (v. 13) suggests that it should have had fruit. The fig tree was also a popular representation of Israel (Isa 5:1-7), which was, by then, supposed to have born fruit of repentance and accepted the Messiah. The condemnation of not bearing fruit was representational of what would eventually happen to the nation of Israel, which was they would be punished for their unbelief and rejection of the Messiah, and the fruits of God's favor would be given to someone else (Matt 21:43). This is the significance of the gospel writers mentioning it was not the season of figs; the fig tree itself represented something far greater, and Christ's omniscience was completely irrelevant.

We can see a similar lesson in the parable of the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6-9). There, a man has a fig tree that has not born fruit (representing the search for repentance among Israel). He mentions that he has sought fruit for three years from the tree and found none (representing the three years of Christ's ministry). The vinedresser asks to dig around it and put in manure (representing the preaching of the gospel), and if it does not bear fruit, then it can be cut down (representing the coming judgment of the Jewish nation with the destruction of Jerusalem). As with the previous fig tree, this too represents Israel and God's search for those who would turn away from their sins, and if the people as a whole reject God, then they shall bear no more fruit.

Or maybe he prayed when there was something he couldn't do
Like when he said "I, of myself can do nothing," but you took it as "There's nothing he couldn't do" [John 5:30]

John 5:30 is a popular passage for Muslims on the internet to throw around to attempt to show that Jesus was merely a man. The problem is that it ignores the much larger context of what Christ is talking about. It's a pretty big chunk of scripture, so please bear with me here. In the end, it will show us the full context of what Jesus is saying. Shortly after the healing of the man at the pool of Bethesda, the following occurs:

The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. And this is was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."

This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who send me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

"I can do nothing on my own..." [John 5:15-30]

Now let's review the true context of Christ's statement "I can do nothing on my own."

Jesus has just healed a man, and has done so on the Sabbath. This was a violation of resting on the Sabbath, as God had ordered his people to rest in honor of the climax of creation, and hence the Jewish leaders believed this was the perfect chance to end Christ's ministry (v. 16). Jesus tells them something you would never tell devout Jews regarding your working on the Sabbath: "My Father is working until now, and I am working" (v. 17). What does this verse mean? Obviously, the only being in the universe permitted to continue working on the Sabbath was God, and Christ just said, "Just as my Father (God) is working, so too am I working." Christ just put himself on equal with God.

Those who want to soften the impact of this, or deny the verse is saying that, forget that in the very next verse John signifies this is exactly what Christ is saying. He says that "the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God" (v. 18). Christ was not calling God "Father" in any kind of metaphorical sense, as clarified by the wording "his own." John doesn't clarify they were mistaken, as he does with other sayings of Christ (see John 2:20-21) - rather, he states this matter of factly, demonstrating that, yes, this was in fact what Christ was doing, and it was upsetting the Jews greatly.

Christ then goes into one of the seven great monologues of John's gospel, with Christ saying "the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing," adding: "For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise" (v. 19). Now wait a minute...what creature can say that? If Jesus is talking about God here, then he just stated that whatever God does, he can do too. Again, the Jews were right - Jesus was making himself equal with God.

We see this again two verses later with Christ's statement: "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will" (v. 21). Now the Son, Jesus, is saying that, like the Father, he can raise the dead and give life. Again, what mere creature or mere prophet can talk this way? Could Mohammad say, "Just as Allah raises the dead and gives them life, so too can I give life to whom I will"?

We see this yet again: "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him" (v. 22-23). Some Muslims might quickly say, "Yes, you're supposed to honor God's prophets," but that is not what Christ is talking about here. Christ is stressing that honoring him and honoring God are the same thing. They're two sides of the same coin. Obviously there are many people in my life that I honor - my parents, the police, military servicemen, the president, etc. - but none of them do I honor in the same way I honor God.

We see this yet again with: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself" (v. 26). Christ is stating that, just as God the Father has life in himself, so too does he, the the Son, have life in himself. Again, no mere creature can say that, and no mere prophet would say that.

At long last, we've come to verse 30, where Christ says, "I can do nothing on my own." Yet what is the full context? Is Christ saying he's weaker than the Father? On the contrary! Christ is telling the Jews that his healings, his teachings, and everything he does is not something he's done on his own unilateral accord - rather, he and the Father are working together with equal authority and power. Christ's statement "I can do nothing on my own" is treated as a sign of weakness, and yet it is perhaps one of the greatest statements of his power and divinity in scripture!

You see no one used to worship Jesus, so ask yourself why do you
A concept so straightforward, but has left so many confused

"No one used to worship Jesus?" Really? Why do the disciples worship him after the he calms the storm? (Matt 14:33) Why do the women worship him after the resurrection? (Matt 28:9) Why do the disciples worship him after the resurrection? (Matt 28:17; Luke 24:52) Why does the man born blind worship him? (John 9:38) Why does the apostle Thomas identify Christ as his Lord and his God? (John 20:28)

Here is the funny thing about all these incidents...in not one does Christ tell the person, "Stop! Worship God alone, not me!" We find precedence for this elsewhere in scripture: Peter accosts Cornelius for worshiping him (Acts 10:25-26); Paul and Barnabas get upset with the Greeks of Lystra because they mistake them for Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14:11-15); an angel accosts the apostle John for worshiping him (Rev 19:10) - in fact, this happens twice (Rev 22:8-9).

Here we have several occurrence where biblical characters openly rebuked others for worshiping someone other than God. Yet when we look at the instances where Christ was worshiped by others, Christ did not stop them, rebuke them, or even gently reprimand them. In other words, three apostles and an angel are all able to tell someone not to worship them, and yet one of the greatest prophets (according to Islam) never did so. We can only come to two conclusions: either Christ was a false prophet who accepted worship meant for God, or Christ did not stop these individuals from worshiping him because he was deserving of worship.

So you see, this concept is straightforward, but the only time people become confused is when we introduce extra-biblical concepts, such as those in the Quran.

You see Jesus preached one God [Isa 45:5], but the church has failed to practice
And I mean you don't have to be that dumb to know that one plus one plus one equaling one isn't necessarily going to give you a pass in mathematics

Quite frankly, here is the part where I wanted to bang my head, hard, against my computer desk. The gentleman in the video just pulled the "one plus one plus one doesn't equal one" fallacy. However, no knowledgeable Christian throughout history has ever argued that one plus one plus one equals one. God is one Being (monotheism) revealed through three distinct but unified Persons (Trinitarianism). The historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity from the time of Christ has always been that there is one Being of God revealed through three individual Persons connected by a unified Essence. These are not three gods, and to continue arguing that way is simply to ignore what Christians have been saying for over 2000 years.

To my Muslim friends, let me be frank: this might win you points if you're trying to look good in front of other Muslims, and it might get you views for your video, but if you're trying to open dialogue with a Christian - and I mean meaningful, serious dialogue - don't resort to this sort of thing.

You see the church said three, and Jesus said one
Jesus said God, and the church said Son

On the contrary, Christians have been saying "one" for thousands of years. The Nicene Creed, formed in the early fourth century, opens up with the words: "I believe in one God." The only person who claimed otherwise was the writer of the Quran, who clearly did not understand the Trinity in any way, shape or form. For a greater discussion on this, please see this post.

Jesus never said worship me, rather he said pray [Matt 6:6]
But you've chosen to worship Jesus despite everything He used to say

Here we have the repetition of the old Ahmed Deedat argument, "Jesus never said, 'Worship me.'" Is this the case? We've already seen (in the previous responses) that Jesus fully accepted worship aimed at him while others rejected worship aimed towards them. Even if Christ never said "Worship me," he never once condemned the act of doing so.

In regards to Matthew 6:6, this is simply a command from Christ to pray with humility, rather than the hypocrites among the Jewish leadership who prayed openly to be seen and adored by men (see Matthew 6:5-8 for a full context). It is true that Christ told his followers to pray, but that was not all that he said (we'll get to that later on).

You began to think with your emotion, and forgot to think with your mind
I guess you didn't pay attention when Jesus said "Our father," yet never says mine [Matt 6:9]

This was an argument made popular through Khalid Yasin (and I'm sure others), but it's incredibly fallacious. The "our father" is referring to the Lord's Prayer, which Jesus was giving to followers, not Him. Hence the Christ's words "and when you pray" (Matt 6:7).

Also, that Jesus never said "mine" in regards to the Father is simply erroneous. One need only find a scripture search engine and type in "my father" for the New Testament to see this is completely incorrect. Heck, just read the fifth chapter of John's gospel and count how many times Christ says "my father." This kind of great error is an ironic one to make when we are told in the same breath to "think with our mind."

You claim to be a follower of Christ, yet you still choose to eat swine [Deu 14:8]

That's because Jesus said himself that it wasn't what entered a man that defiled him, but what came out, for it revealed their heart (Mark 7:18-19). It is then added in verse 19: "Thus he declared all foods clean." We see this likewise in Acts, when God tells the apostle Peter regarding animals: "What God has made clean, do not call common" (Acts 10:15). The reason for this change was that with the coming of Christ came the new covenant, wherein the Law was written upon your heart and not upon tablets, and the ritual laws of old Israel (including the dietary laws) were no longer relevant.

So yes, sir, I am a follower of Christ and I choose to eat swine, because both the Father and Son have said my salvation is not in jeopardy for doing so.

And you call yourselves Christians, but in your churches you're busy drinking wine [Lev 10:9-11]

First, what kind of statement is that? "Busy drinking wine"? That makes it sound like Christians get drunk during Sunday services, which is a complete straw man, and quite frankly a disrespectful one. Also, the only churches with wine are those denominations that use wine for communion. Many Protestant churches today use grape juice, so for a large portion of this man's target audience, that statement is completely irrelevant.

Second, Leviticus 10 is regarding the Nazirites, a special branch of religious Jews who let their hair grow and abstained from wine and other practices. It is not talking about all believers. Nowhere does scripture give a complete prohibition on alcohol or wine as Islam does - in fact, some passages of scripture clearly have God saying it is all right to drink wine. In one of the passages speaking of the tithe, it reads:

"Then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household." [Deu 14:25-26]

Either there is a contradiction in God's word, or the gentleman in the video has used the Leviticus passage out of context. Given the proper context of both, we have to go with the latter option.

And just to clarify, I do love Jesus, matter of fact I love him more than you
Because when Jesus said do something, I actually do

Oh really? Is that so? You know, this statement reminds me of someone else - another young gentleman who actually met and spoke to Jesus. One account of the story:

And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The young man said to him, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. [Matt 19:16-22]

The man comes before Jesus and asks about eternal life. Christ reminds him about the commandments, which the man boldly proclaims he has done. Like the young man in the video, this young man would likewise say, "When Jesus said do something, I actually do it!" Yet Christ then adds something: give up everything and follow him. Not God, but Jesus. The man refuses to do so because of his wealthy possessions - a sign that all he had claimed to have done before was an out and out lie. Indeed, it is impossible for anyone to perfectly follow God. This is why, in the verses following, you have the disciples lamenting, "Who then can be saved?" to which Christ replies, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matt 19:25-26).

Let me now ask the gentleman in the video: you say that you love Jesus more than Christians because when Jesus says "do something," you actually "do." All right, have you ever been angry with your fellow believers? Christ says that makes you guilty of murder (Matt 5:21-22). Have you ever looked at a woman with lust? Christ says that makes you guilty of adultery (Matt 5:27-28). So according to Christ's own words, you have not done all the things you've claimed to have done. Before the eyes of God, my friend, you are not a doer, but a sinner.

I am not writing this out of a spirit of self-righteousness. I myself am guilty of both of those a thousand times over and so much more. If I was reliant upon my doing alone, I would be on a one-way trip to hell, and God would have every right to do so. The fact is anyone who says they are a true doer of what God commands are themselves a liar, and deceive themselves (1 John 1:8).

You see, I would love to be able to never, ever get angry with my brother again, or never look at a woman with lust again, but I know, because I was born in sin and iniquity (Psa 51:5), that this is just an impossibility. I want to do good, but the evil inside me compels me to continue sinning (Rom 7:19). That is why I can proudly declare, along with the apostle Paul: "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Rom 7:24-25)

However, I'm not connected with the church, or with the Bible,
See I love Jesus as my prophet, but refuse to worship him as an idol
Just like he wants it, and proclaims it as sin [Exo 20:4]
So it doesn't really matter if they don't let him in
Because Jesus wouldn't even want to be in the presence of people worshiping an idol of him

I find it interesting the gentleman says he's not connected "with the Bible." Does the Quran not confirm that God sent down the Torat (Torah) and Injil (Gospel) to the people to be used by them as a clear message? (S. 3:3) Does the Quran not say Mohammad is confirmed in the Torat and Injil? (S. 7:157) Hasn't this gentleman been quoting the Bible this entire time to confirm what he believes? Doesn't he cite the Bible just two verses later?

The video here cuts to a news footage of lightning striking a statue of Jesus, apparently as a suggestion that it was an act of God. However, giant statues of Jesus cannot be used to attack Christian worship of Jesus. There is a world of difference between Christian worship of Christ as the Eternal Son and the abuses that might stem from that. It is comparable, say, to the Muslim's respect of the Quran and abuses that might stem from that.

Before I move on, there's something I need to mention
The worshiping of Jesus is a man-made invention
He never asked for your worship so he can grant you protection
Rather he asked you to alternate your prayers towards another direction

Here we have the (unfortunately common) case of Muslim apologetics: ignore practically all of Christ's message and focus only on his monotheistic message. Did Christ teach there was only one God? Of course he did - but we do a dishonor to anyone if we focus solely on one aspect of their overall message. To do so is like saying Abraham Lincoln only wrote the Gettysburg Address to remind people how old America was.

So what else did Christ teach? He taught that he was to die and be resurrected for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:46-47). He taught that those who believe in he himself would not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16) and would not be condemned (John 3:18). He taught that he himself was the resurrection and the life, and that those who believe in him would never perish but have eternal life (John 11:25-26). He taught that he himself was the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one came to the Father but through him alone (John 14:6).

Many of these teachings are things the Jews had previously only attributed to God, and which Muslims would most certainly only attribute to God. Which mere prophet ever said belief in him, and not God, was mandatory for eternal life? Which mere prophet taught that he himself, not God, was the resurrection and the life, and that belief in him, not God, was dependent for eternal life? Which mere prophet taught that he himself, not God, was the way, the truth, and the life?

You see, when you isolate part of a man's message and ignore everything else he said, it's easy to warp it into whatever you desire it to be. Yes, Christ did come to tell us to alternate our prayers towards another direction, but he said: "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:40). Christ himself is asking people to look towards him, and only then will they find eternal life. Again, what mere prophet ever spoke this way?

To God and God only and pray that he accepts them

This part stuck out to me. Whether or not the gentleman intended it to be this way, it was worded interestingly. He says that we should pray to God and "pray that he accepts them." So I am first to pray to God, then I am supposed to pray God accepts my prayers? Might I ask where the hope in this is? That's like saying you have to pay $100 to the court for a speeding ticket, then pay them another $100 in the hopes that they'll accept your previous payment.

This reminds me of an encounter John MacArthur had with a Muslim man on an airplane. When MacArthur asked the man if he sinned, the man said yes, and that he was actually on his way to meet a woman and possibly sin some more. When MacArthur asked the man if God would forgive him for his sins, the man replied, "I hope so."

And know that just because you love Jesus doesn't mean he feels the same way about your affection
See what you believe in is exactly what he resented, matter of fact it's everything he despised
See the worshiping of creation went against the very message he supplied

On the contrary, what I and many other Christians do is exactly what he asked us to do. We've clearly seen that in the previous responses.

So you began to follow a religion and call it love in disguise
Because love can be good, but love can be blind

I agree love can be blind, but love of Christ is not the kind of blindness we have seen in this video. No, my friend, there is a different kind of blindness here. Blindness is ignoring what the other side has said for thousands of years. Blindness is accepting the teachings of a prophet unconditionally, even when his teachings clearly contradict all the revelations that came before him. Blindness is picking and choosing verses, ignoring their true context, and ignoring all the verses that contradict your entire theology. Blindness is focusing only on the part of a person's message that you choose to accept.

To any Muslim reading this post, let me say that this video does not teach you anything edifying nor truthful. I encourage you to truly read God's word (not just peruse a search engine or look for verses that prove your point) and study what He says therein. You will find that Christ is God, that he is Judge, and that one day every tongue will confess and every knee will bow and acknowledge God as Lord - not as prophet, nor as simply messiah, but as Lord. This will be done either out of love, or out of shock and awe. For those who embrace him as Lord and God in this life - as the apostle Thomas did - they will have life everlasting, and will be forgiven for their sins thanks to the atoning sacrifice of Christ. If, however, you are outside of Christ, you will be judged for all your sins, and God will judge righteously.

I hope and pray that God uses this post to edify the people of God, and I hope and pray that Muslims who read this come to a knowledge of the truth. If you are Muslim and reading this, I pray that - even if we never get to meet face to face in this life - we get to meet face to face after the resurrection, in the company of Christ. God bless.

Kevin DeYoung and Viral Videos

2012-01-13T15:32:00.003-05:00

There was a video being shown around the Twitter and Facebook circle, saying that Jesus hates religion, and that Jesus was different than religion (you can see it here). I never contributed to its viral popularity because, while I understand where the gentleman was coming from, there was something about it that didn't sit right to me. To say "Jesus hates religion" or to oppose the word "religion" seemed a bit too extreme a reaction to the extreme position many people take.

But Kevin DeYoung has managed to put all the problems I was having with the video in coherent, educated terms, which he wrote in the following article. So...I'll just let him do the talking. See the link below:

Does Jesus Hate Religion? Kinda, Sorta, Not Really

EDIT - JANUARY 17, 2012: Small update to report. Mr. DeYoung and the gentleman who made the video have come to an agreement of sorts. This is how discussions in the body of Christ should go - oh how easy it is for some to just pull the Pharisee card...

Following Up on the Jesus/Religion Video

Lou Engle, Scripture and Dominionism

2012-01-11T12:10:00.000-05:00

Lou Engle (who has a website here) is a prominent figure in the house of prayer movement, and is a senior leader at the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC) under Mike Bickle. He is most commonly known for his TheCall conventions, which happen at various places across the country and are mainly for prayer to God for breakthrough and revival in America, especially in regards to homosexuality and abortion. In addition to IHOP-KC, Engle has started a series of Justice Houses of Prayer (appropriately known as JHOPs) in various major American cities. His target audience is often young adults and children - in fact, he can be seen talking about abortion with many children in the documentary Jesus Camp.

One element of IHOP-KC and its associated churches is the stance of dominion theology. Dominion theology teaches that the believer has dominion over every area of life. This extends well beyond how most Christians might believe - dominionists will extend it into society, culture, and government as well. They uphold that we are reclaiming everything from Satan to God, not just the souls of men. Some will use the word "kingdom" in this regard, stating that we are in "the kingdom" and reclaiming everything for "the kingdom."

This came out surprisingly strong in a Lou Engle sermon I listened to recently. It was entitled Voting as a Prophetic Act of Divine Governance, and given at IHOP-KC (link). Perhaps what shocked me the most while listening was how much Lou Engle distorted scripture to suit his theology. Well this isn't uncommon for those at IHOP-KC (as I've shown before and again), it was the first time I had heard Lou Engle do it, and just the way he distorted verses - even well known verses - made me realize this sermon should perhaps be addressed.

As might be discerned from the title, the sermon is on voting, and why Christians should vote. Near the beginning of the lecture/sermon, Lou Engle turns to Genesis 1:26.

This is the mandate - the cultural mandate - that God gives to Adam. He creates Adam, "'Make man in our own image,' God says, 'according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea...the birds of the air, over the cattle over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created them, male and female He created them, and then God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it, bring it under governmental control, subdue the rebellion, and have dominion over the fish of the sea the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'" [1:25-mark]

Did you notice what was not there in the original text that Engle added? Let's quickly review the verses he quoted in their original wording:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." [Gen 1:26-28]

So as you can see, nowhere in the text does it say man should "bring it under governmental control" or "subdue the rebellion." The latter point is especially odd - what rebellion? The Fall had not yet occurred. There was no rebellion to subdue. This makes about as much sense as a historian saying, "And King George III sent General Cornwallis to America in 1762, saying 'Subdue the revolution!'"

Of course, the first chapter of Genesis is always the key place dominionists go to in order to substantiate their theology. The problem is, of course, when they stop at verse 28, they always forget what comes after it:

And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so [Gen 1:29-30]

This is repeated to Noah later on:

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." [Gen 9:1-4]

What is going on here? God is giving His final creation - mankind - dominion over the rest of creation, yes. However, this is in the context of God's providence for them. That is, man is permitted to have dominion over creation so that he can be provided for. The animals are here for the service and food of man, as are all the plants yielding seed and bearing fruit. This says nothing about government, rebellion or anything like that, nor could we consider this a "cultural mandate." Engle has added such a concept into the text. Why? As suggested before, to promote dominion theology:

As we begin with the first mandate of God...the first mandate that describes what the image of God in man really is, and it is this: that the image of God is a rulership image. That by bearing the very image of God, by very nature and original job description, we are rulers. It is our calling, it is within us, we are dominion-havers, dominion-takers, amen. Can you say amen? The primary job description is to rule. [3:04-mark]

And soon after:

Now at this time in history, God had created the heavens and the earth, but there had been a rebellion - isn't that right? And Satan himself was cast down from that throne of worship before the Lord, and he found his headquarters of rebellion - he made it on the earth, he was cast down there. God puts Adam into the Garden, there's a serpent walking there, and God says, "You're to tread down that serpent in this garden. You're to govern this garden and bring it into subjection." [5:06-mark]

Here we finally have the context of exactly why Lou Engle added "subdue the rebellion" into Gen 1:26-28. According to Lou Engle, Satan falls to earth, makes a headquarters of rebellion; God puts Adam into the garden and says Adam's to tread on the serpent, govern the garden, and bring it into subjection. Here's the problem with that: nowhere in scripture does it say anything close that. Let's review what God says when He puts Adam into the garden:

The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." [Gen 2:15-17]

And that's it. There's nothing about a serpent, nothing about "bringing the garden into subjection." The serpent won't appear until chapter three, nor will it be said that someone will step on the serpent until then. At this point, snakes just aren't a problem. Even when the snake does appear, he's not incorporated into any kind of dominion or kingdom theology. What Lou Engle has done here is read chapter three back into verse two, and what's more...he has distracted us from Christ. What do I mean by this? Let's review the "tread down that serpent" verse:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." [Gen 3:15]

This is considered by some to be one of the earliest Messianic prophecies in scripture. God is saying to the serpent - and by extension, the devil - that he will bruise the heel of the woman's offspring, and her offspring will bruise his head. This is the fulfilled in Christ: the devil "bruised his heel" at the crucifixion, and Christ "bruised his head" at the resurrection. This passage isn't about us, it's about Christ. To make it about us is to rob the glory from Christ and pass it to our own.

Lou Engle then goes at length about the "four arenas" that we must "govern" if we're going to "bring Satan down" and "bring the kingdom to the earth." He starts by saying that we must govern ourselves, asking "hath Christ become the governor of my own life?" (7:10-mark). I didn't have too many problems here, and I'm certainly not writing this post to nitpick on every tiny thing Mr. Engle says. However, I did feel myself come to a halt when he talks of the next "arena," which is marriage:

In the garden, first movement of governmental rebellion springs forth in that marriage. And when that rebellion takes place, the man and the woman are hiding from one another, and hiding from God. If we're gonna be governing the earth, our marriages have got to stay together. [7:54-mark]

Again, let's go the text where this is occurring.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. [Gen 3:6-8]

Let's now review a few problems with Lou Engle's interpretation of this passage, given what we've read:

1) This is not a "governmental rebellion" - this is sin. Adam and Eve had sinned against God, and that is what happened here. I don't like it when liberals reinvent terms - neither do I like it when conservatives do so.

2) The first "governmental rebellion" was not Adam and Eve hiding from one another, but their violating God's commands. Marriage is nowhere being discussed here. Certainly one could argue Adam failed in his role as a husband for not protecting Eve from the serpent or reprimanding her when she offered him the apple, but that was the sin for which they are accosted for is the eating of the forbidden fruit.

3) Nowhere does the text say the man and woman were "hiding from one another" - Lou Engle has completely read that in. It simply says they "hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God" - they're not hiding from one another and God, they're hiding from God alone. They didn't sin against each other, they had sinned against God - that's why they were hiding from Him.

Lou Engle now moves onto his third "arena," saying it involves children, having lots of children, and raising children to have a dominion mindset. This, for me, led to the most shocking part of Lou Engle's speech, and the part that inspired me to work on this blog post. Pay close attention to what he says:

Be fruitful, multiply - but it's not enough to be multiply and have children. You must have children who become sons who can bear the governmental rule. "Onto us a child is born, onto us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders." Children can be born, but sons come from fathers. Come on! Sons come from fathers who father sons who then can bear the government upon their shoulders. [9:06-mark]

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA! Did you see what he just did there? To what verse is he referring in that quote? He's quoting Isaiah 9:6 - let's look at it in full with a bit of additional context:

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this. [Isa 9:6-7]

Who's being talked about here? Who is the child being born? It's Jesus Christ! This is a Messianic prophecy, and one of the best known! Lou Engle has (for the second time) completely ripped a Messianic prophecy out of context and applied it to us. Engle cut it off after "the government shall be upon his shoulder," but he forgot what came after that, which would have completely contradicted his point. Can any Christian father call his son "Mighty God"? Can any Christian father say his son is "Everlasting Father"? This is simply inexcusable - in fact, it's downright blasphemous. As many who read my blog know, I don't immediate jump to the assumption someone is purposefully misquoting scripture, but in this case I can't possibly think that Lou Engle did this by accident. He had to have known he was misapplying the verse, and went ahead any way. There is absolutely no excuse for this.

You read it in Isaiah 22, He says, "and the government shall be upon his shoulder, I'll give you the keys of your father David, what you open no one will shut," and then 2:23, it says "and he shall rule as a father." We need men and women who can rise up and rule as fathers, not as unfathered children. Who govern under the fear of people's voices rather than govern under the rule of the Father in heaven.[9:50-mark]

Lou Engle is quoting from what is an extensive section of Isaiah:

Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, "Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: What have you to do here, and whom have you here, that you have cut out here a tomb for yourself, you who cut out a tomb on the height and carve a dwelling for yourself in the rock? Behold, the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you and whirl you around and around, and throw you like a ball into a wide land. There you shall die, and there shall be your glorious chariots, you shame of your master's house. I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house. And they will hang on him the whole honor of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. In that day, declares the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way, and it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken." [Isaiah 22:15-25]

The idea of "he shall open, and none shall shut" and "he shall shut, and none shall open" is made reference again later on to someone else. Who is it? It's Jesus Christ. How do we know this? We know this because this passage is made reference to later on in Revelation:

"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 'The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.'" [Revelation 3:7]

Just as some Roman Catholics wrongfully say Isaiah 22 is about Peter, so too does Lou Engle wrongfully say Isaiah 22 is about believers. This is the third time thus far in the sermon that Lou Engle has taken a Messianic prophecy and applied it to us rather than Christ.

Continuing on:

Number four: he placed him in a garden - the cultural mandate is to subdue the garden, the sphere of authority that you've been placed into, and govern that, and bring it under the dominion of Christ, so that there is peace...Wherever I go, people are talking about the seven mountains of influence: government, family, religion, business, education, arts and entertainment, and media. These are the seven mountains of influence - it's your garden! God wants the garden of government to be ruled by sons who, when the government is upon their shoulders, the increase of the government and of His peace shall be no end. [10:43-mark]

The "seven mountains of influence" is a dominionist doctrine that has become popular in most dominion theology circles these days. Engle approves of this doctrine by applying all the misapplied verses which he has thus far cited. He continues:

So, Adam's rebellion brings forth a full-blown rebellion in chapter eleven of Genesis - Babel - which is the foreshadowing of the worldwide full-blown rebellion of the last days when the antichrist, the man of lawlessness, government releases law so that there is peace. The man of lawlessness will rule, it will be a worldwide rebellion, and what starts with Adam comes into the full-blown antichrist rebellion. [12:32-mark]

What? How is any of that related? Engle is going off on a tangent here and talking about things without first stopping to explain them. He's throwing them out in a cavalier fashion without giving a defense for the people listening. This might win the emotions of people there in IHOP-KC, but such preaching does not edify the people of God.

But in the middle of this, and in the falling of the garden, a voice comes, it is the word of the Lord, "But you're gonna have a seed, and that seed will crush the head of the serpent," hallelujah! There would come another Adam who would begin to reverse what Adam had lost in terms of governmental authority to the usurper Satan, there would come another son who would bear the government upon his shoulders, and of the increase of his kingdom of his government there shall be no end, and it will lead until the great day, until Christ is Lord, rules over the earth, and the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ. There are two movements in the earth: a governmental rebellion and a governmental restoration of all that was given to Adam at the beginnings. Hallelujah! When Christ completely obeyed the Father in the garden - when He went to Gethsemane and said, "Not my will, but thine be done," it was the beginning of the great restoration. He got the keys of the kingdom when He died on the cross in complete obedience to His Father, raised to the right hand of the Father, given the throne room, seated at the right hand of the Father. [13:06-mark]

Lou Engle isn't entirely wrong here. Many theologians and commentators have written on a comparison between Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden and Christ's loyalty in the Garden of Gethsemane. There is no doubt a legitimate allegorical connection which can be made here. However, where we should be discerning is Lou Engle's application of this being the starting point of a "great restoration."

In fact, Lou Engle's focus on Christ's passion in the garden and that this is the beginning of a "great restoration" is ironically similar to Mormon theology. Mormons do not believe we were atoned for on the cross, but rather in the Garden of Gethsemane when Christ is said to have sweat drops of blood. In like manner, his presentation of the cross fits more a Christus Victor model than a substitutionary atonement model. Not that I am implying Lou Engle denies the atonement, but when his presentation is solely on Christ's loyalty and the idea of "government restoration," that is the logical conclusion we come to in regards to the role of the cross.

So what was the point of the cross? Shortly after foretelling His death for the third time, Christ told His disciples that "the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). It was about the laying down of the Son's life for the purchase and sanctification of His chosen people. The Christus Victor model is therefore not an entirely wrong one, as Christ did emerge from the cross a complete victor, but to simply highlight the victorious acts of Christ would be like focusing on V-E and V-J Day while ignoring why World War II started in the first place.

Engle continues:

...He gave the great commission to the new Adam, to the offspring of the last Adam, the new believers in Christ, He gave them the mandate "go ye therefore into all the world and preach the gospel. Teaching all nations, discipling all nations, to do whatever I've told you to do!" Come on! I believe what he was saying here, it was what God said to Adam in the cultural mandate of Genesis: the great commission is actually the extension of the first commission, the cultural mandate. It is this: Go ye therefore and win people to Christ, but don't just get 'em saved, make them disciples so they can become sons who carry the government into every sphere of society and bring the authority and dominion of the king to the earth. In this present age...it is still our mandate as was given to Adam, bring the garden of God under the control of the king! Come on! [14:28-mark]

Let's review the Great Commission quickly:

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." [Matthew 28:18-20]

Now let's review Luke's parallel to it:

Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." [Luke 24:46-49]

This is the second time on this blog we've noticed someone from IHOP-KC distorting the meaning of the Great Commission. Daniel Lim (in a previous post of mine) turned the great commission to mean Christians should perform miracles. Here Lou Engle turns the Great Commission into a dominionist manifesto. Reviewing these passages, I think it would be safe to say that the beginning of Genesis was not what the apostles had in mind when Christ gave the Great Commission. Rather, it was the "repentance and forgiveness of sins" to be "proclaimed in [Christ's] name to all nations," and the discipleship of the nations involved the teaching and baptizing. There is nothing here about bringing people into submission or "bringing the garden of God under the control of the king." In fact, Christ makes it clear in Matthew's account He already has authority over the earth.

Penetrate every sphere of society! Raise up sons and daughters who can bear the weight so they can rule in the universities of America! They can rule in the government of America! God has never given up the world to the devil...the problem is, He ascended to the right hand of the Father to the hill of the Lord, but there in Psalm 24, "But who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? He with clean hands and a pure heart." He's looking for a generation of men and women who can govern themselves, who can get to the top of the hills, like Daniel did in Babylon, and govern through the king, hallelujah! This is our mandate! [15:36-mark]

Let's review Psalm 24.

Who shall ascend the hill of the LORD? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false and does not swear deceitfully. He will receive blessing from the LORD and righteousness from the God of his salvation. Such is the generation of those who seek him, who seek the face of the God of Jacob.

Lift up your heads, O gates! And be lifted up, O ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in.

Who is this King of glory?

The LORD, strong and mighty, the LORD, mighty in battle! Lift up your heads, O gates! And lift them up, O ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in.

Who is this King of glory?

The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory! [Psalm 24:3-10]

Who is the one who "has clean hands and a pure heart" and will ascend the hill of the LORD and cry out: "Lift up your heads, O gates...that the King of Glory may come in"? Who is this verse talking about? It's talking about Christ! This is a Messianic prophecy about Christ ascending the hill of the LORD in glory. Lou Engle's done it again! For the fourth time since this sermon started, he's taken a passage of scripture about Christ and made it about us! As I said before, this is just blasphemous.

I was going to continue on, but to be perfectly honest, I can't continue this post. Before anyone launches into false accusations, I did listen to it the whole way through, but sitting down to transcript it has proven daunting. Lou Engle's method of sermon leads one to transcribing rambling, and I think we have seen enough to show that this speech given by him is not faithful to the word of God in any way, shape or form. A man who claims to be having supposed dreams and visions from God should, at the very least, use the word of God properly. If he cannot do that, chances are he is not speaking to God at all.

Did Agabus get it wrong?

2012-01-09T11:07:00.000-05:00

Some supporters of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC), in an attempt to justify founder Mike Bickle's position that New Testament prophets can get details of a prophecy wrong, or can prophesy wrongly (see my posts here and here), have tried turning to a scriptural example. They turn to the prophecy of a prophet named Agabus, found in Luke's Acts of the Apostles. Using his very own personal account, Luke recalls the prophesy given by Agabus regarding Paul's eventual journey to Jerusalem and his imprisonment.

While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, "Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'" [Acts 21:10-11]

IHOP-KC supporters claim that this was wrong, as it was the Romans who bound Paul. To verify this, they go to verse 33.

Then the tribune came up and arrested [Paul] and ordered him to be bound with two chains. He inquired who he was and what he had done. [Acts 21:33]

Therefore, they say, since Agabus was wrong (at least "partially") on the details, this is scriptural proof for the IHOP-KC position that New Testament prophets can get some things in a prophecy wrong. Is this the case?

First, let's remember what the apostle Peter wrote regarding prophecy in general:

Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. [2 Peter 1:20-21]

As I discussed in the previously cited post, both the words and the grammar here are clear. The apostle Peter begins by saying that "no prophecy of Scripture" comes from someone's own interpretation (not referring to sola scriptura, but man making up scripture with no assistance from God), and then explains why in the next verse: it is because no prophecy was ever by "the will of man," but as men "were carried along by the Holy Spirit." The original word translated in the ESV as "carried along" means that God is in complete control, and what God wants to be said will be said. God is not a victim of fatalism to the personal spiritual whims of the creature, and His prophecies are not capable of being given with any degree of error. At the time of this writing, I have yet to have a follower of Mike Bickle or IHOP-KC's doctrines give a real response to this passage of scripture.

Secondly, we should point out that the idea that Agabus got the details of the prophecy wrong is vastly foreign to the over 2000 years of Christian exegesis and scriptural study. Some recent men, such as Wayne Grudem and D.A. Carson, have certainly made the claim that Agabus spoke in error (and IHOP-KC's followers readily quote them), but their opinion is in the vast minority. Some of the greatest theologians and expositors of scripture throughout history have interpreted Agabus's prophecy as being completely fulfilled with no mistake on his part (even with verse 33 in consideration). This list of great men includes John Calvin, Matthew Henry, John Wesley, John Gill, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, A.T Robertson and many, many others.

Thirdly, let's try to understand what occurs in Jerusalem when Paul arrives. While the backing of Christian history can be vital, it is not Matthew Henry, D.A. Carson or anyone else who gets the final word, but scripture itself and its plain meaning. We find, in this section, the apostle Paul at the Temple performing Jewish forms of worship, and a riot occurs:

When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place." For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple. Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut. And as they were seeking to kill him, word came to the tribune of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion. He at once took soldiers and centurions and ran down to them. And when they saw the tribune and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. Then the tribune came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. He inquired who he was and what he had done. Some in the crowd were shouting one thing, some another. And as he could not learn the facts because of the uproar, he ordered him to be brought into the barracks. And when he came to the steps, he was actually carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the crowd, for the mob of the people followed, crying out, "Away with him!" [Acts 21:27-36]

Paul was indeed bound by Romans (v. 33), but it was at the instigation of the Jews (v. 31-32), who had already seized and dragged him out of the Temple (v. 30). It was because Paul's enemies had instigated the people and caused the riot that the Romans were compelled to chain him. Some commentators, such as John Gill, suggest that the reason the tribune puts Paul in chains is to calm the Jews and pacify the situation, and, if this were the case, then the Jews of Jerusalem would indeed be responsible for Paul's binding. Certainly Tertullus, spokesman for the Jewish leadership, made the claim later on that it was they who captured Paul (Acts 24:6). Although there is a textual variant in the next verse where Tertullus some gives credit to the tribune, this is not in the earliest manuscripts, and is left out of most modern translations.

Fourthly and finally, if Agabus got the details of the prophecy wrong, the characters of Acts - including the author Luke himself - are completely silent on the matter. We don't see Agabus and others being befuddled by the differing events in the same manner Mike Bickle, Bob Jones and the other Kansas City Prophets were befuddled by differing events from their own prophecies (as was often recorded by Bickle himself). In fact, let's take a moment to understand how the apostle Paul interpreted the events of Acts 21. To the Jews in Rome, Paul said:

"Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans." [Acts 28:17]

Did Agabus get the details of the prophecy wrong? That's completely foreign to the apostle Paul himself. Paul interprets the events as the Jews capturing him as a prisoner (thus being bound, even if only by instigation) and handing him over to the Romans. According to the apostle Paul, Agabus got everything right. If Agabus had been wrong, Paul should have said something similar to simply: "I was arrested by the Romans." There is good reason, therefore, that the previously mentioned theologians believed that Agabus's prediction was completely fulfilled, and that is the apostle Paul himself, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, confirmed it so in this verse. At this moment in my life, I do not believe myself spiritually mature enough to disagree with the apostle Paul.

It is perfectly fine to turn to scripture affirm or review our theology. However, when we reach a level where we attempt to accuse prophets of God of prophesying falsely (even if "partially") and ignore how scripture itself interprets an event, then we are not continuing in a mindset where scripture has the final say. Instead, we are entering a mindset where our presuppositions and desires to validate another man's ministries and false teachings are carrying the day. I humbly ask that those supporting IHOP-KC, Mike Bickle and his peers carefully and prayerfully consider this. God bless.

The Judas Anointing

2012-01-04T10:00:00.001-05:00

These days, I can't help but notice that a lot of Neo-Pentecostal and Hyper-Charismatic churches seem to be following a trend - namely, a hyping up of various "anointings." I've heard of "Anna anointings," "Daniel anointings," and every other anointing under the sun. These teachings seem to follow the same trend, and it seems like in order to mimic this, you just have to follow these easy steps.

1) Find a Biblical character who did something.
2) Slap the word "anointing" after their name.
3) Tell people God is ready to give this anointing to others willing to emulate this person.

So I propose we teach a new anointing available to the people of God...

THE JUDAS ANOINTING!

That's right, the Judas Anointing! With this anointing, we'll be able to start hanging ministries! No, I didn't mean to write "healing ministries," you read it correctly the first time, folks - hanging ministries! We need people willing to hang themselves for God, because God isn't just looking for people willing to feel sorry for their sin, He wants people who are willing to show how angry they are at what they did. So the Holy Spirit is going to raise up people with a Judas anointing to get'r done!

Now I know what some of you are thinking. Some of you might be pointing out that the only person we're told to emulate in the Bible is Jesus Christ, who was the perfect fulfillment of the Law. Some of you might be pointing out that this essentially introduces works-based salvation where our blessing is dependent upon everything we do. Some of you might be pointing out that no such anointing exists in the Bible, and therefore I'm adding to God's commands and guilty of moving away from the gospel.

Well, to all you people, I got one response...

DON'T YOU JUDGE ME I'VE GOT A LOT OF FOLLOWERS SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HELPED I'M A NICE GUY DON'T CRITICIZE IT UNTIL YOU'VE EXPERIENCED IT YOU BIG MEANIE!!!!!!!!1111oneoneone

There, I think I've covered all my bases. So in conclusion: let's get this Judas anointing underway, let's start up some hanging ministries, and let's go out there and do what I - I mean - God wants us to do! GO FORTH, MY READERS!

DISCLAIMER: This is satire. If you seriously go out and hang yourself, I'm not responsible.

Destroying Discernment: Mike Bickle and What Makes a False Prophet

2011-12-30T08:00:00.000-05:00

Introduction

Michael Youssef once said: "The wolf absolutely hates the watchdog who protects the sheep." One of the greatest signs of a wolf is when someone wants to get rid of any level of discernment, or at the very least belittle or minimalize that which had previously served as discernment. Anytime someone wants to attack the standard which outlines "A is not B because of Y," their views should immediately be called into question. There are plenty of historical examples of this with false prophets. For example, Mohammad claimed to be giving revelation in line with the Torah and Gospel, and yet told his followers not to bother reading Christian scripture as they had a perfect revelation in the Quran.

Of course, most false prophets and teachers don't outright say "Let's lower our levels of discernment" - nor should we expect them to do so. The false teachers are those who appear in sheep's clothing, but on the inside are ravenous wolves (Matt 7:15). That is why discernment is so important - it gives us an ability to figure out when we're dealing with a wolf disguised as a sheep. This is why, for example, we should get worried when Doug Pagitt says we shouldn't use the Bible as our final source of authority, or when Rob Bell teaches that it's far more important to tell a good story than it is to represent God's word accurately. Again, neither of these men will outright say "Oh hey guys, lower your discernment so I can introduce some false doctrine, all right?", yet when you get to the heart of the matter, that is what they are doing. Doug Pagitt, in fact, will claim he's not doing what we think he's doing, then proceed to confirm our fears by teaching precisely that (for example, saying that he doesn't believe Jesus is just an example, then going on for the next few pages teaching that Jesus is just an example). I've compared this to the villain of Don Bluth's An American Tail, who is a cat disguised as a mouse, and when he's revealed to be what he is at the end tells the mice: "C'mon, who are you gonna believe? Me, or your own eyes?" Again, no wolf is going to admit to being a wolf in sheep's clothing (some wolves may be delusional enough to even think they're sheep), but if we throw out even a few methods of discernment, it gets harder and harder to identify who is a wolf and who is not.

That is why, as I began to research the background and beliefs of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC) as well as its founder, Mike Bickle, I felt a sense of worry growing within me. This was because I noticed that, on several levels, Mike Bickle was likewise attempting to harm our sense of discernment. When you followed through to the logical conclusion of why he was doing so, it was obvious that Bickle's intent was to give far greater legitimacy to his ministry and prevent possible criticisms from enemies.

The following are three major areas I noticed, over the course of my reading and listening to various sermons, that Bickle and his IHOP-KC staff were attempting to lower our level of discernment. I will then review their opinions up to scripture (and at times common sense) to review if they stand up to God's standard for ministry.

#1: It doesn't matter if prophecies are not accurate

Perhaps the most infamous of Mike Bickle's teachings on prophecy is the one which says that New Testament prophets are permitted to be wrong. This is not entirely unique to Bickle's work at IHOP-KC, as he and his fellow Kansas City prophets had been recorded teaching similar things long before.

One group of so-called prophets in Kansas City demonstrates how far the abuse of prophecy in the charismatic movement has gone. A recent book touting the group became an immediate international best-seller. Hundreds - perhaps thousands - of churches worldwide are now patterning prophetic ministries after the "Kansas City Prophets."

These men, all associated with a single church - formerly called Kansas City Fellowship, now called Metro Vineyard Fellowship - say they don't like being labeled "prophets." They prefer to call themselves "prophetically gifted." In other words, they don't believe they hold an office of authority like the Old Testament prophets. Nor do they claim infallibility. On the contrary, all the Kansas City Prophets admit they have prophesied falsely...

[Bob] Jones's 1989 Shepherd's Rod prophecy included a novel explanation about why so many modern prophecies go unfulfilled. Jones claimed:

[God] said, "If I release the hundred-percent rhema right now, the accountability would be awesome and you'd have so much Ananias and Sapphiras going on that the people couldn't grow - they'd be too scared." But He said, "If it was on target, it would kill instead of scaring the people to repentance." . . .This is what He told me, so I figure if I hit two-thirds of it, I'm doing pretty good.
Bickle added, "Now the two-thirds, you know when Bob first said it I said 'Two thirds?' He said, 'Well, that's better than it's ever been in this nation up to now, you know. That's the highest level it's ever been.'"

In other words, these so-called prophets claim they have a word from the Lord, but the odds are one in three - at least - that it will be false? No wonder their prophecies throw so many Christians into hopeless confusion. [pg. 78-79; Charismatic Chaos, 1992]

Therefore, according to Mike Bickle and his peers, prophesy is essentially like a game of baseball: it doesn't matter if you get a few strike outs so long as you eventually hit a home run.

Many, when first encountering this teaching, will rightfully turn to what scripture says regarding false prophecies:

"But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?' - when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him." [Deu 18:20-22]

And again:

My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and who give lying divinations. They shall not be in the council of my people, nor be enrolled in the register of the house of Israel, nor shall they enter the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am the Lord GOD. [Eze 13:9]

Scripture is clear in this matter: if a prophet claims to speak from God and for God, and yet what he speaks does not come true, then the prophet is lying and is not sent from God. They are a false prophet. In like manner, those who prophesy falsely will be judged quite harshly by God. It seems, at this point, those at IHOP-KC no longer have room to speak.

However, Mike Bickle has an explanation for this. Namely, New Testament prophecy is different from Old Testament prophecy. In his book Growing in the Prophetic, Bickle writes:

The character of New Testament prophets and prophecy is, however, somewhat different from that of the Old Testament. Some people have difficulty with the idea of modern-day prophets and prophecy because they are looking at them through Old Testament paradigm. [pg. 50; Prophetic]

He explains further:

Unlike the Old Testament ground rules for prophets, where 100 percent accuracy was required upon the penalty of death, the New Testament doesn’t require the same standard of its prophets. [pg. 41; Prophetic]

The reason New Testament prophets are capable of being wrong is because: 1) God's message is not crystal clear (often being mere "subtle impressions"); 2) New Testament prophets will add their own words in to fill in the gaps left by God's vagueness.

God conveys to our mind thoughts that we communicate in contemporary language. They are a mixture of God’s words and man’s words. Some “prophetic words” may be 10 percent God’s words and 90 percent man’s words, while others have a greater revelatory content [pg. 37; Prophetic]

And again:

It is difficult for some to accept the idea of prophesying by faith according to the subtle impressions of the Holy Spirit with the chance of missing it and giving a wrong prophetic word. The reason, of course, is that they have failed to understand the transition in prophetic ministry. While they clearly see other aspects of the Old Testament changing under the new covenant, their understanding of prophetic ministry is still based on an Old Testament model. [pg. 54; Prophetic]

A bizarre example of this comes from Bickle's work with the Kansas City prophets.

Bob Jones has an amazing gift of prophecy, but he says that he tends to miss it on interpretation and application. One time Bob gave a person a word along with the phrase, "By the end of the year." Well, the end of the year came and the prophecy had not come to pass. I went back to Bob and questioned him about it. It turns out that "by the end of the year" was not a part of the revelation.

"Well," said Bob, "why would the Lord give it if it weren't going to happen by the end of the year?" [pg. 26; Prophetic]

Mike Bickle calls this "missing it on interpretation and application," but I'd like to call it for what it is. If you order your son to tell your daughter to clean her room, and he tells her "Mom and dad said clean your room and mine," what has he done? It's a little phrase called...lying. Bob Jones outright lied to the person. What's more, Bickle doesn't show any sign in the book of being shocked by this, nor does he question Bob Jones's leadership ability. Instead he basically shakes his finger and says, "Oh Bob! You be careful now!" The fact that Bob Jones prophesied not only falsely but added lies to what were supposed to be God's word doesn't even seem to faze him. In most churches I've been in, if I had done anything similar - even if with good intentions - I would have received some harsh rebukes and church discipline from my elders.

Here's the immediate question we should be asking from all this: just why does Bickle want to validate false prophecy? Or, to be more fair to his position, why does he still want validity for prophetic ministries even if false prophecies come from them? The answer is because, in the past, he and the Kansas City prophets with whom he worked had been proven to be false prophets. It was a string of false prophecies, in fact, that became one of the reasons John Wimber, of the Vineyard Movement, began to distance himself from the prophetic movement begun by Bickle.

Wimber bit hard on the prophetic bait, his own son being delivered from drug addiction through a word from Bob Jones. When Wimber's meetings in London in 1990 failed to bring the type of revival expected from a prophecy by Cain, Wimber felt embarrassed and began to distance himself from Bickle and the restorationnist thesis. Bickle himself had been embroiled in fighting accusations of false prophecy and aggrandizement. At the time his church had come under the Vineyard banner, becoming Metro Vineyard in Kansas City. He was later acquitted of most charges, and admirably accepted responsibility for the others. When it was all said and done, Wimber led the Vineyard back to its missional, church-planting roots, and Metro Vineyard eventually relinquished the Vineyard name and became Metro Christian Fellowship. [pg. 137; Church, Identity, and Change, 2005; all emphasis mine]

When you've given false prophecies and people are beginning to question your legitimacy, what do you do? The easy solution: teach that New Testament prophets are different than those of the Old, and in the new covenant it is perfectly fine for prophets to be wrong because they sometimes add their own words into the prophecies.

This might indeed appear a simple explanation, given most of the prophetic discernment passages are in the Old Testament; but the absolute silence in the New Testament regarding possibly inaccurate prophecies ultimately works against Bickle. I might ask, for example, where in all the New Testament there is even one single example of man's words being intermingled with God's words? Don't bother picking up your Bibles, because you will find none. Nowhere do we find an apostle adding to God's words and thus creating error. Nowhere do we find a New Testament prophet adding to God's words and introducing error. Nowhere do we find a New Testament prophet struggling with "subtle impressions." Nowhere do we find New Testament writers mentioning Christians doing any of the previous. Nowhere do we find anyone - save perhaps false teachers - adding to God's words and introducing error. Bickle wants us to minister like the apostles, and yet teaches things seemingly foreign to the very work of the apostles.

Permit me to give an example of New Testament "prophecy". On the way to Rome, Paul warned the centurion that a storm might endanger the ship and all those aboard (Acts 27:9-11). It comes true (Acts 27:13-20). Paul then tells all those aboard that, according to the words of an angel, the ship will be lost, but their lives will be saved and they will land upon an island (Acts 27:21-26). It comes true (Acts 27:39-44).

Now let's try imagining this story with Bickle's standards applied. Imagine if no storm had happened, and Luke later asked Paul, "Paul, what's the deal? I thought you said we were going to run into trouble," to which Paul replied, "Well, I guess I misinterpreted those subtle impressions, sorry." Imagine if, instead of landing on Malta, the survivors were picked up by a passing vessel, and Paul said, "Oh! Well, the part about the island wasn't in the original prophesy, I added that in there." Can you imagine any of this taking place? What would that do to those being ministered by Paul? How would it paint Paul as a man?

Bickle will attempt, in his books and sermons, to explain that prophecy is a matter of vague interpretation by going to verses not dealing specifically with the accuracy of prophecy. Let's now turn to what scripture, specifically the New Testament, really says about prophecy and man's interaction with the prophetic.

Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. [2 Peter 1:20-21]

Peter says in verse 20 that no "prophecy of scripture" was a matter of one's own interpretation, and then expands on why this statement is true in verse 21: it is because no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man. There is no idea here of someone adding to God's words or reinterpreting them in such a way that what God intended to be said doesn't get said. Most commentators discuss how the original Greek of "carried along" (φερόμενοι) demonstrates that God is in complete control - not in the sense of robots, mind you, but that those who give prophecy are not simply making things up as they go along. What God wants to be said will be said, and in the way He intends it to be said. God is not simply the starter of prophecy, but the sole driving force as well. Nowhere does scripture teach that there's a 10/90 mix between God's word/ours, and neither does Peter leave any room for that in these two verses.

Perhaps most ironic in all this is that, given Mike Bickle's near maniacal obsession with end times events, he seems to have forgotten what God said to the apostle John at the end of the book of Revelation.

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. [Rev 22:18-19]

While many people read "this book" as being the Bible, it is more accurately referring to the Book of Revelation, as it speaks of "the words of the prophecy." God warns the reader that if he adds or removes words to this prophecy, they will be accursed. Yet, given Bickle's own standard in regards to New Testament prophecy, that should not be an issue. After all, how many times have those following Bickle and his staff prophesied falsely? How many of them (such as Bob Jones) have added to the words of God's prophecy, or taken words out? Why shouldn't they likewise heed these warnings? Some might argue that these verses are referring solely to the Book of Revelation. However, that still leaves us to ponder why God is therefore applying Old Testament standards to New Testament prophecy if, according to Bickle, the Old Testament standards are no longer applicable. It also forgets what we learned from 2 Peter 1:20-21 - namely, prophecy regarding scripture or otherwise is not a matter of man adding to God's words or taking away. "Scripture" prophecy and "non-scripture" prophecy has no difference in regards to whether or not they can come true.

Now might I point out that, according to this standard Bickle has put into place, any false prophecy could have simply been the result of "mixing" God's words up with our own. If someone speaks a word of prophecy, how do we really know whether they've spoken to God or they're just completely lying?

Need an example? Harold Camping! How does one know whether or not Harold Camping really did receive revelation from God what the end time date would be? Perhaps Camping simply added too much into God's word. Maybe God really did give revelation to Camping, and Camping really is a prophet, and people are being too hard on him for the three failed prophecies. After all, didn't Camping admit there was error on his part after May 21, but that God was still going to bring about an end to the world? He admitted that he had created error, but insisted that God was still giving this as revelation. Why should we disbelieve him? Why should we assume God is not giving him special revelation? After all, he's just following the same standard Mike Bickle uses. A standard which, as we've now seen, only serves to give legitimacy to false prophets.

Might I also point out that, again logically speaking, this turns God into a victim of fatalism. What do I mean by this? God wants to deliver a message to someone, or to a group of people, or to a church, etc., but the chance that they would receive the message accurately is harmed by the creature He is using. There is absolutely no precedent for this. Moses and Jeremiah attempted to complain their way out of delivering prophecy, and God rebuked them into doing it. Jonah attempted to flee giving prophecy to Nineveh, but God made certain he did it...even if it meant spending a three day voyage inside a fish. Again, as the language of 2 Peter 1:20-21 makes it clear, when God wants something to be said, God will make certain it is said. Prophets are reliant upon God; not God upon prophets.

As we've demonstrated in this section, scripture is crystal clear about those who desire to call themselves "prophets" or "prophetically gifted." If you prophesy falsely, you're not hearing from God, and you're a false prophet. Mike Bickle and company have prophesied falsely. QED, they are false prophets. To teach that prophets in the church can be wrong is only to cover up the fact you're a false prophet and hide this reality for the sake of your personal ministry.

#2: It doesn't matter if the moral life of the prophet is not perfect

A second source of discernment Mike Bickle takes away involves the moral standing of those with the prophetic gift. One example:

The fact is that God's power and revelation flowing through people is not necessarily a sign that God is pleased with them in other areas of their lives. Sometimes the prophetic gifts will continue to operate even when there is an inner crumbling taking place in their private lives [pg. 106; Prophetic]

And another:

God's gifts are freely given as a sign of His mercy and desire to bless His people, not as His approval. Don't invalidate all spiritual gifts that work in spiritually immature people. [pg. 107; ibid]

Of course, no Christian is perfect. A Christian is, by definition, simply a justified sinner. I myself am a sinner, and if one were to record every thought or temptation my heart had endured simply while writing this post, they would probably be shocked. We are not calling for Christians to have 100% outward perfection like the Pharisees of Christ's time demanded, nor are we calling for all ministers of God's word to have spotless pasts. We are also not saying that one is justified by their moral standing alone. However, what we are calling for is that men who claim to have regenerated hearts display evidence of regeneration.

Perhaps what is also troubling about this is knowing from Bickle's background just what kind of immorality he has dealt with. One of the most infamous examples is Bob Jones, Bickle's fellow Kansas City prophet who, it was discovered, had been compelling women to perform sexual favors in exchange for prophecy. Bickle and his peers, however, assured followers this did not invalidate Jones's prophethood:

[John Wimber] publicly disciplined a prophet named Bob Jones for using his prophetic powers to "manipulate people for his personal desires, sexual misconduct, rebelling against pastoral authority, slandering leaders and the promotion of bitterness within the body of Christ."

Wimber made it clear, however, that Jones's guilt did not impugn his giftedness. Although Wimber had once informed constituents that he judged Cain on the basis of his personal character, not his prophetic competence, he now instructed them to judge Jones on his prophetic competence, not his personal character. He warns them that judging Jones's sexual sins should not translate into judging Jones's seer status. Counterfeit Revival leader Mike Bickle agreed. While acknowledging that "the pain and trauma" of Jones's victims "was unbearable," he agreed that the anointing on him "was greater than ever." [pg. 165-166; Counterfeit Revival, 2001]

To be perfectly frank, this is disgusting. A supposed Christian leader who causes "pain and trauma" in a person's life that proves "unbearable" cannot, by definition, even be a Christian, let alone a Christian leader. I can only wonder how many of Bob Jones's victims who endured "unbearable pain and trauma" would agree that he has "seer status" and a great "anointing" from God.

Regarding a Christian's attitude towards sin, the apostle Paul wrote:

In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices [Col 3:7-9]

He likewise wrote:

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [Gal 5:19-24]

The apostle John wrote: "If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth" (1 John 4:6). If there is no fruit of the Spirit, there is no Spirit. If there is darkness, there is no light. If there is no light, there is no Christ, and therefore the person has no "anointing" of which to speak.

Many people, including Bickle, ignore all these passages and jump to more allegorical examples. They bring up Samson, who was not the most moral man in the Old Testament and yet was used by God to judge the Philistines, or Saul, who was made king and yet lived many years in complete error. In doing so, they forget two things:

1) Imperfect men in the Old Testament were still judged for their sins. Samson's death, while noble and self-sacrificing, was in many ways just as much a judgment against him for his sins as much as it was against the Philistines he killed. God likewise brought judgment upon David even after his repentance for the death of Uriah. God didn't permit men to get away with sin on a shallow reason such as "He's under an anointing." Scripture even clarifies that at the time of Samson's capture "the LORD had left him" (Judg 16:20). Samson was not under a "greater anointing" - any "anointing" given to him was at that moment taken away. Bickle admits that God may eventually bring judgment upon a person, but that doesn't hide the fact that the person has great sins that need to be addressed, and hence a leadership position that needs to be questioned - something which Bickle seems to want us to avoid. His presentation seems to be one of "stay the course" regardless of the individual teacher's morality.

2) That God can "draw a straight line with a crooked stick" does not mean the stick itself is praiseworthy. God used the treachery of Joseph's brothers to save thousands upon thousands from starvation - does that mean Joseph's brothers were under some kind of "anointing"? God used Assyria to judge Israel and Babylon to judge Judah - does this mean Assyria and Babylon had special "anointings"? Judas was used by God to hand Christ over to the authorities - does that mean Judas had a special "anointing"? Even if we want to argue "God is using this person!", my immediate question would be: "All right, but in what way?" Read what the apostle Paul wrote on the matter:

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. [2 Thessalonians 2:9-12]

While the coming of the "lawless one" is said to be the "activity of Satan," Paul likewise makes it clear that God is using the lawless one, even if through secondary means. That is, God is permitting the lawless one to perform "power" and "false signs and wonders" with "all wicked deception" as a judgment upon those "who are perishing" because of their refusal to "love the truth and be saved." It clearly says that God is sending a "strong delusion" so that these people will believe what is false and be condemned. False teachers are just as much a judgment against their followers as they are against themselves.

I might also bring up what the apostle Paul wrote regarding the morality of Christian leaders:

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. [1 Timothy 3:1-7]

And again:

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. [Titus 5-9]

Paul writes that Christian leaders must be "above reproach," mentioning specific sins (which many of the Kansas City prophets were charged with). Some might interject here: "Ah, but Paul is talking about elders/overseers, he's not talking about general ministry leaders or prophets." Any one who leads a ministry, however, takes up the mantle of an elder/overseer, and therefore must be held to the same accountability that the standard church leaders are. God the Holy Spirit, speaking through the apostle Paul, made it clear that there are standards for Christian leaders, and it doesn't matter how great their "anointing" is - the Holy Spirit's inspired text trumps spiritual pragmatism.

In summary, let me repeat that this isn't a call for 100% perfection, but a person who claims to be a Christian teacher - let alone a Christian prophet - should at the very least also be a Christian.

By the way, before anyone pulls the "You shouldn't judge others!" fallacy, please read this post.

#3: It doesn't matter if the prophet is not theologically sound

In his book, Bickle says that one of the false equations of prophetic ministry is "anointing equals 100 percent doctrinal accuracy." He goes on to explain:

Throughout church history there have been many anointed ministries who held strange doctrines. A most notable example of this in recent history is William Branham...His ministry was characterized by amazing manifestations of healing and the word of knowledge...The healings were both numerous and astonishing.

However, Branham ended up preaching some doctrinal heresy, although never to the extent of denying Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or doubting the authority of the Scriptures. He allowed himself to be spoken of as the "angel" to the seventh church referred to in Revelation 10. This caused great confusion among his followers. They reasoned that if God gave him so much true prophetic information about people's lives, then why didn't God in the same way give him sound doctrine? But the gift of prophecy doesn't ensure that one will have the gift of teaching or vice versa.

The problem is that some people with strong prophetic ministries often aren't satisfied with just being used by God in prophecy and miracles. They want to also be teachers...If they don't have a teaching gift that has been cultivated through proper training in the scriptures, they are sure to teach unbalanced doctrine to their large number of followers. [pg. 110-111; Prophetic; emphasis mine]

Firstly, I would argue if someone starts claiming to be the angel to the seventh church in Revelation 10, then they are "doubting the authority of the Scriptures" because they are adding to it and reading into it things which scripture clearly says are not there. They are in essence making themselves the final authority. The fact that Mike Bickle does not identify this as "doubting the authority of the Scriptures" is very telling. A person does not have to say "The Bible is not true" to deny the authority of scripture.

Secondly, to shrug this off with what essentially amounts to "Well y'know, sometimes those who can't do, teach" is likewise very telling. IHOP-KC's minimalization of erroneous doctrine in favor of pragmatic evangelism has been talked about before on this blog, specifically at this post. There, IHOP-KC executive officer Daniel Lim compared Oral Roberts with Elijah and shrugged off his ministerial crimes as "nobody's perfect." Crimes, mind you, which included claiming to see a 900-foot tall Jesus, claiming God would kill him unless congregants paid his bills, warning about curses unless people reacted to his prophecies, claiming the giving of "faith seeds" would cure people of cancer, and teaching that Jesus was a financially wealthy man. "Nobody's perfect" indeed. Perhaps Martin Luther should have saved the 95 theses and shrugged off Johann Tetzel's errors with "Well, nobody's perfect." After all, Tetzel had a large following and had many people claiming to have been saved by his indulgences - maybe Tetzel had a special anointing.

Now granted, there can be much said about unity verses cult-like uniformity. The reason I can admire a teacher such as R.C. Sproul despite our differing views on baptism is because the core fundamentals of the historic Christian doctrines are still similar between us. The same goes for Jonathan Edwards and myself in regards to postmillennialism. However, what Bickle has done here is minimalize the need for doctrinal discernment. If a man claiming to be an angel can still have a valid ministry, upon what basis do we say enough is enough when it comes to false doctrine?

The apostle Paul warned the Ephesian elders that "fierce wolves" would come in among them, teaching "twisted things" to lure away the members (Acts 20:29-30). He likewise warned Christians "to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom 16:17). He wrote to Timothy that "if anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ," then he "understands nothing" (1 Tim 6:3-4). He charged Titus to "teach what accords with sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1). The apostle Peter warned Christians "there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies" (2 Pet 2:1). The apostle John went even further:

Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds. [2 John 1:9-11; NASB]

Scripture gives a clear warning against false doctrine. What's more, it teaches that anyone professing false doctrine is not of God, and commands us not to have fellowship with them. Bickle argues that we should forgo judging a person for great doctrinal faults if they have a great anointing; scripture tells us if they have great doctrinal faults, chances are their "anointing" isn't from God at all.

In the end it doesn't matter how many people they supposedly save or how supposedly prolific their ministry is. If they are not teaching what scripture teaches, they are to be avoided. End of story.

Conclusion

In his book, Bickle writes:

In the atmosphere of being generous to one another, we must not neglect to discern and judge false prophets (Matt 7:15-16). Yes, there are evil deceivers - false prophets - who creep into Christian congregations and maliciously entice and deceive unsuspecting and undiscerning believers through false prophecy. These should be purged from the church if they will not repent. [pg. 55; Prophetic]

The problem is, Bickle has thrown out all the biblical tools that permit a Christian to "discern and judge false prophets." If a prophet prophesies falsely (even repeatedly, and admits to it), he shouldn't be purged. If a prophet claims to be regenerate and yet proves to be greatly immoral and commits acts unbecoming of a Christian leader (even causing "unbearable pain and trauma"), he shouldn't be purged. If a prophet teaches false doctrine (even teaching he's an angel!), he shouldn't be purged.

I do believe that there are "false prophets" who "creep into Christian congregations and maliciously entice and deceive unsuspecting and undiscerning believers through false prophecy"...and it just so happens many of them work at IHOP-KC. These men should be "purged from the church if they will not repent." Their distortion of God's word and their deceiving of young and old alike needs to be called out. We should have nothing to do with them, for they are self-condemned.

To anyone involved with this movement, I heartily beseech that you consider the scriptural truths in all these matters, and beg you to escape from this cult as soon as possible. Regardless of whatever emotional experiences you may have felt, or testimonies you may have heard, the testimony of God's word comes first and foremost. I ask humbly that you treat this matter with great seriousness, for eternity is a long time. God bless.

The Personal Negation Fallacy

2011-12-27T10:00:00.001-05:00

On more than one occasion I have had someone respond to an argument or position with simply, "I don't like that." That seems to be popular in this day and age, especially in regards to religion. A person might say, "I can't believe in a God like that," or, "I don't like that God would do such a thing." From this, the person concludes that the thing must be false.

The problem is that merely negating something does not automatically make it not true. Let me put it this way: a person may not like a 55 mph speed limit and want to drive 70 mph, but that isn't going to stop a policeman from pulling them over for speeding. Simply not liking the speed limit did not magically make the speed limit dilemma disappear, or make it conform to what the person desired. Reality did not suddenly transform to the person's personal opinion.

In like manner, this same standard can be applied to negations within faith. Saying "I don't like the idea of a God who sends people to hell" does not suddenly mean that God must not send people to hell. Saying "I prefer a God who does this" does not suddenly make it so that God does as you desire. Reality does not conform to your personal whims and desires, and sooner or later - whether it's when the policeman clocks your speed, or you appear before God on the day of judgment - you will have to answer to reality.

Total Depravity...or Local Depravity?

2011-12-19T10:00:00.000-05:00

An argument I've heard twice given is centered around the belief that the scriptures do not teach total depravity, also known as total inability. The argument goes something like this: when Paul talks about the sinfulness of man in Romans and Ephesians, he is actually talking about the sinfulness of those societies. That is, he is talking about the sinfulness of Rome and the sinfulness of Ephesus. Paul is therefore not arguing that all of mankind is sinful or inclined towards wickedness, but that those specific societies were inclined towards wickedness.

Is this the case? Let's take a moment to examine Paul's discussion of sin in both Romans and Ephesians, starting with the epistle to the Romans.

One of the most extensive discussions of human depravity is found in Romans 1:18-32. However, right afterwards, we find the apostle Paul writing this:

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. [Romans 2:1]

Previously, Paul had been dealing with the pagan mindset of the general world. Now he turns it on the Jews. The Jews condemned Gentile society for all of those things mentioned in Romans 1, and yet, as Paul says, they were guilty of the same thing. The Jews believed that they were considered righteous by their possession of the Law, and yet, as Paul points out here and throughout most of his epistles, no one is justified by the Law or works of the Law. In fact, Paul contends that judgment from God will be carried out regardless of whether or not they follow the Law or have good works of which to boast.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [Romans 2:12]

God's judgment, therefore, is complete. There is no excuse for those under the Law just as there is no excuse for those outside the Law.

Many inclusivists argue of a "third way", where a person is proclaimed innocent by God out of ignorance of the gospel, but this presupposes it is simply a lack of faith that sends one to hell rather than one's sins. It also forgets that nowhere in scripture does it speak of a third way where someone is not sent to hell simply because they never heard the gospel. There are those who are Christ or against Him (Matt 12:30) - there is no neutral ground, and lukewarm theology is an abomination to God (Rev 3:16).

In any case, Paul continues his criticism of Jewish believers who uphold their righteousness by their Jewish identity, pointing out that, as they are unable to follow the Law, they in fact bring disservice to God through their disobedience.

You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." [Romans 2:23-24]

This brings us to the climactic moment of the book of Romans:

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." [Romans 3:9-12]

Paul now brings the previous two and a half chapters to a hilt: everyone is sinful. Jew, Gentile - everyone. "All, both Jews and Greeks" is what Paul writes. This is not a matter of "local depravity." Paul is clearly arguing here that all of mankind is fallen. The beginning of chapter three is summarizing everything that was discussed throughout chapters one and two - and the summary is that we are all sinners in need of a savior.

Now let's turn to Paul's epistle to the Ephesians, specifically the beginning of chapter two.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. [Ephesians 2:1-3]

Paul begins this epistle by directly addressing the Ephesian readers, stating: "You were dead in the trespasses and sins" (v. 1). It is true that he is specifically speaking to the Ephesian Gentile Christians here (we'll see that as this discussion progresses), but look at what the apostle says in the next verse: "following the course of this world" (v. 2). He calls unbelievers the "sons of disobedience", then says in verse 3: "among whom we all once lived." Who is the "we all"? It's the Jewish believers - Paul included. If one reads the first chapter of Ephesians, we see that Paul is expanding on the extension of salvation from the Jews to the Gentiles (especially Eph 1:11-13; compare to Eph 2:11-13). In many ways, Ephesians 2:1-3 is simply a longer version of Romans 3:9. However, the clincher in our discussion comes at the end of verse 3: "[we] were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." Paul says the "rest of mankind" are "children of wrath" (also translated "objects of wrath"), showing that everything he has discussed in these three verses is a statement of the spiritual condition of all of mankind.

In fact, Paul's point here is so obvious that I must be perfectly blunt: anyone who argues Paul is here teaching about a "local depravity" rather than what we might call "universal depravity" is either arguing from a second-hand source or purposefully ignoring parts of scripture. If you are guilty of the former, I encourage you to study God's word more; if you are guilty of the latter, I ask you humbly to repent of mishandling God's word.

God's Patience Towards Degenerate Churches

2011-12-16T11:11:00.000-05:00

The following is from Jonathan Edwards's Treatise on Qualifications for Full Communion.

It is evident that God sometimes, according to the methods of his marvelous mercy, and long suffering towards mankind, has a merciful respect to a degenerate church, that is become exceeding corrupt in regard that it is constituted of members who have not those qualifications which ought to be insisted on. God continues still to have respect to them so far as not utterly to forsake them, or wholly to deny his confirmation of, and blessing on their administrations. And not being utterly renounced of God, their administrations are to be looked upon as in some respect valid, and the society as in some sort a people or church of God. Which was the case with the church of Rome, at least til the Reformation and Council of Trent; for til then we must owe their baptisms and ordinations to be valid.

A Puritan Prayer for Sleep

2011-12-11T17:15:00.000-05:00

Today I bought the book The Valley of Vision, which is a collection of Puritan prayers on various subjects. The following is for sleeping:

Blessed Creator,

Thou hast promised my beloved sleep;

Give me restoring rest needful for tomorrow's toil;

If dreams be mine, let them not be tinged with evil.

Let thy Spirit make my time of repose a blessed temple of his holy presence.

May my frequent lying down make me familiar with death, the bed I approach remind me of the grave, the eyes I now close picture to me their final closing.

Keep my always ready, waiting for admittance to thy presence.

Weaken my attachment to earthly things.

May I hold life loosely in my hand, knowing that I receive it on condition of its surrender;

As pain and suffering betoken transitory health, may I not shrink from a death that introduces me to the freshness of eternal youth.

I retire this night in full assurance of one day awaking with thee.

All glory is for this precious hope, for the gospel of grace, for thine unspeakable gift of Jesus, for the fellowship of the Trinity.

Withhold not thy mercies in the night season; thy hand never wearies, thy power needs no respose, thine eye never sleeps.

Help me when I helpless lie, when my conscience accuses me of sin, when my mind is harassed by foreboding thoughts, when my eyes are held awake by personal anxieties.

Show thyself to me as the God of all grace, love and power; thou hast a balm for every wound, a solace for all anguish, a remedy for every pain, a peace for all disquietude.

Permit me to commit myself to thee awake or asleep.

Joseph and the Christmas Story

2011-12-07T11:00:00.000-05:00

When I was young, and was only really familiar with Roman Catholicism as a form of Christianity, I often wondered just why the Virgin Mary was so heavily emphasized in the Christmas story. While her giving birth to the Incarnate Word is of course something that should be discussed (it was a vital part of the Nestorian controversy in the fifth century), I felt a slight tinge of sadness for Joseph, who seemed to almost be entirely overlooked. In most depictions of the family in art and movies, they tend to portray Mary as young, physically attractive, and full of life, whereas Joseph is almost just your average middle eastern man with nothing to make him stand out from any other character. Sometimes he's even portrayed as appallingly ugly.

As I began to study the Gospel of Matthew, it became edifying to really study what scripture says of Joseph's character and his contribution within what we know today as "the Christmas story."

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. [Matthew 1:18-19; NASB]

This is the first place we encounter Joseph in the New Testament, wherein he discovers the pregnancy of Mary. It has been brought to my attention by a good friend that some pastors attempt to paint a bad picture of Joseph here. They attempt to portray him as a jerk, as if he's just a big meanie for wanting to divorce Mary, like he's a deadbeat dad. They portray Mary as being stuck with this abusive husband seeking to divorce her at the drop of a hat. Permit me to put some things in context:

Firstly, being betrothed at this time was the same as being married. It is not like today where you are still considered single and available until that ring goes on your finger, or an engagement can be called off with no problem whatsoever. Two people betrothed were essentially married before the ceremony, and were expected to be loyal to one another as if they were married. Adultery and divorce laws were relevant as soon as two people were engaged.

Secondly, Joseph didn't know that Mary's pregnancy was by the Holy Spirit. Joseph will not become aware of this until verses 20-23, where an angel tells him in a dream that Mary is pregnant by the Holy Spirit and her child will be the Messiah, which compels Joseph to accept Mary as his wife afterward (v. 24). Until then, he hadn't the foggiest idea God was behind this pregnancy.

Thirdly, it had been some time since their last meeting. If we compare Matthew's account with Luke's, we see that, upon Mary's visit by Gabriel (Luke 1:26-38), she goes to Elizabeth in Judah (Luke 1:39-40) where she stays for three months (Luke 1:56). In three months time, she probably looked pregnant to Joseph when they next met. Place yourself now in Joseph's shoes: your betrothed has gone away for three months and has now returned pregnant, and all you know is the child isn't yours - how would you react?

Fourthly, we have to understand Matthew's use of "righteous man" and "not wanting to disgrace her." These two terms are interconnected - Matthew calls Joseph one because of the other. By the Law of God, Mary could be stoned for supposed adultery (Deu 22:23-24) - the problem was, society had degenerated at that point. It had come to the point where someone who transgressed the law - especially an adulterer - was made an example of before everyone else. This is what is meant by the word "disgrace," which in the original Greek refers to putting on display or on show. We see this first and foremost with the woman caught in adultery in John 8:2-11. She was about to be stoned publicly despite the fact the man she was committing adultery with had not been taken along with her, and hence her stoning was being used as a display of punishment. It was this kind of situation that Joseph was seeking to avoid, hence his desire to divorce Mary secretly. This would have only required him giving a bill of divorce before two witnesses, and then she could go away without any harm done to her.

These four factors present a very different picture of Joseph. Contrary to the image of a cruel man looking to drop Mary out on the street barefoot and pregnant, we see the image of a man who sincerely cares for Mary and wants to protect her from the harm their society could have possibly inflicted upon her. Any fault on Joseph's part in his desire for divorce was merely out of ignorance - once he was informed that her pregnancy was by the will of God and not the act of another man, he took her in and took care of her.

We see this care for Mary in the second chapter of Matthew's gospel, where we also encounter King Herod's maniacal obsession with killing the supposed Messiah. After the departure of the magi (Matt 2:12), Joseph is warned in a dream to get up and depart to Egypt, for Herod is seeking the child's death (Matt 2:13). We see Joseph wake up and immediately take Mary and the infant Christ to Egypt (Matt 2:14). Joseph does not dally nor question God's will - he gets up and goes literally in the middle of the night. Interestingly enough, the original Greek reads in verse 14 that Joseph took "the Child and His mother" (τὸ παιδίον καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ), not "his child" or "their child" or even just "Jesus". Remember, the child was not even Joseph's - it had not come from a consummation between himself and Mary, but by the work of the Holy Spirit. Yet Joseph, at the behest of God, takes Mary and the infant Christ in his arms and escapes with them to Egypt, saving them from the death that would afflict the infants of Bethlehem some time later (Matt 2:16). He treats the infant Christ with the same fatherly love and concern as he would have a son of his own, and Mary with the same tenderness as is owed her as his wife.

From all this, we find Joseph to be a man of respect. He was a man who served God faithfully as the adoptive father of the Incarnate Word and the husband of she from whom He took flesh. He wanted to do all things rightly, but without robbing the right to life from anyone else. We are to speak of Christ's earthly family during His life, let us not forget to give Joseph the just appreciation due to him.

Why I Hate "The Christmas Shoes"

2011-11-29T09:33:00.000-05:00

I love the Christmas season, and have loved it since I was a child. I loved wearing a jacket for the cold weather, I loved the eggnog, I loved the carols, and I loved the gathering together with friends and family - but of course, the best part was the Christmas story itself, with the angels, shepherds and wise men announcing the arrival of Christ, the Incarnate Word. Yet there's a darker side to the Christmas season, and I don't mean the Grinch sneaking around stealing cars. I mean an evil side stemming from the marketing aspect of it. Every year there's at least one made-for-TV movie, one Christmas special, one song, or even a sermon or two that misses the whole point of the season, capitalizes off the more emotional parts, and ends up being nauseating.

One of the most timeless nauseating "classics," however, is NewSong's "The Christmas Shoes." It's about a man in a line at a store near Christmas, and in front of him is a little boy trying to buy shoes for his mom. The boy explains that his mom is near death, and he wants to get her something nice for Christmas. As the boy doesn't have enough money, the narrator pays for the shoes.

I first heard about this in 2006, and it was in a negative light. In fact, the vast majority of people I've spoken to since then say they hate this song. One old high school friend accurately summed it up nicely as "the Thomas Kincaid of Christmas music." Yet there are apparently die-hard fans of this song out there, and apparently it made NewSong plenty of money to warrant more album deals. None of this I can fully understand. Why?

First thing's first, let's talk about the background of the song. Did you know that this song is based off an email forward? You know, those goofy emails sent around, with themes like "Bill Cosby criticizes Qaddafi" or "Look out, most milk men spit in your bottle." Apparently "Christmas Shoes" is based off of one of those, which is already a bad sign. Don't believe me? Here's a source:

In 1999, the Christmas Shoes story began circulating on the internet. The touching story about a little boy whose mother was dying at Christmas, and his quest to find the perfect pair of shoes for her to wear in heaven, came to the attention of Eddie Carswell of NewSong. Eddie began writing a song inspired by the story. [source]

This makes perfect sense given that the song has all the traits of an email forward: a ludicrous scenario, unrealistic exchanges between people, an obvious bias slant, and a moral lesson forced upon all the previous. But before we continue, let's take a moment and review the lyrics of this song.

It was almost Christmas time, there I stood in another line
Tryin' to buy that last gift or two, not really in the Christmas mood
Standing right in front of me was a little boy waiting anxiously
Pacing 'round like little boys do
And in his hands he held a pair of shoes

Why is this little boy standing all by himself in a major store so close to Christmas? Where is his family? Did they just forget about him? Did he run away from home and they didn't go out looking for him? Aren't any of the store managers concerned about this little boy running around on his own? Most places of business dislike unaccompanied children because, if those children get hurt, they might get sued. It's a liability issue no one wants to deal with. Someone needs to seriously call Child Protection Services on this kid's parents stat.

Any way, the kid gets up to the register, and says the famous chorus of the song:

Sir, I want to buy these shoes for my Mama, please
It's Christmas Eve and these shoes are just her size
Could you hurry, sir, Daddy says there's not much time
You see she's been sick for quite a while
And I know these shoes would make her smile

So his mother is sick, probably bedridden...and he wants to buy her shoes? Why? She ain't gonna put them on! What is she going to do, sleep like the Stupid family? Why not something like a necklace, a wristband, a ring, something nice she can wear that doesn't impede with her rest? Why not a stuffed animal or something that can be put by her bed so she can see it as she lays there? That sounds much nicer, much more sweet, and much less expensive. Why does it have to be shoes? I can just hear some people saying, "You misunderstand, the kid just cares about his mom - it's the thought that counts." If it's "the thought that counts," then the gift is irrelevant - Q.E.D., buy something else.

Some might have also noticed I cut the chorus off at the last line. That's because it stands out for me:

And I want her to look beautiful if Mama meets Jesus tonight

I'm sorry, this part of the song I can never take seriously. It reminds me of the famous exchange between Charles Bronson and a mugger in Deathwish 2 (warning, violence):

By the way, NewSong is a Christian group, and this is supposed to be a Christmas song, but this is the only mention of Jesus in the entire song. You know what I want my mom to wear when she meets Jesus? His white robe of righteousness, which He already paid for on the cross (Rev 3:5, 18, 7:13-14).

He counted pennies for what seemed like years
Then the cashier said, "Son, there's not enough here"
He searched his pockets frantically
Then he turned and he looked at me

Oh, great, he's a leech.

By the way, let's pause here to discuss the price of shoes. At most stores, you can get a fairly decent pair of tennis shoes for $20-25. A nice pair of women's shoes are a little pricier. So we're expecting that this kid is probably seeking about $30+ for a pair of shoes his mother might wear for a few minutes before keeling over.

He said Mama made Christmas good at our house
Though most years she just did without
Tell me Sir, what am I going to do,
Somehow I've got to buy her these Christmas shoes

Why? Buy her something else, kid! Why's it gotta be shoes? Why's it gotta be these stinkin' shoes? Go to the dollar store and find something simple but sweet to get her. The fact his mom is dying and it's Christmastime is emotionalism obviously meant to tug at our hearts and make us forget how silly the entire concept is.

"Oh no, I don't have enough money! What am I going to do?" Get a job, kid! Earn those shoes! I can't buy all the nice gifts I want for my family, you don't see me going around begging people for the money to do so.

So I laid the money down, I just had to help him out
I'll never forget the look on his face when he said
Mama's gonna look so great

Yes, teach the kid at a young age to rely on other people's money for all his benefits.

By the way, you know what I would immediately think if I was in this situation? I'd think the kid was being suckered in by his parents to commit some kind of scam. Don't believe me? There are panhandlers who do this sort of thing for a living. In fact, panhandlers can give much more convincing stories than a mother on the verge of dying and hence she needs shoes. I'd probably contact the store manager and let him know kid is accosting his customers for shoe money.

Here's the worst part of the song, in my opinion:

I knew I'd caught a glimpse of heaven's love
As he thanked me and ran out
I knew that God had sent that little boy
To remind me just what Christmas is all about

Are you serious? I mean...ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS WHAT CHRISTMAS IS ALL ABOUT? Buying some kid shoes?! You mean the birth of the Incarnate Word, the Eternal Son taking on flesh, the infinite taking part in the finite, the Messiah who would absolve men of their sins through His death and resurrection...that doesn't strike a chord with you? What's more important than that? Wait...buying gifts for people? Ah yes, good, commercialization is much more important than that baby in the manger.

Some might jump in here and immediately accuse me of not liking the song because it's not a musical catechism. On the contrary, I'm not looking for a deep theological discussion on the mysteries of the incarnation that would make Athanasius dizzy. I can name plenty of Christmas stories that have a better grasp on the Christmas message than this song without heavy religious overtones - A Christmas Carol, It's a Wonderful Life, and the original A Miracle on 34th Street are a few that come to mind. Even A Christmas Carol, which isn't all that Christian when you think about it (there's no "Ghost of Christmas Past" in the Bible) and whose author wasn't the most Christian of men, displays a far greater tie to the true meaning of Christmas. Scrooge's final repentance and regeneration says a lot more than shoes. Even It's a Wonderful Life, ignoring its use of a guardian angel, presents a nice message that one of the greatest gifts is the life God has given us.

But I'm sorry...buying a kid a pair of shoes his supposedly dying mother needs? That's supposed to compare? The worst part is the lead singer is belting this out like it's some great epiphany, as if he just discovered the meaning of life and we're all supposed to drop our jaws.

If that's not enough, let's look at the music video, which features NewSong with shots from the movie cutting in every now and then. For starters, each shot has the lead singer lip syncing with every other member looking away or down for some unknown reason. It's like they're embarrassed to be with the guy. Observe the two most used shots:

It gets even more clear in some of the shots where you can see the other band members closer. Check out the pic below - the guy has a look on his face as if he's thinking, "Remember the paycheck...remember the paycheck...remember the paycheck..."

The video also abuses the dissolve transition. It reaches a ludicrous mark near the end, where the editor decided to dissolve between these three shots:

The middle shot is literally on screen for maybe like one second. It looks like an editing mistake they forgot to fix. Even if it was intentional, what was the point? Sergei Eisenstein you are not. Need another example? Look at the last three shots of the video, each one being separated by a dissolve.

Good thing they showed both those shots of the band again. I was worried that the second shot was NewSong in an alternate universe, and if they hadn't had shown them again, I would have assumed they had been stuck in space-time purgatory. By the way, see how foggy it looks in that second shot? That's not JPEG scarring, that's literally how it looks before it cuts away - they don't even finish fully dissolving to the shot before dissolving to the next shot. To quote Tom Servo: "Just because you can edit doesn't mean you should."

The final bit about the video I found weird was what the kid was wearing while out shopping. Take a look at the picture to the right. That boy is walking through what can only be 15-degree weather with snow pouring down, and he's wearing a light collared shirt with a shirt underneath, jeans, tennis shoes, a jeans jacket, and no gloves. Good job, kid - your mom is going to die this year, but now you'll catch pneumonia and die next year. Man, these are gonna be the best two Christmases his father ever had.

No wait! Wait wait wait! Since people are trying to capitalize off this song, I have an idea! Let's make a sequel! The Christmas Shoes 2: The Revenge. This time, it's the kid's dad who's dying around Christmas! And so, the young boy knows what he must do! Contact family and friends? Dial 911? Make sure dad's will and life insurance policies are in order? No...he's gotta go out and buy MORE SHOES! He's gotta buy the best pair of shoes for his dad! But oh noes, he forgot his money...aha! But a plucky young man steps in and pays $100 for that pair of jack boots the kid just has to have, and the boy returns home triumphant, not realizing that he made a total stranger just spend all his food money for the next few months, leading his family to starve in the cold. And so, returning home, the kid puts those boots on his dad a few seconds before his father passes, and then he can throw them away...

...and that, my friends, is the true meaning of Christmas.

Bad Arguments to Support False Teachers

2011-11-26T13:32:00.001-05:00

Some of the following are arguments I have encountered or dealt with in the past few years while responding to or discussing false teachers and their teachings. I provide a brief, but hopefully edifying, response to each one.

"Jesus said not to judge others!"

This is perhaps the most common excuse made, but it is ironically one of the most fallacious and the most scripturally unsound. It is an appeal to Matthew 7:1 and is in essence demanding that we not point any fingers or launch any criticisms at anyone. The problem is that anyone who quotes Matthew 7:1 completely ignores everything that comes after it.

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." [Matt 7:1-5]

The full context here is not that we should never pass any kind of judgment ever on anyone - rather, it's that we should not pass judgment upon a person when we have a greater sin of which we have yet to repent. Examples: I shouldn't pass judgment on a brother for stealing a pen from work (the speck) if earlier that day I robbed a bank (the log); I shouldn't pass judgment upon a brother struggling with lust (the speck) if I'm actively cheating on my wife (the log). Note how Christ ends the instructions: first "take the log out of your own eye," and then we will see clearly enough "to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Christ commanded the Pharisees to "judge with right judgment" (John 7:24), and this mindset is what we see being expounded upon here. Christ is not saying "Don't ever pass any kind of judgment, ever," He's saying "Don't try to help your brother with his sins when you can't even see your own sins."

The fact is, scripture gives clear commands in regards to rebuking. Christ organized a system by which you could rebuke a brother in the church (Matt 18:15-20). The repentant thief on the cross rebuked the blaspheming one (Luke 23:40). Paul rebuked Peter (Gal 2:11-14). Paul likewise commanded believers to rebuke (1 Tim 5:20; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:13, 2:15, 3:10-11), and even said that was one of the duties of church leaders (Titus 1:9).

Now, are there wrong ways to rebuke or reprove? Of course, but we shouldn't jump to extreme examples to dismiss rebuking and reproving altogether. We also should not jump to Matthew 7:1 as an answer to every kind of rebuking out there. That not only shows ignorance in regards to what Matthew 7:1 says, but what scripture says as a whole.

"They've blessed a lot of people."

This is essentially an argumentum ad populum - that is, a person is a good teacher/minister/pastor/prophet if they have a large following, congregation, or a lot of people have supposedly been saved by them. It's also a pragmatic fallacy in that it essentially argues, "Who cares if the person commits error so long as someone gets saved?" This is most often used in defense of those with megachurches, large ministries, or generally those with a huge following.

The problem is that sheer numbers does not equal right. Scripture makes it clear that true believers are often in the minority when compared to the number of false believers or unbelievers (Gen 6:5-8; 1 Ki 19:18; Isa 1:9; Rom 11:5). Also, if anyone is saved, it is not because of the teacher, but because of the grace of God. No one deserves any credit for the salvation of a person but God and God alone. Soli Deo Gloria.

I might add that this line of reasoning introduces a kind of pragmatism - that is, how cares about the teachings or the methods so long as numbers are growing? This forsakes sound biblical doctrine, which by its nature offends (1 Cor 1:18), to make room for methods and teachings that attract larger numbers.

"Don't criticize it until you've experienced it!"

This is the classic "don't knock it 'til you've tried it" fallacy, and is commonly used in regards to Hyper-Charismatic or Neo-Pentecostal heresies which place a heavy emphasis on experiential worship. The point of this argument is to discredit the other side by arguing that they have no right to make any declaration until they have experienced the very thing they're criticizing.

Of course, this entire argument is a red herring that completely jumps from the argument, ignores everything said by the other person, and makes a mold declaration that has to be met. It places the weight of evidence upon the other person and demands they defend their position when there is no need. It's likewise an overarching argument that can be used to defend anything. Permit me to give one example:

Person A: "Boy, I sure enjoy sniffing glue!"
Person B: "Dude, you realize that will kill your brain cells and lead to greater drug use, right?"
Person A: "DON'T CRITICIZE IT UNTIL YOU'VE EXPERIENCED IT!"

Do we now see how irrational this kind of argumentation is? Person A completely ignored everything Person B had said and simply jumped to an emotional argument. A person does not have to experience something to tell whether it is right or wrong.

"They're a nice person."

I've actually had people use this excuse. It's as if we should throw out bad teachings, bad ministry practices, or immoral character simply on the basis that, upon being met, the person was overall agreeable. Are we supposed to presume a person holding heretical views will automatically have bad personal traits, and likewise presumes that a good personality covers heretical views? This is a false equation: that a person is "nice" does not mean they will are orthodox; likewise, that a person is "mean" does not mean they are also heretical. Some of the worst heretics in history were said by their contemporaries to have been nice or had some redeeming qualities - that does not negate their error.

"Who cares as long as they talk about Jesus?"

This is perhaps the worst argument to make. Our Blessed Lord taught:

"On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'" [Matt 7:22-23]

It is not enough to have the name "Jesus" in your statement of faith. It is not enough to have the name "Jesus" in your ministry. It is not enough to simply claim you believe in a man named "Jesus." In this day and age when statements of faith are often put up simply as a front to appease critics, we must go deeper and understand what a person really means when they call themselves Christian or refer to a belief in Jesus. Faith has to also display regeneration, and it has to show a love for God's word and an adherence to what God calls the truth. If the person shows none of this, then they do not have Christ, and do not deserve to mention His name even in passing.

"You're being mean!"

This is oftentimes the last card played by the individual supporting the false teacher. Granted, there are wrong ways to approach error (see my post here), but generally this is said when there is nothing left for the person to say, and in the spirit of true emotionalism will attempt to simply accuse the other person of being a jerk.

Aside from being emotional, it is also a red herring. Let us say, for the sake of discussion, that the person really is mean. Does that automatically negate everything they say? If it's a sunny day, and a mean person says it's sunny in a mean way, does that mean it's no longer sunny? Of course not. In like manner, truth does not stop being truth simply because of the delivery.

"You don't know this person personally!"

The gist here is, since we don't know the person on personal terms, we shouldn't comment on their teachings or motives, and to do so is premature.

The problem is that you don't have to know every ounce of a person to know something they've done is wrong. If a man cheats on his wife and is caught red-handed, do I have to know them personally before I can say they're guilty of adultery? If a man is proven a murderer by the law and sent to jail, do I have to know them personally before I can say they're a murderer, or guilty of murder? The most obvious to all these things is: no. The requirement to know the person on a personal level is a condition added on to avoid responding to the situation. If a person teaches doctrine contrary to or removed from scripture, then they are teaching falsely and hence are false teachers. We don't need to have a few beers with them before we can say this.

The apostle Paul, speaking to the Ephesian elders, said:

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. [Acts 20:28-30]

Paul does not say: "After my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; but make sure you know them personally and if you do, then you'll know if they're wolves or not." On the contrary, he says that they will know them because they will be "men speaking twisted things." If the Ephesian elders encountered men speaking twisting things, how well they knew them personally was a moot point - they were wolves. Scripture always distinguishes false prophets by their teachings and not their personality.

The worst thing we can do is forgo sound doctrine for the sake of superficial peace. As the apostle Paul wrote:

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. [2 Corinthians 11:3-4]

Mike Bickle's Scripture Reading Technique Applied

2011-11-18T11:00:00.002-05:00

Sometime ago I started reading through a book by International House of Prayer founder Mike Bickle. At one point he goes into a semi-lengthy discussion about how it is far more important to methodically pray the Bible than it is to simply study the Bible.

Praying the Word back to God is much different from Bible study. While I am a serious advocate of Bible study, it cannot be mostly about the accumulation of more information and facts. Instead, Bible study must lead to dialogue with God...

Again, Bible study is important. Study alone, however, is not enough, for it fails to bring the presence of God to our hearts. The Bible was meant to be the conversational material that we bring to God. For example, when we read a passage in the Bible that tells us of God's love or mercy, we cannot just underline the passage and move on. It is not enough to just think about the passage or tell others about it. On the contrary, we must turn the words of the Bible into an active dialogue with Him.

Practically speaking, if I am reading a passage such as Psalm 51:1, where David prayed, "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to your lovingkindness; according to the multitude of Your tender mercies," first, I thank God, saying "Thank you, God, that You promise to have mercy on me." Next, I ask Him for more revelation. I would pray something like, "Reveal Your mercy more and more to me" and so on. Likewise, if I read a passage like Matthew 22:39 that says, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," I first commit myself to obey it, then I ask Jesus for help. I pray, "Lord, I set my heart to love people." Then I ask the Holy Spirit to help me to love my neighbor well. As I read through the Word, I pause to pray these short phrases to God. Praying the Word helps me to enjoy my times of prayer as He releases more and more of His presence in response to my praying His Word. [pg. 33-34; The 7 Commitments of a Foreunner, 2009]

I decided to try this out myself. So let's see, I'm going to open up my Bible and go to a random verse...ah, here's one, Judges 19:29! All right, here we go...

When he entered his house, he took a knife...

OK, let's see here...Dear Lord, I thank you that you have given this man a house, and that you have likewise given me a house. I also thank you for my knife - in fact I have many knives, so I thank you for your providence in that regard, in that you give to us so much. Please give me more knives so that I may thank you more.

...and laid hold of his concubine...

Huh...OK. Um...Dear Lord, I thank you for giving this man a concubine to lay a hold of, which I assume is in mercy and grace. Please, Lord, reveal many, many, many concubines to me that I may lay hold of them, and show them my knife, so that they may know of your providence and come to a knowledge of your truth.

...and cut her in twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout the territory of Israel.

Wait, what?! Um...Lord I thank you that you have revealed how to cut up concubines, um, may I have a chance to cut up a concubine and send her throughout Israel. Reveal a concubine to me so that I may cut her up and send her via mail to Israel for...you...uh...

All right, all right, all right, this isn't working out. Let me try another verse. Ah, here we go, Ezekiel 4:15.

Then He said to me, "See, I will only give you cow's dung in place of human dung..."

Eh? Well all right. Lord, I thank you that you have revealed cow's dung to me in place of human dung. It almost seems like a downgrade, but as you said to the apostle Paul, your grace is sufficient during my suffering, and I know that no matter what kind of dung I have, it will be enough. Please give me strength to get through the dung of life, whether it be cow's dung or human dung.

"...over which you will will prepare your bread."

Uh...Lord, I thank you that you have provided me cow's dung to cook my bread over, may the bread be delicious, and let me make a commitment to always cook my bread over cow's dung...wait...

You know what? I still have faith in the system. I'm going to try one more random verse. Lessee...ah here we go, Matthew 27:5! This is from the Gospels, so it can't possibly be too bad! All right, here we go...

And Judas threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary...

Ah, perfect! Lord, I thank you that you instilled in Judas a sense of repentance. Instill in me a sense of repentance, that I too may cast away the blood money I have accumulated in my life, and cast it before my enemies in their individual sanctuaries!

...and departed; and he went away...

Ah, even more perfect! Lord, I thank you that you not only gave Judas a sense of repentance, but you made him realize he had to not only give back, but turn away from, all that had plagued him. Please, Lord, make me realize that I too need to just depart and walk away from the Sanhedrin in my life. Give me revelation of what sanctuaries I should depart from and go away from.

Awesome! This is working out splendidly! Now, how does this verse end...?

...and hanged himself.

...uh...dang...

Obviously, this post is written in the spirit of satire. All of the verses I've cited can be understood within their proper context, but you won't be able to understand them by trying to pray over them. That is why I would argue Bible study is far more important than "dialogue." Theology matters, and we can only form our theology from God's revelation, which He has given us that we might understand Him better. As we've seen here, not every verse in the Bible can be turned into an "active dialogue," and even if it can be done in such a way, it does not mean it is meant to be done.

Now, can prayer combined with scripture reading be helpful? Yes of course - it can even be respectful. Charles Spurgeon suggested that we pray before and even after we enter into a study of the word. Most churches, after reading from scripture, give a prayer related to what was read. However, to turn scripture into a kind of meditative therapy where you "dialogue" with God by trying to apply the verse to your daily life is to miss the point of God's revelation, and is in fact closer to mystic paganism than it is historical Christianity.

If you wish to enter into dialogue with God regarding the words of scripture, I might suggest an alternative to Bickle's methods. First, find every passage dealing with God's Law and commands in regards to sin and doing right. Admit before God that you have failed to uphold His Law and stand before Him a sinner worthy of nothing but condemnation and deserving of nothing but hell. Second, read every passage dealing with the righteousness of Christ and His justification of those who repent and believe in Him. Pray to God to give you such repentance that you may be saved, and thank the Lord for His mercy that, though you were a sinner and deserving of the full brunt of God's justice, He has shown mercy upon you by dying and paying for your sins, that you may be presented spotless before the Father on the day of judgment.

God bless.

Marriage to the Bridegroom

2011-11-16T11:00:00.004-05:00

As those who know me personally are aware, I've recently been rediscovering my Italian heritage. So, I was quite happy to learn that, lo and behold, there were Italian Reformers! One of these was Don Benedetto, who wrote the work The Benefit of Christ Crucified, which is now available for free on Kindle thanks to Monergism Books. Below is an excerpt from it.

We know that the custom of marriage is that of two there become one self [same] thing, they being two in one flesh, and the goods of both become common to either of them, so that the husband saith the dowry of the wife is his, and in like manner the wife saith that the house and all the riches of the husband are hers; and so truly they be, otherwise they should not be one flesh, as the Holy Scripture saith. Even in the self-same manner God hath married his most dearly- beloved Son with the faithful soul, who having nothing of her own but alonely sin, the Son of God nevertheless hath not disdained to take her for his well- beloved spouse with her own dowry which is sin. And by the uniting and knitting together which is wrought in this most holy matrimony, the thing that appertaineth to the one is also the other's, so that Christ saith then, the dowry of the soul, my dearly-beloved spouse, that is to say, her sins, the transgression of the law, the wrath of God against her, [the] malapertness and boldness of the devil against her, the prison of hell and all her other evils, are come into my power, and are in mine own ordering, and unto me it pertaineth to do with the same dowry even as it pleaseth me, and therefore I will cast it upon the altar of my cross, and make it of none effect.

Experiences on IHOP-KC's Staff

2011-11-14T11:00:00.001-05:00

Someone who was formally on the staff at the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC) recalls her experiences there at her blog. An excerpt:

There are much more personal experiences than I can put into one single blog post, but here are a few I still recall pretty strongly.

1. Mandatory fasts which made me very physically ill. They would never admit to having “mandatory” fasts but when you don’t have any food available, close down the kitchen, give your cook the day off and don’t allow interns to hold jobs (so that they have money to go buy food if they aren’t participating in the fast) then that is called mandatory.

2. Being practically held hostage in the prayer room and told that it was required that I be there and I was not allowed to leave even though I did not feel well and wanted to go back to my apartment. I was told I needed to stay in the prayer room to be part of the “corporate anointing” and that I shouldn’t leave. It was one of my “required” prayer room sets as an intern so I spent the remainder of that 2-hour set in one of the side prayer rooms in the back sobbing on the floor because I wanted to leave so badly and our internship leaders were standing by the door. You might ask “why didn’t you just force your way out and leave anyway?” When you are part of cult where free, independent thinking is not condoned when you don’t comply with what is expected of you, very often guilt, manipulation and penalties are instated for those who resist. Interns who didn’t follow “the rules” of the internship were penalized through loss of privileges (such as loss of your day off, having to do extra work/manual labor, etc.)

3. The grip of control and micro-management increasing: greater demands and restrictions on interns (such as increased pressure to fast more to attain a higher pinnacle of spirituality) being told where we had to sit when in the prayer room, taught a model for how to pray, how to dance, sing, etc. Any form of worship outside of this model was not considered to be acceptable. It had to fit IHOP’s style and method to be admissible.

4. Mandatory journaling assignments which we had to do weekly and then we had to turn in our journals to be read by internship leaders

5. Seeing how controlled the prayer room was. Rather than having freedom to express my heart to the Lord, I was put in a box and told how I had to do everything IHOP’s way. I had reading and writing assignments whenever I was in the prayer room.

6. There was no alone time ever to really think, reason, test, question or process anything. We were run ragged from sun up to late into the night which always left me exhausted, depleted and burnt out.

7. Once when I got sick, my mother came to pick me up and internship leaders resisted letting me leave with her (even though she lived in town). My internship ‘com leader’ (short for community leader) objected and still impressed upon me the importance of going to the prayer room even though I was too sick to get off the couch. My mother said “she is my daughter and I’m taking her home and taking care of her. Period.”

8. The more leadership responsibility I was given as an intern, the more I got peeks into the “inside”. I saw the outer fringes of the internal operations of how IHOP functioned. I was on an IHOP dance team and sang as a chorus leader on a few worship teams. To dance, I had to follow a specific model that IHOP required. To sing, I had to attend the briefing/de-briefing meetings before and after each worship set where I saw first-hand how carefully controlled that the seemingly “spontaneous” aspects of worship were carefully calculated and often planned ahead of time.

9. Another intern got deathly ill and it wasn’t until she ended up being hospitalized that internship leaders took seriously the fact she was sick. They accused her of faking an illness to get out of attending IHOP classes and time in the prayer room. This was told to me directly by that intern.

10. If I wanted to go anywhere off IHOP property (even to go see my family who lived in town) I had to notify internship leaders of my whereabouts at all times. I had no autonomy or freedom as an individual. Some leaders who were 19 (but were former interns which gave them elite status) were telling me where to be, what to do and when I was expected to be home. I had to answer to them for everything. I was in my early 20′s and had lived on my own before so the feeling of suffocation and having no personal rights to space, privacy, independent thought, etc. was overwhelming.

There is much more but I think that’s a sufficient start to at least give you an idea of some of what was happening when I was at IHOP. It wasn’t until after I left that I began to see far more than I had been able to see when I was still involved. The casual observer on the periphery won’t necessarily see the reality of all that is happening there because they are seeing the veil that IHOP has built to carefully cloak the truth of a lot of what really happens.

The rest of the article can be found here. It's worth a read into things that I, who have never been an IHOP staff member, wasn't even aware was going on.

Veterans Day

2011-11-11T10:00:00.000-05:00

And the band played "Waltzing Matilda"

And the old men still answer the call

But year after year their numbers grow fewer

Someday no one will march there at all...

God bless and keep our veterans

White Horse Inn: "Reform or abandon?"

2011-11-07T13:08:00.000-05:00

The following is a conversation between White Horse Inn host Michael Horton and Evangelical-turned-Roman Catholic Christian Smith on the topic of reformation within the church. Particularly interesting is halfway through when Horton shows that Smith is reading Catholic resolutions through rose-colored glasses, and continues, as one commentator said, "keeping Christian Smith’s feet to the fire that words actually mean things." That Christian Smith's ultimate defense is "Well I don't read it that way" shows that he needs to be in our prayers.

WHI-1073 | Should We Reform or Abandon American Protestantism? - White Horse Inn Blog

Context is everything

2011-11-05T19:54:00.000-04:00

When I was in college studying for my undergrad, my first year roommate was showing me the game Morrowind. This is a game set in a fantasy setting (elves, orcs, etc.), and takes place on a large continent with various populations, many cities and villages, and even terrain you can explore freely. My friend started to tell me about how powerful his character was, how strong the armor was, and how he was at a higher level than most of the non-playable characters in the game. He then said, and I quote:

"I could kill the whole world if I wanted to."

Now stop for a moment...what if I took that quote isolated from everything else and just started throwing it around? People would probably think my friend was either a crazed maniac or insanely cocky. Neither is the case. Within the proper context of what he was talking about, he was actually saying "I could kill the whole world [in Morrowind] if I wanted to." He's not talking about going on a murder spree, he's talking about how powerful his in-game character is.

This is why context, context, context is so vitally important in our study of scripture.

When Christians Trust in an Arm of Flesh

2011-11-03T13:16:00.000-04:00

As the American election season draws closer and closer to voting day, I find that I seem to have a problem bonding with brothers and sisters who are more politically motivated that I am. Usually the conversation goes something like this:

Person: "Oh wow! You have to look more into this candidate! They're so amazing! They're going to save our country! Go to their website! Read their book!"
Me: "No thanks."
Person: "Why not? Don't you care?"
Me: "I do care, I just trust God more."

This is usually followed by me being accused of being something equal to a fatalist, but I wouldn't say I'm a fatalist. It's just when it comes to politics, I'm simply a cynic. The original Cynics, of course, were ancient Greek philosophers who were known for being doubtful of government, religious, and social bodies doing any good for humanity. Once upon a time I was very big into politics and political thought, but over time - as I observed what could only be described as stupidity exercising equal opportunity - I began to doubt the capabilities of the political machine. As I became more and more mature in my understanding of a Christian worldview, I likewise began to become cynical towards the idea that a man-made structure completely inhabited by fallible men could, on its own, do any great amount of good. It's not that I don't vote, and it's not that I don't have opinions on certain topics - it's simply that I don't see any reason to give passionate devotion to what appears to be an inherently flawed system made of individuals who themselves are inherently flawed.

I said, all this isolates me from my more political brothers and sisters. Republican Christians become upset with me because I don't trust the government enough. Libertarian Christians get upset with me because I trust the government too much. Democrat Christians get upset with me because I question their salvation. The Communists, Socialists and Anarchists...well, they're a special breed altogether. In any case which might come up, I tend to isolate myself when the political cynicism appears.

In all these conversations, I can't help but notice that the greatest hostility seems to come in regards to God's sovereignty in the midst of elections and political actions. When I bring up that I trust God will still be in control regardless of who wins the election or what our government does, people seem to lash out at such a notion. It will either be interpreted as putting too much emphasis on God's control or too little emphasis on man's involvement in the affairs of the world.

On this point, it is simply astounding that, for many people, God seems to permit complete and utter freedom among political bodies. He controls hurricanes, He aids individuals in their individual life problems, and even offers salvation for all mankind...but assistance in a political election? Whoa! Wait a minute now, that's going too far! It is no wonder then that so many of the hyper-political Christians I talk to, when they switch topics from politics to theology, seem to espouse what can only be described as deism. Many don't like this label being applied to them, but this is what one comes to when following their theology through to its logical conclusion. They believe God's there, yes...but He's far away. He won't meddle in the affairs of the mortal children and their elections.

Some responses are even more peculiar. I covered in another post an interesting argument where the person essentially said that yes, in olden times God controlled the fate of kingdoms...but democracy was that one form of government He could not touch, since there were no kings. Logically speaking, of course, that meant man had discovered and instituted a form of government that completely eludes God's sovereign will. Man in essence one-upped God, and God is up in heaven waving his fists and crying out, "Curse you and your democracy!"

The root of all this may be that many who call themselves Christian today are placing their trust in an arm of flesh. The term "arm of flesh" is from 2 Chronicles 32:8, where King Hezekiah says regarding Sennacherib of Assyria: "With him is an arm of flesh, but with us is the LORD our God, to help us and to fight our battles." To many self-proclaimed Christians today, the good that comes down to society must come down from Washington, not from heaven. This goes for both liberals and conservatives: liberals believe religion has no place in government and that the people must look to the government for the needs of the people; conservatives believe that all those who believe in deity must band together to get the government back on track, and whether this fellowship involves solely Christians or Christians along with Jews, Muslims, Mormons or otherwise is irrelevant.

Both of these beliefs have two things in common: 1) they throw emphasis on human institutions over God; 2) they are an entirely horizontal view of society and God. That is, they are both views of theology that deal solely with human interaction within government. Liberals demand that humans bring about change through the government, whereas conservatives demand believers band together to bring about change in the government. God has no real place in these two systems, for He is unwanted in the one and minimalized in the other. Our trust either way is not truly on God, but on ourselves first and foremost and secondarily on our government. Our trust, therefore, is in an arm of flesh.

So in 2012 Americans will go out and vote, and we will have either the same president as before or a new president altogether. Some good might come from it, some bad, maybe both. In either case, I'm not terribly concerned about what will occur. God will still be in control, despite how high our voting participation is or how qualified the candidate is who wins. There will still be one God reigning in heaven and on earth, and the church will still be made up of His people, regardless of borders, nationalities or political parties. God bless.

Enter the Serpent

2011-10-31T21:00:00.002-04:00

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" [Genesis 3:1]

Chapter two of Genesis ends with a seemingly ideal world: God has finished creation, and made a helper for man - the woman. One would think, if this were a Hollywood film, the scene would fade out and move on to the end credits. There's no need to expand, and everything could, at this point, make for a classic case of "they lived happily ever after." In fact, I've personally known one or two liberal Christians who would argue that we should end the biblical story here. Unfortunately for all these sentiments, that isn't how the story goes.

Suddenly, in the midst of this perfect, ideal world, enters the character of the serpent. This is no ordinary serpent, but Satan in disguised. He is identified as such later on, in Revelation 12:9 and 20:2. Satan appears as a serpent because Eve would never have listened to an obvious devil, hence a disguise was needed. It is the nature of Satan's deception to make evil appear as good and unnatural as natural. If need be, Satan can even appear as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14). Adam and Eve will not realize this, hence their being deceived. Unfortunately, many today still do not understand, hence the growing number of those in heretical or cult groups, or those under the sway of false teachers. Mark my words: when Satan comes to deceive you, he will not come with horns and a pitchfork - he will come with a smile and a Bible.

Satan first sets his sights on the woman. This is not because women are inherently weak-minded or woefully inadequate as believers (as some have perceived the reason to be), but rather for a two-fold purpose: 1) not only as an affront to God (who had made the woman), but as an affront to Adam, who was the head of the household and so responsible for Eve - many, when seeking to attack a man, attack not him but his wife or loved one; 2) Satan knew that, if he could deceive the woman, the husband would follow suit (as happens in verse 6). Before we become too hard on Eve, we should remind ourselves that Adam deserves equal blame for this situation: had he been responsible for his household (and verse 6 makes it clear Adam "was with her," either nearby or some distance away) he would have protected his wife from deceit and trained her to spot the enemies of God.

The most interesting aspect of Satan's dialogue with Eve is his use of God's word. It is not below Satan to quote scripture, but he is never good at it. He almost always does one of three things: 1) maligns it (as he did before); 2) misquotes it (as he does here); 3) misuses it (as he 'll do in the following verses). Permit me to explain each:

Maligns it. Satan begins his dialogue with the woman with the words: Did God actually say? There have been many discussions on what the very first temptation of man was, and many have put forward that it was the temptation to break fast (ie., eating the fruit). However, I would put forward that the first temptation ever given to man was doubt God's word. We see that here, with Satan doubting that God had indeed spoken. We see this again when Satan tempts Christ in the desert, attempting to seed doubt regarding His Sonship despite God the Father having declared it so (Matt 3:17, 4:3). Satan tempts us to doubt God's word for two reasons: 1) there is no greater disrespect towards God than to doubt His word; 2) Satan knows that if we can doubt even a syllable of God's word, it will be the proverbial camel's nose to get us out of the house of God. If we can doubt God has spoken, we can doubt anything God has said. Heresy and error (even some heterodox errors) begins when men doubt the clarity or finality of God's word, and think more needs to be added or some needs to be taken out. Some say God has not spoken at all, and hence they look to themselves to speak. Some say God has not spoken with clarity, and so they look to an external authority to speak. Some say God has not spoken enough, so they look for those with supposed prophecy and revelation to speak. When the devil tempts us with the words "Hath God said?", we must give a hardy AMEN!

Misquotes it. Satan refers to what God had said in Gen 2:16-17, but he completely distorts it. God had originally said: "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Here Satan rewords it to: "You shall not eat of any tree in the garden." This is an outright lie and distortion. God had permitted all trees to be eaten, with the only condition being a ban on the eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God is always taking God's commands and making them appear as an unjust burden and an attack against our proposed freedom. This continues even today: God permits sexual freedom within the confines of marriage, but society makes this appear as the highest of celibacy; God permits alcohol drinking, but not alcoholism, yet society makes this appear as the strictest of fasts. True slavery, however, is found in sin (John 8:34), and only the Son can set us free from it (John 8:36). The greatest lie sin can give us, then, is to make us perceive that we aren't slaves to begin with (John 8:33). Until we find freedom in the Son, all of creation is under the bondage of corruption (Rom 8:21).

Misuses it. Eve confronts Satan by correctly quoting what God had said in Gen 2:16-17, and it would seem that Satan has lost round one...or has he? A master of rhetoric can use any situation in his favor, and with weapons of words provided by his opponent. We see this when the serpent switches strategy. "All right," he says, "you want to use God's word? Let's use God's word!" Satan used the same tactic against Christ, turning to scripture once Christ had quoted scripture (Matt 4:4, 6). In this case, Satan now reinterprets what God had said: "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen 3:4-5). The devil, from the very beginning, was a liar (John 8:44), and here he makes that clear. Satan darn well knew what God meant with His original wording, but is willing to distort God's word to serve his needs (there's no difference with many of today's false teachers). What's more, Satan presumes to know God's thoughts and exposit on them. Note here that it is fine to know God's thoughts from scripture, but not apart from scripture. Any form of "private revelation" must be held up to scriptural authority. Where God has spoken, let us speak - where God has kept silent, let us keep silent. This is important especially today: if any claims to have direct words from God, let him print it out and put it in their Bible...or let them keep silent.

This last technique is that which works, convincing Eve (and then Adam) to eat from the forbidden tree. In like manner does Satan tempt many today. So many fall under the sway of false teachers today because God's word is not enough. They cannot repeat the words of the Psalmist when he said "I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word" (Psa 119:16), or prophet Jeremiah when he prayed to God "your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart" (Jer 15:16). Initially, when I left Eastern Orthodoxy, I became worried about those who submitted themselves to the extra biblical authority of a visible body, but now I worry about those who are under the sway of men proclaiming themselves to be prophets and are receiving continual revelation from God. They use scripture secondarily, reinterpreting it to fit their own theology and to advance their cause. They, like the devil, are claiming to know the insights of God, often contrary to what God has said.

It should be noted, however, that simply because Satan uses scripture does not mean God's word is near useless. We should not come to the conclusion that, because God's word can be used against God's word, we should not rely on it completely, or that absolute truth cannot come from it (as some Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and postmodernists do, though for varying purposes). As we said before, Satan's nature is to take that which is good and use it for evil - yet this does not mean that which is good should be devalued. That Satan appeared as a serpent does not mean serpents are inherently evil: God used a serpent of His own to kill the serpents of Pharaoh's magicians (Exo 7:8-12), and our Lord instructed His disciples to be wise as serpents (Matt 10:16). In like manner, just because Satan may use God's word for evil does not men God's word is devalued. Imagine if Adam and Eve had simply remembered what God had truly said, and why He had said it. There would have been no Fall, and man would have remained in paradise with God. As it happens, they forgot God's word, they accepted the lies of the devil, and thus they sought out other forms of wisdom and fell from their glorified position.

On this day, Reformation Day, let us remember to cling to the word of God and rest upon that as our rock alone. There has been no other authority given to us except God's word, for there is no other authority alone but God. Let us be on the watch for anyone who, in whatever form they choose to do so, will tempt us with the words, "Hath God said?" God bless.

Are all Christians supposed to prophesy?

2011-10-26T10:30:00.001-04:00

Mike Bickle of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC) centers his "prophetic ministry" on the idea that all Christians are supposed to prophesy. To give an example of his argumentation:

The church, from its inception on the Day of Pentecost, was to be of a prophetic nature. It is clear that the spirit of prophecy is potentially available to all..."For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn..." (1 Cor 14:31). [pg. 38; Mike Bickle, Growing in the Prophetic, 2008]

1 Corinthians 14:31 is especially used by Bickle over and over again as a kind of grand proof-text for his theology. The idea is this: Paul says "you can all prophesy," so that must mean "all of you" as in "all you Christians." Hence, all Christians should be able to prophesy, and so all Christians should be willing to participate in the "prophetic ministry" that is pouring out of IHOP-KC and into other churches.

Is this the case?

Firstly, let's not forget what Paul had said earlier, when he was discussing the important part every person played in the church:

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? [1 Cor 12:27-30; emphasis]

Paul's point here is that not all people are prophets - only those with the gift are. The original grammar of "Are all prophets?" suggests that the question is to be answered with a hardy "No." Bickle actually acknowledges this specific verse in his Growing book, but treats it only briefly before skimming across it to another topic. He also, on some occasions, tries to separate between prophets and those who are prophetic, even though scripture nowhere makes such a distinction, and Bickle's ultimate conclusion would still contradict Paul's point.

Secondly, let's remind ourselves of the three rules of exegesis: 1) context; 2) context; 3) context. So, seeking to follow all three of these rules at once, let's review the full context of the verse quoted by Bickle.

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. [1 Cor 14:26-33]

Paul begins this section by saying that when the Corinthian church comes together, "each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation" (v. 26). Paul is going back to what he said in chapter twelve, when he discussed the importance of individual roles, comparing it to the parts of the human body (1 Cor 12:14-20), and later applying this to the individual skills within the church (1 Cor 12:27-30). The purpose of this gathering together and the using of individual skills is "for building up" - that is, the edification of all in the church (v. 26). Just as every part of the human body serves some need that benefits the others, so too does every individual member of the church perform some task that benefits the others. No one is unimportant, from the pastor who gives the sermon to the old man who just comes to listen and be edified. The important thing, as Paul will demonstrate here, is that our goal be not the use of our gifts alone, but the building up of God's body through those gifts.

Paul goes into detail about the individual gifts, starting with those speaking in tongues, stating that there should be "only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret" (v. 27). Note again that Paul is emphasizing order in the church for the purpose of edification. In this vain, Paul states something I think many Charismatic churches forget: "if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church" (v. 28). The original Greek here is actually pretty strong - in fact, quite strong. In our modern language, Paul would literally be saying, "If there isn't an interpreter, tell 'em to shut up."

Paul now moves on to those in prophecy: "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said" (v. 29). Note that Paul is talking about a specific group, just as he was before with those who speak in tongues. Here he is talking about the prophets, not the entire church. He says "let two or three prophets speak," and then "let the others weigh what is said" - who are "the others"? The others with the gift of prophecy. He outlines the order of this further with: "if a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent" (v. 30). In other words, Paul is starting to tell them to take turns - if someone starts to fulfill their role of prophet, don't interrupt them.

At last we've come to the part Mike Bickle always falls back on: "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged" (v. 31). With a greater understanding of the context, let us ask: who is the you here? Is the you here the entire church? Is it every Christian who has ever lived? No - given what we've seen before, the you here refers to those with the gifts of prophecy. This is seen when Paul says "one by one," referring to the previous rule regarding those with the gift of prophecy. Paul is saying that those with the gift of prophecy should take turns - not that everyone can prophesy.

And just in case some might want to pull the "your interpretation versus his" card, here are some others who are on my side:

All - Who have that gift. [John Wesley's commentary]

For ye may all prophesy one by one,.... Not every member of the church, but everyone that had the gift of prophecy... [John Gill's commentary]

In fact, it would seem that no one has interpreted this verse to mean literally all Christians everywhere until the time of Mike Bickle and his Kansas City associates. While I am not saying that the mere novelty of something is enough to dismiss it, when we have to assume that everyone has misread a passage of scripture until more than 1,900 years after it was written, it should be enough to make us ask for discernment. Especially when, reviewing the entire context of said passage, that interpretation is shown to be an invalid one. Nowhere in scripture are all Christians commanded to prophesy, let alone is that taught in this verse. That is a conclusion that one simply can't come to when looking at 1 Corinthians 14:31 honestly.

In the past I've written that when I see someone misuse scripture, I don't immediately assume they're doing it on purpose. I assume one of four things: 1) they're going from memory, and have just forgotten how it originally went; 2) they honestly just simply don't understand what the text is saying; 3) they're going from a second-hand source, and haven't double checked what the original text said; 4) they're doing it on purpose, knowing they're mishandling the text. The first one cannot be the case as Bickle has written this in a book and spoken about this in sermons, and so has had plenty of time to review the verse. The second one can't be true because anyone can see what this verse means by reading the fullness of the chapter, and no one in any previous commentaries misunderstood the verse this way. It's possible that the third one might be true, and Bickle is going off another interpretation, but then he would be guilty of gross negligence for not examining the scripture himself - something a spiritual leader should not do. The fourth one is entirely possible, given what we've seen before. If it is possible - whether intentional or unintentional - Bickle needs to come to repentance.

And if this is the case, then Mike Bickle has taken a verse out of context and abused it to give validity to his warped theological views. His views take but one spiritual gift and extend it well beyond where Paul intended it to go, and is using this to try to convince people to join his "prophetic ministry" movement, centered around IHOP-KC in Kansas City. If anyone reading this is caught up in this "prophetic movement," I encourage you to let this blog post be the beginning of spiritual discernment. Examine what is said, and examine everything by the testimony of scripture. Where a person strays from God's word, go no further - where a person complies with God's word, stand shoulder to shoulder with them. Don't let what anyone says or teach be the final word or the final clinching argument for you - let God speak, and let God guide you with His eternal and holy word.

The Pastor Who Cried Wolf

2011-10-25T02:47:00.000-04:00

This pretty much sums up a large chunk of those who call themselves Christian today.

All credits to the original artist