Slick’s Apostasy: Various Angles of the Issue

I heard about this first via Alpha & Omega Ministries: Yesterday on the Dividing Line.  I have not yet heard what Dr. White had to say about it, but other people have chimed in in written format, which I can access more easily.

Analysis from the redoubtable Steve Hays: Triablogue: Born to fail.

 

Another from Glenn Peoples (HT: Jason Engwer): How to exploit a family falling out for the sake of ideology.

 

Personally, in my reflections on the whole matter I was thinking more about the specifics of the stated reason for abandoning Christianity.  Without daring to put myself in the company of those commentators I will post those thoughts below, FWIW and as a possible indication of what others might be thinking

 

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

 

From http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/15/the-atheist-daughter-of-a-notable-christian-apologist-shares-her-story/:

This changed one day during a conversation with my friend Alex. I had a habit of bouncing theological questions off him, and one particular day, I asked him this: If God was absolutely moral, because morality was absolute, and if the nature of “right” and “wrong” surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?

Four thoughts:

1) She was trained by Matt Slick.  Slick is cool, his ministry has stood the test of time, and he is probably one reason that I am a Calvinist today.  However, frankly his work has always been half-baked and over-reaching in some instances, and I fear that when it came to meta-ethics he may have trained his daughter poorly on account of possibly his own not having a solid grasp of certain issues.

2) Do the words “consequentialism” and “context” mean anything to either of the Slicks?  (Of course, I know that at least one of those matters to one of them.)  Or when did the Scriptures ever indicate that virtue ethics, or deontology, or divine command theory were the only possible correct paradigms by which to make sense of God’s law and God’s nature as revealed in the Scriptures?

Yes, Christians are sophisticated enough to reject divine command theory for reasons which are reflected in Euthyphro’s Dilemma.  Yet the Scriptures apparently never rule out consequentialism in toto and never rule out what we might call (gasp) situational ethics of a sort, and the whole of biblical ethics is best understood in considering both virtue ethics and these other ethical paradigms.

When and where is it appropriate in this country to walk around buck naked?  In a classroom at school?  No.  In worship services at church?  No.  At home?  Sure.

When and where is it appropriate to drive on the right side of the road?  In the U.S.?  Yes, but even then not if the driver is drunk and doing 100 mph on a crowded freeway.  In the U.K.?  No, unless suddenly it is good to cause needless head-on collisions with other vehicles.

Are circmstances or possible consequences relevant in the examples listed immediately above?  Yes, and that is exactly why there are exceptions to rules such as those to which we just alluded.

And is the range of permissible moral options dependent on the situation?  Yes, it is.  That is precisely how sex within the bond of marriage is permissible while your spouse’s cheating on you is not, or why harsh punishments are appropriate only for offenders who are culpable of the worst crimes, to cite two examples.

3) At some point the elder Slick may have got tripped up on issues of postmodern ethics or moral TAGs and passed a muddled, incomprehensible message down to his daughter--either that or the younger Slick just failed to grasp what she was being taught.  Similar language or similar terms appear in discussions of each, and this probably was a source of conflation or confusion at some point.

In any case, God is just (even essentially or transcendently so); in translation this means that God’s actions are just, for this is what the word “just” ultimately points to in terms of meaning and function.  Meanwhile, the words “just” and “moral” are more or less synonymous (though I  prefer “just” over the younger Slick’s “moral”), and those words ultimately mean either in accord with some ethical principle or in accord with what is good; and despite that the word “good” has many meanings--all of them dependent on what the metric or standard of measurement is--and despite anyone’s and everyone’s being capable of finding evil things to be favorable--i.e. “good”--or of prescribing evil conduct as though it were something just, God’s actions are just.

God has issued a body of ethical prescriptions and proscriptions of human behavior; each of these commandments are in accordance with both themselves and objective goodness: by definition, they are just.

Moreover, these commandments are “absolute” in the sense--and this is what people mean when they speak of moral rules which are “absolute”--that they are just regardless of whether Smith over here says, “Adultery?  Meh, that’s okay with me; there’s nothing wrong with it” or whether a society over there on the other side of the planet says, “Why not bow down before Baal?  Who else gives us rain for our crops or puts food on our table?”  That is the sense in which they are absolute.

However, this is not to be confused with the issues of divine command theory vs. rival meta-ethical theories.  There aren’t too many Christians who claim that if God suddenly decided one day to proscribe the consumption of turkey dinners then it would be evil to be turkey dinners in virtue of the proscription itself.  No, the claim would more or less be that if a divine proscription of turkey dinners came down the pike tomorrow then: a) it would be because the proscription did not have a favorable timing before then; and b) the proscription is done for a reason which is objectively good; c) rebellion against the Creator is not in accordance with what is objectively good; and d) guess what: God’s nature happens to be one of objective goodness, all such that it was never possible that an intuitively bad thing such as idolatry or sadistic torture or babies would have been prescribed at some point.

“...Why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?” she asks.  Answer: if you can find an instance of such things, then stop to reconsider the matter and to ask yourself whether such things promoted the well-being of someone or something at one point in the past but later outlived their ability to do so.  Why is it a sin to issue orders to a someone of the rank of Sergeant First Class in one year whereas ten years later it is not a sin to do so?  Hmm, could it be that someone there in the Army got promoted such that legal and moral privileges which formerly were not theirs later rightly became theirs?  This is one example off the top of my head; you should be capable of doing the same.

4) How old is Rachael Slick again?  Oh yeah, that makes sense.

Regarding Rick Warren's Son

This is probably the best web page on the subject: Triablogue: Perseverance and suicide.

Notice that in the comments section someone mentions the Scripture that I would also mention in discussions where it is denied that suicide is an “unpardonable sin”: 1 John 3.15.  With that said, my thinking is that a person would have to work to prove that any Christian who has considered suicide was in fact regenerate when he died; any Christian who has died in this way would have done mental and logical gymnastics to work around the problem of ending his life without intentionally killing himself: something which can be done though presumably no one commits himself to such a project before he puts himself to death.

Triablogue: The optional Jesus

Yet another referral to Triablogue, but certainly not without good reason: Triablogue: The optional Jesus.

Indeed, liberalism in the context of Christian theology has a long record of being content not merely to see things in a different-but-understandable way but ultimately to rebel against the Scriptures in one way or another.  This is how MLK held the heretical beliefs that he held while masking them with standard Christian terminology, or how the saying “A little Greek is a dangerous thing” is proven in the case of queer Christian theology (as it were), or maybe even why someone like Carlton Pearson was able to resurrect his preaching career.

There Aren't That Many of Us

Here is something that does not match my own personal experience and observations and it probably likewise does not jibe with what the reader notices of the people around him at work, in the neighborhood, and elsewhere:

Christianity is the most popular religion in the United States, with around 73% of polled Americans identifying themselves as Christian in 2012.^[1] This is down from 86% in 1990, and slightly lower than 78.6% in 2001.^[2] About 62% of those polled claim to be members of a church congregation.^[3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_America, retrieved on 1/28/13]

My own line of work is such that I deal with a lot of different people throughout days, weeks, months or years.  During that time I continually find that virtually none of these people are Christians in any sense.  For the moment I’ll even allow for a broad sociological definition that includes Calvinists, Arminians, charismatics, Adventists, Campbellites, observant Roman Catholics, modalists, unitarians, greedy Christians, Christians who are drunkards or who have been excommunicated by their congregation, et al.  Nope--there still have not been more than about six apparent church-goers of any sort and there have not been more than two or three people who have given any sign, indication or profession that may suggest that they have been granted regeneration, repentance and faith; in fact, what I see, hear and witness is often exactly the opposite.  Add it all up and I, for one, have reason to question the statistics given above.

Of course, different social strata and different locations will have different percentages of certain populations or groups.  Therefore, for example, one would expect to find more people per capita in the South and Bible Belt who label themselves as Christians than people in the Northwest who do the same.  Likewise, one would expect to find more members of the dying mainline Protestant branches among well-paid, college-educated Americans than among less wealthy immigrants from other countries.  Nevertheless, 73% as a number of all American adults claiming to be Christians seems too high and in my mind probably reflects an error in sampling or surveying methodology: you know, the sort of error that does not account for the influence of social pressure per survey method, or the sort of error that causes one to force-fit an answer out of a range of five pre-selected answers which do not necessarily cover all logical possibilities, or a sort which does not account for people’s claiming to belong to a certain religious group because their parents belonged to it or because they are currently allied with it, and so on.

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

In any case, it is not true that 73% of all American adults are Christians according to historical, biblical and reasonable usage of the name “Christian.”  Remember the adage that to be in a garage doesn’t make one to be a car.  Likewise, recall that the Scriptures have something to say concerning the idea of recognizing people by the fruit that they bear or do not bear (Mt 7.15-20, Mt 12.33-37, Lk 6.43-45, 1 Jn 2.3-6, 1 Jn 2.9-11, 1 Jn 2.15-17, 1 Jn 3.6-10, 1 Jn 3.15, 1 Jn 4.8, 1 Jn 5.18; cf. Gal 5.16-24).  Consider also that “many are called, but few are chosen.”

Talk is cheap and mere professions of socio-cultural alliance or association do not mean anything if what is in your heart and mind is not knowledge of the gospel of Christ and resultant repentance and faith in Christ but rather the attitude that says, “Christianity: I tried that; it didn’t work out.” The latter profession actually suggests that at best what you had was not faith but either a working theory or hypothesis of experimental belief--an assumption--or faith in a decision to do good and follow Christ, as a possible result of imprecise teaching of the staff of whatever church you were attending.  Remember: there is a reason that there are numerous NT passages that mention false brethren even during the time of the apostles: Matthew 7:21-23 (cf. John 10:27), Matthew 25:1-13, John 6:66, 2 Corinthians 11:26, Galatians 2:4, 2 Peter 2:20-22 (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17), Jude 1:4,19, 1 John 2:19.

So, apart from lazy or broad sociological definitions or usage of the name “Christian” the real number of Christians among a given population or in a given place will often be less than it appears at first glance.  Consider the findings of another portion of the Wikipedia article:

Another study, conducted by Christianity Today with Leadership magazine, attempted to understand the range and differences among American Christians. A national attitudinal and behavioral survey found that their beliefs and practices clustered into five distinct segments. Spiritual growth for two large segments of Christians may be occurring in non-traditional ways. Instead of attending church on Sunday mornings, many opt for personal, individual ways to stretch themselves spiritually.^[40]

• 19 percent of American Christians are described by the researchers as Active Christians. They believe salvation comes through Jesus Christ, attend church regularly, are Bible readers, invest in personal faith development through their church, accept leadership positions in their church, and believe they are obligated to "share [their] faith", that is, to evangelize others.
• 20 percent are referred to as Professing Christians. They also are committed to "accepting Christ as Savior and Lord" as the key to being a Christian, but focus more on personal relationships with God and Jesus than on church, Bible reading or evangelizing.
• 16 percent fall into a category named Liturgical Christians. They are predominantly Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, or Orthodox. They are regular churchgoers, have a high level of spiritual activity and recognize the authority of the church.
• 24 percent are considered Private Christians. They own a Bible but don't tend to read it. Only about one-third attend church at all. They believe in God and in doing good things, but not necessarily within a church context. This was the largest and youngest segment. Almost none are church leaders.
• 21 percent in the research are called Cultural Christians. These do not view Jesus as essential to salvation. They exhibit little outward religious behavior or attitudes. They favor a universality theology that sees many ways to God. Yet, they clearly consider themselves to be Christians. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_America, retrieved on 1/28/13]

In terms of a census by historical, biblical and reasonable usage of the name “Christian” one can conceivably write off fifty percent based on the definitions listed immediately above.  Comfort and Cameron, et al. have already dealt with issues pertinent to the “Professing Christians” category.  Plenty of other people have addressed the issues of Roman Catholic soteriology with its view of works of righteousness.  And any group of so-called Christians which does not take the basic truths of John 14.6 seriously is itself a group whose claim to being “Christians” is questionable at best.  Half of 73% is roughly 37%, and 37% seems a more realistic figure for the number of American adults who have been granted regeneration, repentance and faith.

Another Supposed Christian Murderer

Compare the writings of John--

And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5.11-12)

Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. (1 John 3.15)

with those of the journalists of Click On Detroit:

Michigan pastor charged with killing fiancee's daughter to fulfill morbid fantasy 

Pastor John D. White accused of strangling woman, undressing body 

Published On: Nov 02 2012 11:10:45 AM EDT  Updated On: Nov 02 2012 02:59:24 PM EDT 

BROOMFIELD TOWNSHIP, Mich. -

A central Michigan pastor, accused of beating and strangling a neighbor to fulfill a sexual fantasy, was engaged to the victim's mother.

Donna Houghton, a longtime member of Christ Community Fellowship, near Mount Pleasant, says John D. White knew his victim, Rebekah Gay, and regularly babysat her 3-year-old son while she worked.

White had been pastor of the 14-member church since 2009.

Houghton says White had planned to marry Gay's mother. He was arraigned Thursday on first-degree murder charges.

White told investigators he repeatedly struck Gay's head with a mallet then strangled her with a zip tie at her mobile home. White admitted he removed her clothes but does not remember if he abused the dead body to fulfill his fantasy.

White was released from prison in 2007 after nearly 12 years.

The state Corrections Department says White was denied parole several times while serving a sentence for manslaughter in the death of a Kalamazoo County woman.

In the early 1980s, White was accused of choking and stabbing a 17-year-old girl in Battle Creek.

Prisons spokesman Russ Marlan says White was sentenced to at least five years in prison but got probation after an appeal.

One of three things apparently must be true.  Either: a) the police have the wrong man; b) White was a pastor of a congregation of Christians who with or without fault accepted a false profession of faith from White; or c) the congregation at issue is not entirely composed of believers.  (A) seems unlikely given the attendant facts of the case.  (B) or (C) therefore seem more likely especially in considering previous blog posts, including Christian Atheism in Holland.  One could turn this issue into one of apologetics.  Instead I simply reiterate that it is time for the church to clean house to whatever extent is possible.

Response to Previous Post 'What Is the Gospel? by R.C. Sproul | Reformed Theology Articles at Ligonier.org'

Okay, I want to do something different here: instead of responding to DB’s last post in the comments section--which is limited in space--let me provide a full response here and make that a blog post.  Along the way I’ll go ahead and address you directly, DB, if needed. =)

In the article mentioned in the last post Dr. Sproul writes:

The Gospel is called the ‘good news’ because it addresses the most serious problem that you and I have as human beings, and that problem is simply this: God is holy and He is just, and I’m not. And at the end of my life, I’m going to stand before a just and holy God, and I’ll be judged. And I’ll be judged either on the basis of my own righteousness – or lack of it – or the righteousness of another. The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself. But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God.

What was written there is good news--good for Jesus, since he is the one who lived a life free of wrongdoings and moral error.  But how is that good news to me?  I am not Jesus, after all.  And if Jesus died for his people, good; but how is that relevant to anything or what does that mean?  Did Jesus die to set an example of how his people should live selflessly?  Did he die to save his people from their past sins though not necessarily for sins that will be committed later down the road in the future?  And who are his people anyhow?  And if Jesus died as a sacrifice for his people, what does that mean?  Is Dr. Sproul using the word “sacrifice” in a loose and vernacular sense as soliders may “sacrifice” themselves by throwing themselves on top of grenades or by running unprotected in front of bullets to save fellow members of their unit or platoon?  Or is Dr. Sproul speaking of sacrifice proper?

The desire to avoid a long, cumbersome and tedious message is understandable, to be sure.  However, if I were to hear Dr. Sproul’s words with the ears of a pagan who has no prior understanding of Christian theology, how would anything from the second paragraph of the article produce the faith according to which God justifies sinners?  In anticipation of possible responses, let’s allow Dr. Sproul to finish his message by now quoting the third and final paragraph of the article:

The great misconception in our day is this: that God isn’t concerned to protect His own integrity. He’s a kind of wishy-washy deity, who just waves a wand of forgiveness over everybody. No. For God to forgive you is a very costly matter. It cost the sacrifice of His own Son. So valuable was that sacrifice that God pronounced it valuable by raising Him from the dead – so that Christ died for us, He was raised for our justification. So the Gospel is something objective. It is the message of who Jesus is and what He did. And it also has a subjective dimension. How are the benefits of Jesus subjectively appropriated to us? How do I get it? The Bible makes it clear that we are justified not by our works, not by our efforts, not by our deeds, but by faith – and by faith alone. The only way you can receive the benefit of Christ’s life and death is by putting your trust in Him – and in Him alone. You do that, you’re declared just by God, you’re adopted into His family, you’re forgiven of all of your sins, and you have begun your pilgrimage for eternity.

The meaning of the word “sacrifice” still is not clearly and unequivocally explained.  However, if explanations and analogies had been sought and mentioned in the scapegoat of Leviticus 16 and in specifics of the prophecy of Isaiah 53, these might have been quite helpful.  These passages in turn would have been made more understandable by Acts 2.22-23 and 4.27-28 where even the apostles take time to clarify how the Romans’ killing of Christ could amount to an act of punishment executed by God himself.

Until these and other things are explained in people’s approaches to evangelism, there is not much to prevent more new instances of false conversions and false faith.  Remember that while the verb “believe in” does mean believe in and the noun “faith” does mean faith, it is clear that biblical writers still had something specific in mind when they spoke of the faith according to which God justifies sinners.  For example, if Jesus of Nazareth was a carpenter by trade and was hired to have someone fashion a new table for them, the trust or faith of the person who trusts the Lord to now provide him with a new table does not have the sort of faith that Paul talks about in Ephesians 2.8-9, clearly.  In fact, coaches, soccer moms, or other people who would today say “I believe in you” as part of a speech to pep up their athletes before a game are expressing what are merely beliefs that those athletes have great ability or potential, as opposed to expressing any trust, dependence or reliance upon those individuals.  So if one takes an unclear message, mixes it with modern semantic ambiguity, and mixes it also with faith’s capacity to have different sorts and objects or targets, he is poised to produce more cases of the false brethren that have been mentioned quite often in past articles of this blog.

(Again, apparently it is by vagueness of teaching and preaching that one unbeliever goes on to believe merely that Jesus is great and powerful.  Meanwhile, another unbeliever goes on to trust his response to the Gospel or a gospel as means of salvation from fear of divine wrath.  In the meantime, still another unbeliever goes on trust Christ for the wrong things, and so on.)

If one goes back to read the New Testament to see how matters were handled in the earliest days of the church, I think that he or she will find that it’s okay to spend some time, effort, and repetition in doing the work of what is rightly called evangelism.  In Acts chapter two apostle Peter finds time to quote the prophet Joel, to speak of the wonders and signs performed through Christ, to mention the role of predetermined or predestined actions in the life of Christ, and so on.  In Acts 13.13-52 the apostle Paul likewise does not attempt to truncate or supersimplify the good news of Christ into a short sound byte or blurb; in fact, his audience even invites him to return to speak to them again despite his would-be verbosity.

So perhaps in the future it would be good to remind people--specifically Christians--of various things and to later teach the same thing to unbelievers.  For example, in Mark 2.10 we are told that while the Son of Man walked this earth he had authority to forgive sins.  We are also told in Matthew 28.18-20 that all authority in heaven and earth was given to him.  If God as the authority to forgive sins, and if all authority has been given to Christ, does Christ not have the authority to forgive people’s sins?  And if Christ has this authority, is this not a good reason for sinners to trust Jesus Christ if they call upon his name?

---

Any comments on the matter, sir?

The Word "Christian" Means Whatever You Want It to Mean

We’ve already seen this, but here is more proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

Missing the Obvious

Human beings who are unregenerate often do not know the evil that they do; either they simply lack the wisdom to know, lack instruction from the Scriptures that would inform them of it, or have dulled their moral senses to the point where they can no longer recognize various evils as such. That is why, for example, people might give you a strange look if you were to tell them that revenge is rightly carried out by God alone (sometimes done through the agency of government) or that extramarital sex is a bad thing. (Cf. 1 Peter 4.1-4.)

How is it, therefore, that in my travels I have encountered church-goers who act as if they possess no knowledge of the following?

But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. (Colossians 3.8, NKJV)

Notice that on this last point I speak of blasphemy, filthy language, and perhaps even malice. Come to think of it, why also do the same people display no knowledge of the following--as if neither they nor their “pastors” have ever mentioned or happened upon the following from the apostle Paul?

1 Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma. 3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. (Ephesians 5.1-4, NKJV)

And why should anyone treat homosexuality--whether the inclination or the acts--as being good when our brother Paul, apostle of Christ, has told us the following?

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6.9-10)

The answer seems simple enough. There are at least three missions or responsibilities which the church apparently no longer carries out. The first is the Great Commission of Matthew 28.18-20, which calls for the raising up of disciples. The second is the preaching of the good news of Christ, which is the power of God to the salvation of those who believe (Romans 1.16) but is in many instances replaced by messages of ill-defined faith or messages which exhort people to trust in their works and obedience in order to please God. Pseudo-conversions of erstwhile unregenerate lawbreakers can be expected as results, and consequently we are left in a world full of church-goers who are indistinguishable from sinners.  Finally, a third responsibility is that people read their Bible; no one else will truly do this for you.

I mention all of this--perhaps even in repetition of a previous blog post--because, well, personally I’ve seen matters get worse in this regard.

The Trinity, Accuracy and Crypto-Modalists

What follows concerns the post The Discernment Gap: Showing a Lack of Passion for God's Honor and Glory at the AOMin Blog.

I am not totally sympathetic with Dr. White here for one reason: he and most other trinitarians themselves are not as accurate as they could and should be concerning the doctrine(s) of the Trinity. For example, Dr. White writes:

When asked if God manifests Himself in three ways, or exists in three divine Persons, he said that "neither one of them totally get it for me." Now there is a ringing profession of Trinitarianism if I ever heard it.

And later:

Ah yes, we need to outgrow this need for accuracy in what we teach about God…err, I mean, theological hair splitting. Let's outgrow it so that we can tell the world about…well, just what are we supposed to tell the world about? Oh yes, Jesus! But, what if they ask who Jesus was and is? As soon as we respond we will be engaging in…well, theology, right? Was Jesus two persons, a manifestation of the one God, the Father and the Son? Did Jesus pre-exist? And what did He come to accomplish? Make men savable, or actually save His people from their sins (Matt. 1:21)? Oh my, it seems that to have anything to say to the world we need to do this theological hair-splitting, which, of course, is another way of saying "honoring God by carefully handling His Word, testing our traditions, and holding fast to that which is good and just and honorable and true." It says volumes about what some people think evangelism is that they can so denature the message and still think they are speaking the truth.

Presumably Dr. White would rather TD Jakes say “God exists in three divine Persons” while also calling for people to be accurate in both ideas and verbal expressions of those ideas. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so how is it justifiable to say that God “exists in three divine Persons”? The adposition “in” is a locative preposition--in other words, it is a preposition that speaks of locations. So again, how accurate is it to suggest that basic trinitarian doctrine is this: that there are these three divine persons here and that God exists in and occupies the space which these three divine persons also occupy? Does that sound like trinitarian theology to you? It does not, yet that is precisely what the doctrine of the Trinity should be if common statements like “God exists in three divine Persons” and “Within the Godhead are three distinct persons” are accurate and precise.

Meanwhile, you might be remembering that it is merely the prototypical use of the word “in” that is locative in function and meaning; after all, the word is sometimes used to indicate instrumentality and other things (e.g. “The message was written in blood”). This observation about the use of the word “in” may be interesting, but in this case it is irrelevant. For it is clear that trinitarians subconsciously are thinking in terms of location when they say “God exists in three divine Persons,” because by analogy there is also the statement “Within the Godhead are three distinct persons” where the locative preposition “within” is used. So it hardly seems to be the case that “God exists in three divine Persons” means God exists at any and all given times as the three divine persons when most people say this, if someone were to assert this in White’s defense.

Again, it is clear that virtually no one is expressing the proposition that God exists at any and all given times as the three divine persons when they say “God exists in three divine Persons,” because if this is what trinitarians had in mind when they say this then they would have become fully aware of the seeming incoherence of the Trinity vis-à-vis Leibniz and the transitivity rule of identity long, long ago and would demonstrate an awareness of this as do only a very limited number of trinitarians. What that means is that the average trinitarian has a fuzzy concept of God’s trinitarian nature. And if the average trinitarian has a fuzzy concept of God’s nature, can the same be true of TD Jakes and other supposed crypto-modalists? Either way, Jakes and White are practically in the same boat.

And yes, fuzziness condemns and kills. Has everyone now heard of Michael Sudduth’s conversion to Hinduism?

Do Evangelists and Christian Apologists Have the Wrong Target Audience?

Over the course of time a number of cases of the following have been mentioned at this blog: what could only be described as false cases of the regeneration of sinners (thus false conversions to the Faith) or else extremely contra-Christianity behavior on the part of nominal Christians. We can now add the following story, which happens to be similar to a situation that affected a congregation of mine years ago:

Trial starts for pastor in murder-for-hire case - Houston Chronicle

Remember first and foremost that false conversions or questionable conversions are things that hide in plain sight. In the biblical record we have data such as the following: Matthew 7.21-23, Matthew 25.1-13, John 6.66, John 17.12, 2 Corinthians 11.26, Galatians 2.4; Jude 1.4,19, 2 Peter 2.20-22, 1 John 2.19. In the modern record we have things such as MLK’s theological writings and the story of the atheist pastors in Holland; there is also the matter of what we personally see and hear of those co-workers, relatives and acquaintances of ours who claim to be Christians.

Make up your mind now that if there so many false converts in the time of the apostles, then the number of false conversions that we see today is to be expected. In fact, the number should be even higher given anecdotal observations and contemporary methodical surveys of the content of beliefs of American “Christians” today: you know, the ones that indicate all sorts of heterodoxy in the hearts and minds of “Christians.”

So false beliefs, false teachings, and false conversions are wide-spread among rank-and-file Christians today. All of this leads to the following question: What business does the church have in evangelizing and doing apologetics work among recognized unbelievers when the church is meanwhile in desperate need to clean its own house?

Should the actions of a murderous Anders Behring Breivik be allowed to falsely represent the fruits of the gospel of Christ and word of God because no one bothered to muzzle this liar by explaining that claims of being a Christian can flow as easily as someone’s claiming to visit “St. Louis” when they’re just going to Town & Country, St. Louis County or someone’s claiming to be “from Baltimore” when they’re from Towson, Baltimore County?

Should the actions of “ex-Christians” be allowed to false represent the fruits of the gospel of Christ and word of God because some particular person believed the preaching that if you trust Christ for a care-free life your problems are solved--even where this preaching stands in the place of the gospel of Christ which tells us how and why Jesus *is able to save people from divine wrath and to grant forgiveness of sins*?

If the reader answers these questions in the negative, then hopefully he or she will consider immediately getting back to basics: the basics of everything really. It is important for Christians to re-discover what exactly the Gospel--or the propositions asserted by it or contained in it--really is. It is also necessary to re-discover the essentials of Faith: e.g., what biblical/trinitarian theology is in contrast to competing heretical ideas of the nature of God. After that, it is time to make sure other “Christians” recognize the same truths.

To continue to allow the status quo is the alternative. But Christians are not going to like the results of the alternative. Fifty years from now the term “Christian,” which is already increasingly less informative as a denotation, will be so meaningless that you will need a new choice of words to denote yourselves. In the meantime, heretical groups will have co-opted the term “Christian,” right along with the history and institutions that go with it: you now become the new Mormons or JWs in the sort of marginalized existence in which you now find yourself as group.

Christian Atheism in Holland

Hat tip to a certain Midwesterner, and no hyperbole here:

BBC News - “Dutch rethink Christianity for a doubtful world”

"Triablogue: Is Breivik a Christian?"

For those of you who were thinking about Norway: Triablogue: "Is Breivik a Christian?"

The first comments on the issue I would leave are the following:

That there are Christians who have done evil is easy to admit, because it’s true. On the other hand, since pragmatics (in a non-linguistic sense of the word) is all about what “works” for an individual--what suits his ends, whether good or bad--there is no special reason to believe that Anders Behring Breivik believes the tenets of Christianity and believes in Christ.

If you’re someone who in any way judges the veracity of something on the basis of admissibility of on-going tests and trials, then any foregoing profession of belief in that thing is necessarily delusional falsehood at best. And if you’re someone who judges the utility of something on the basis of admissibility of on-going tests and trials--well, in that case there is no necessity of the existence of faith in that case.

Therefore, even apart from a consideration of the likes of 1 John 3.15 and John 3.36, the mass killing that just took place in Norway does not add very much to the idea that Christianity has a track record of getting lots of people killed as a matter of theological duty.

Hyperlink Two-fer

Triablogue: Chuck Smith Needs to Repent

Triablogue: Trying to be a Christian

Haven’t followed the former story, but it serves as a reminder that all people stumble or falter, including King David and his son Solomon, hence the later turmoil and division of their kingdoms.

Concerning the latter article, it bears noting that even modern American narrative structure allows for the thematic/chronological distinction: one of the sorts of things that give rise to charges of biblical self-contradictions. Examples: the intro to 16 Blocks and Mission Impossible III.

Toward a Demystification of False Faith

Luke’s theology (Lk 24.47; Acts 5.31, 11.18; cf. 13.48, 18.27) reminds us of the words of Ezekiel 18.21ff and it reminds us that repentance leads to divine forgiveness of sins: forgiveness of sins is preceded by repentance and has always been preceded by repentance. Given the biblical teaching that faith is the occasion of justification and a cause of forgiveness of sins (something not exclusive to Pauline teaching, in considering examples Luke 18.9-14 and Acts 10.43), it follows that either faith is a sort of repentance or that one cannot believe without having first repented. Let the reader consider these things before we shift gears in this discussion.

Meanwhile, the phrasal verb “believe in” at present has two meanings in common parlance: to believe that someone or something exists (e.g., “I believe in Santa Claus”) or to trust, trust in, or rely on someone or something. The latter meaning is another thing to consider before we shift gears in this discussion.

For two thousand years there has been the habit of saying “Whoever believes in Jesus/Jesus Christ/Christ/etc.” will be justified, or forgiven, or saved: the operative choice of words being simply and exactly “believes in sb.” At the same time, presumably we would be hard-pressed to find anyone who did not truly believe that this statement is not subject to some sort of qualification or that the semantic purview of such a phrase was not limited in some way. In other words, let’s stop to imagine the early years of Christ before he began his three-year earthly ministry ending around 30 AD when he ascended to heaven. Imagine that football existed back then, that Nazareth had its own high school football team, and that the continued victories of the team there were a raison d’être of people’s happiness there, like high school football in Texas. A game is coming up, but the star quarterback has been injured and cannot play in the upcoming game. Imagine, if you will, that the Lord himself is a member of the team but does not normally assume the duties of the quarterback. The coach signs him on as the quarterback anyhow, and does so because he believes that he is able to win the game.

What has the coach done here? The coach has trusted the Lord’s abilities as a football player to win the game. In fact, the coach trusts the Lord himself. However, the coach trusts the Lord to win the game, not in some other capacity, way or respect and not for some other reason. The coach trusts the Lord Jesus Christ, but you do not want to say that any of the apostles or disciples of Christ had this sort of thing in mind when they said “Whoever believes in him receives forgiveness of sins.” Again, the coach trusts the Lord Jesus Christ, but you do not want to say that the apostle Paul had this sort of thing in mind while contrasting the estate of self-relying Jews and in-grafted Gentiles in the book of Romans or elsewhere in Paul’s writings about the Law.

What that means is that “Whoever believes in him receives forgiveness of sins” would not express the proposition Whoever simpliciter believes in him receives forgiveness of sins in Acts 10.43 or elsewhere. With that said, no one really wants to start reading things into texts in a blithe or cavalier manner, and certainly not unless the scales of probability and possibility heavily enough weigh in one particular direction to warrant such an action. Nevertheless, one apparently must admit at least that faith with regard to sin and salvation from sin is what the Bible has in mind when speaking of faith that precedes justification and forgiveness of sins.

---

This leads to other issues. Reformed theology in toto is pretty much correct. What then are we to make of John, chapter 8 verses 31 to 37? It is written:

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: [but] the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

So the faith of the Jews lasted for all of six verses before quickly fading away: this is remarkable in itself, but it also has the initial appearance of contradicting Reformed soteriology with its teaching of the perseverance of saints. After all, it is by faith that any believer lives and will escape the wrath of God.

We already know that “believe in” is a phrase which can mean different things, even apart from its use to indicate affirmation of the existence of some object. And apart from concerns over proverbial football games as mentioned earlier, it is conceivable that a person might trust Christ in a number of different respects. Some might trust him to expel the Romans from the Promised Land and to restore the Davidic monarchy. Others might trust him as much as they trust other Jewish religious leaders for guidance and support, while continuing to seek to attain their own righteousness as opposed to the righteousness that comes from God thus leaving themselves subject to impending punishment for past wrongdoings.... In fact, the Jews of that era must have believed in God in some respect and in some sense, for their actions were precipitated by a belief God existed (Rom 10.1-2) and a belief that his words as recorded in the Law could lead to their establishing their own righteousness (Rom 9.30-33, 10.3). Yet when God is left to occupy merely a remote supporting role in one’s seeking righteousness, we see a dividing line of semantic purview between John 8.31 and the likes of John 3.16.

At this point I think back on a person I used to work with. He claimed to be a Christian, and he went around asking if others believed in Christ, even clarifying the question to ask whether I believed that Christ died for my sins. This is remarkable, because while Romans 1.16 holds that the gospel of Christ is the power of God unto the salvation those who believe, the Arminian proposition that Christ died for anyone and everyone is false: both such that this co-worker of mine does not appear to have believed the gospel directly, if at all. In any case, it is unclear that this person has ever come to repentance or believed in Christ according to a sense of the phrase “believe in” which rises above the analogy of the proverbial coach mentioned above. The conduct of this co-worker was not only morally lackluster but was actually incorrigible even by secular standards. (No large surprise that he ended up being fired from his job, twice.) Without even going into details on the matter, to believe that such a person conceivably was regenerated by God and repentant would probably be irresponsible. And if someone believes in Christ without having repented of sins against God, what kind of belief can such a person possibly have vis-à-vis Luke’s theology of repentance? Answer: apparently nothing that falls under the semantic purview of the likes of Acts 10.43.

At this point I think back on bad trends in modern evangelism and think back on another person that I have spoken with in the past. “Make Jesus the lord of your life and you’ll be saved!” “Believe in Jesus, and your troubles will go away!” Neither of the two foregoing preachings is biblical though apparently both are present in modern preaching. (Ray Comfort over at The Way of the Master has spoken out on such things for years now.) Yet if those preachings make for one’s only concept of what gospel preaching is, then why should there not be cases of false conversion and false faith in this world?

Under those conditions, yes, one could well end up like the particular “ex-Xian” that I am thinking of. In this particular case, we are talking about a person who by his own testimony used to “believe in Christ, repentance, a personal relationship with God, submission to God, that Christ died for his sins, etc.” I paraphrase the words of this person and elide some details, but a few things in his testimony are striking. Number one, the fact that he did “believe in Christ” does not mean much per se and per nature of the foregoing comments of this discussion. Number two, one may notice that there is nothing in his testimony and defining of terms that precludes the following possibility: that Christ once was very important to him while this person was also was someone, not unlike the Jews of Paul’s era, who saw obedience to God’s commandments (which ultimately include moral requirements of faith, by the way) as being that which is meritorious of salvation. The semi-Pelagianism of various Arminian-like churches and congregations already leans in favor of such an outlook on obedience, without taking the plunge into blatant legalism. How much more, therefore, would the theology of a relatively ignorant, unregenerate person lean in this direction?

Number three, I said that I elided some details of the testimony. Many of those details were items of a list of things he believed in, and those in turn happen to be good deeds or beliefs that various particular good works should be done. (It bears noting that this is something I first noticed well after obsevation number two above.) Number four, and to come full circle, this would be ex-Xian actually took time to define terms, since I already knew that a phrase such as “believed in Jesus” could mean a number of different things and therefore asked about the matter. As it turns out, the very phrase “believed in Jesus” was defined not as trust, reliance, intellectual assent, or anything similar to this or closely-related to salvation from sin; instead, it was defined by this person in terms of religious service or spiritual devotion. On that note, I reiterate the words of the second observation above: there is nothing in this person’s testimony and defining of terms that precludes the possibility: that Christ once was very important to him while this person was also was someone, not unlike the Jews of Paul’s era, who saw obedience to God’s commandments (which ultimately include moral requirements of faith, by the way) as being that which is meritorious of salvation. Of course, such a belief also ensured that the unbelieving Jews of the era died in their sins, wrongdoings and acts of rebellion against heaven.

So the solution to the John 8 problem is probably that the Jews believed in Christ only in some more-or-less loose sense of the phrase. Modern pseudo-converts, on the other hand, are more likely victims of unsound preaching, muddled and oversimplified preaching, false promises of irresponsible preachers, and ultimately their own sins.

---

Finally, as the title of this article suggests the article is not meant to be a final report on the question of supposed ex-Christians and other things which initially appear to be contrary to the Perseverance of the Saints. Nevertheless, I believe that the arguments and conclusions therein lead in the right direction for further research.