Counterfeit Revival Revisted by Hank Hanegraff

Here is a good article by Hank Hanegraff of the Christian Research Institute

It has now been over two years since my book Counterfeit Revival documented the dangers of looking for God in all the wrong places.¹ Sadly, leaders of the Counterfeit Revival have continued to employ sociopsychological manipulation tactics to trap new subjects into their dangerous web of subjectivism.

No one is immune to the contagion of mass suggestion. Once this epidemic contaminates a movement, it can make black appear white, obscure realities, and enshrine absurdities.

One of the newest absurdities is the phenomenon of gold-tooth fillings — that’s right, gold fillings! “Fallings in the Spirit” may well have been eclipsed by “fillings in the Spirit.” As one Counterfeit Revival devotee proclaims, “Have you heard?…there’s gold in Toronto!”² She goes on to write:

Wednesday night, before Dutch Sheets delivered a powerfully anointed message, there was a short video clip shown of John Arnott ministering in a South Africa meeting where people’s teeth were being filled with gold. After the clip, John asked for anyone who wanted this miracle to stand and believe for it while touching the sides of their faces. After the prayer he asked that we check each other’s mouths and about 10 people went forward, some yelling and all excited because they now had gold teeth and fillings which they did not previously have!

….So John let a couple testify and we prayed again…this time more people received the miracle. A third time of praying came as did more miracles! IT WAS AWESOME!

Then, at just about every meeting there was prayer for this miracle and every time there would be many who would discover their mouth filled with gold! Last count that I heard was over 198 people who were leaving the conference with some gold in their mouths!

….One woman who had been on welfare most of her childhood had 8 new gold teeth! Another woman had 4 gold teeth and/or fillings on Wednesday and by Saturday she had 11! (I saw her at both stages of this miracle). One man had two beautiful, perfect, shiny, gold teeth and one of them had a cross engraved on it!

….The drummer of the worship team received gold teeth as did one of the pastors on staff there at TACF [Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship] and while officially collecting these testimonies from the saints, the man who was recording them received gold teeth as well!

….And on Saturday…the wonderful “gold dust” started showing up on people’s hands and in their tears as they worshipped!³

A Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship official statement titled “GOLD TEETH!” reports that perhaps God was filling people’s teeth with gold as “a sign and a wonder to expose the skepticism still in so many of us.”⁴ The statement went on to say that “reports of people’s fillings turning a bright silver or gold color are coming in from South Africa, Australia, England, Mexico and across Canada and the USA. The excitement at TACF is electric with news of how these dental miracles are so rapidly spreading.” (This gives new meaning to Arnott’s mantra: “Fill, fill, fill!”)

Even as reports of gold fillings are pouring in from the Counterfeit Revival leaders in Toronto, leaders at the Brownsville revival in Pensacola have begun citing resurrections from the dead. For $75 the Brownsville Revival School of Ministry will sell you a video series titled Faith to Raise the Dead. Brownsville leaders are claiming that evangelist David Hogan and his associate missionaries in Mexico have seen more than 200 raised from the dead. The expectations of people have reached such a fever pitch that some time ago a parent who lost a child put his baby on ice and drove 350 miles to the Brownsville Assembly of God to have the baby raised from the dead.⁵ To some, this father’s actions may appear foolish. Yet, if God is indeed raising hundreds from the dead in Mexico, it would be perfectly logical to think that He would raise the dead in the church whose ongoing revival that is being touted as perhaps the greatest in the history of humanity.⁶

While Arnott and his associates are duping people with the gold-filling ruse, and while Hogan’s heroes are heralding resurrections from the dead, Rodney Howard-Browne is attempting to make a comeback at Madison Square Garden in New York. With a dwindling following in Florida, Howard-Browne has come up with a new angle. It seems Rodney “had a dream from God”⁷ in which Billy Graham told him about a crusade Graham held in New York back in 1957. Rodney says that as he listened to Billy, he started weeping. Says Howard-Browne, “I wept so hard that when I woke up, my pillow was soaked with tears.”⁸ The Holy Ghost allegedly told the self-designated “Holy Ghost Bartender” that he was to launch one of the biggest soul-winning crusades ever. Through a variety of techniques, including a Charisma magazine ad, Rodney now raises money and manpower for “Unlocking Heaven at the Garden.”⁹

While at first blush the stories of Counterfeit Revival leaders may be amusing, the consequences of their fabrications, fantasies, and frauds are often tragic. The story of the parent who took his baby to Brownsville speaks for itself. Such stories as gold fillings can also have tragic repercussions.

First, when followers finally catch on to the manipulations of revival leaders, they often become disillusioned and disenchanted. They no longer know what to believe or whom to trust and secretly fear that the untrustworthiness of those who claim to be God’s representatives translates into the untrustworthiness of God Himself.

Furthermore, these testimonies leave believers with a watered-down understanding of miracles that cheapens their appreciation of the biblical reality. We should ask ourselves why God isn’t restoring teeth as opposed to merely filling cavities with gold. While gold and silver fillings might be a human solution to a decayed tooth, one would think that God would provide a solution without the possible side effects produced by placing metals in the mouth. In addition, when Christ healed the blind man in John 9, He didn’t give him a super-duper pair of spectacles; He restored his sight. Likewise, when Jesus healed the paralytic in Luke 5, He did not give him a diamond-studded gold crutch. The difference between the “magic” of mental manipulations and genuine miracles is dramatic. As documented by Christian apologist Dr. Norman Geisler, when Jesus and the apostles healed people, the miracles were always 100 percent successful and immediate, and there were no relapses.¹⁰

Sola Scriptura and the Role of Teachers

By Phil Johnson

A less-than-admiring reader writes:

Your identity as a "Baptist"; your endless quotations from Charles Spurgeon; your faithful devotion to John MacArthur; and especially your willingness to call yourself a "Calvinist" are all huge red flags that tell me something is seriously wrong with your theology. Why do you teach a system of doctrine that is named after a mere man? Why are you following human teachers instead of going to the Bible alone? After all, 1 John 2:27 says, "The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you." We ought to go to Scripture alone to establish our doctrine! The truth is in God's Holy word, not in any theological system or theology textbook developed by mere men. Isn't that principle what the Reformation was originally about?Sola Scriptura?Didn't even Calvin himself go to Scripture for the truth instead of reading other men? I believe that if Calvin himself wrote for this blog, he would point people to the truth in God's Holy word, not to a theology developed by some other man.

My reply:

ou have seriously misunderstood sola Sriptura if you really imagine that it rules out human teachers or eliminates systematic theology. The Reformers (including Calvin) often cited the works of Augustine, Tertullian, Jerome, Cyprian, Ambrose, and others—ranging from the early church fathers through Aquinas. They didn't follow any of them slavishly, of course, but they certainly took them seriously. Not one of the major Reformers would have tolerated the claim that because the Church Fathers were mere men they were therefore irrelevant or incapable of shedding any helpful light on tough theological questions.

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is the final court of appeal in all matters of faith and practice. It is an affirmation that "the whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture" and that "nothing at any time is to be added [to the Bible], whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." It recognizes that there is ultimately no higher spiritual authority than God's Word, so "the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture . . . it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."

But none of that means we're obliged to discard the wisdom of godly men from ages past and require each man to try to discern truth from scratch by reading nothing but Scripture by himself.

As for Calvin, he certainly did "point people to the truth in God's Holy Word"—but one thing he did not do was steer people away from the important theologians of the past. In fact, Calvin's works are filled with references to the Church Fathers—Augustine in particular. Calvin knew it was important to demonstrate that he was proposing nothing wholly novel and that his theology was in the doctrinal lineage of the greatest theologians of the church. He regarded himself as Augustinian, in precisely the same way many today think of themselves as "Calvinists."

If Calvin wrote for this blog and someone responded to one of his posts by refusing to read what Augustine wrote, Calvin would probably write that person off as arrogant and unteachable.

Incidentally, 1 John 2:20,27 is the apostle John's response to an early outbreak of gnostic-flavored spiritual elitism. He was refuting some false teachers (he called them "antichrists") who insisted that real truth is a deep secret, different from the apostolic message, into which people must be initiated by some anointed swami. The Holy Spirit indwells and anoints each believer, and He is the One who truly enlightens and enables us to understand truth. But He also gifts certain people with a particular ability to teach others (Romans 12:6-7; Ephesians 4:11). So while John was condemning the notion of enlightened masters in the style of Freemasonry and gnosticism, he was not making a blanket condemnation of teachers. He himself was a teacher.

Bonus:

A follow-up message asks me if I am suggesting it's wrong for someone to abandon all books and human teachers and rely only on what he can glean from the Bible for himself. Answer: yes, I think that's wrong because it's arrogant and reflects a sinful kind of unteachability. This is my whole point: sola Scriptura doesn't rule out the valid role of teaching in the church.

Furthermore, it is simply not the case that any common, unskilled, unschooled individual, sitting down with his Bible and no other tools, can expect to come to a full and mature understanding of Scripture without any help from godly teachers who understand some things better than he will ever get it on his own. Here's Bernard Ramm's famous response to the arrogance reflected in such a perversion of sola Scriptura::

It is often asserted by devout people that they can know the Bible completely without helps. They preface their interpretations with a remark like this: "Dear friends, I have read no man's book. I have consulted no man-made commentaries. I have gone right to the Bible to see what it had to say for itself." This sounds very spiritual, and usually is seconded with amens from the audience.
     But is this the pathway of wisdom? Does any man have either the right or the learning to by-pass all the godly learning of the church? We think not.
     First, although the claim to by-pass mere human books and go right to the Bible itself sounds devout and spiritual it is a veiled egotism. It is a subtle affirmation that a man can adequately know the Bible apart from the untiring, godly, consecrated scholarship of men like [Athanasius,] Calvin, Bengel, Alford, Lange, Ellicott, or Moule. . . .
     Secondly, such a claim is the old confusion of the inspiration of the Spirit with the illumination of the Spirit. The function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture. Suppose we select a list of words from Isaiah and ask a man who claims he can by-pass the godly learning of Christian scholarship if he can out of his own soul or prayer give their meaning or significance: Tyre, Zidon, Chittim, Sihor, Moab, Mahershalalhashbas, Calno, Carchemish, Hamath, Aiath, Migron, Michmash, Geba, Anathoth, Laish, Nob, and Gallim. He will find the only light he can get on these words is from a commentary or a Bible dictionary.

[from Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), pp. 17-18 (emphasis in original).]

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.

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.

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”

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Heretic?

This was a post I got from the Pyromaniacs blog, who got it from John MacArthur. The more I study, the more unfriendly I notice the Bible is toward the false teacher. this is encouraging on the one hand because it helps to underscore the importance of correct teaching and it is humbling on the other hand to make sure I am blogging/teaching the truth as best I can (and severely resting in God's grace when I blow it). So, enjoy this.

DB

Evangelical Apathy and the Danger of False Teaching
by John MacArthur
The following is excerpted from The Truth War (Nelson, 2007, pp. 165-68)

Why do so many evangelicals act as if false teachers in the church could never be a serious problem in this generation? Vast numbers seem convinced that they are "rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'; and do not know that [they] are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked" (Revelation 3:17).

In reality, the church today is quite possibly more susceptible to false teachers, doctrinal saboteurs, and spiritual terrorism than any other generation in church history. Biblical ignorance within the church may well be deeper and more widespread than at any other time since the Protestant Reformation. If you doubt that, compare the typical sermon of today with a randomly-chosen published sermon from any leading evangelical preacher prior to 1850. Also compare today's Christian literature with almost anything published by evangelical publishing houses a hundred years ago or more.

Bible teaching, even in the best of venues today, has been deliberately dumbed-down, made as broad and as shallow as possible, over-simplified, adapted to the lowest common denominator—and then tailored to appeal to people with short attention spans. Sermons are almost always brief, simplistic, overlaid with as many references to pop culture as possible, and laden with anecdotes and illustrations. (Jokes and funny stories drawn from personal experience are favored over cross-references and analogies borrowed from Scripture itself.) Typical sermon topics are heavily weighted in favor of man-centered issues (such as personal relationships, successful living, self-esteem, how-to lists, and whatnot)—to the exclusion of the many Christ-exalting doctrinal themes of Scripture.

In other words, what most contemporary preachers do is virtually the opposite of what Paul was describing when he said he sought "to declare . . . the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). Not only that, but here's how Paul explained his own approach to gospel ministry, even among unchurched pagans in the most debauched Roman culture:

I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Notice: he deliberately refused to customize his message or adjust his delivery to suit the Corinthians' philosophical bent or their cultural tastes. He had no thought of catering to a particular generation's preferences, and he used no gimmicks as attention-getters. Whatever antonym you can think of for the word showmanship would probably be a good description of Paul's style of public ministry. He wanted to make it clear to everyone (including the Corinthian converts themselves) that lives and hearts are renewed by means of the Word of God, and by nothing else. That way they would begin to understand and appreciate the power of the gospel message.

By contrast, today's church-growth experts seem to have no confidence in Scripture's power. They are convinced the gospel needs to be "contextualized," streamlined, and revamped anew for every generation. Forty years of that approach has left evangelicals grossly untaught, wholly unprepared to defend the truth, and almost entirely unaware of how much is at stake. The evangelical movement itself has become a monstrosity, its vast size and visibility belying its almost total spiritual failure. One thing is certain: the cumbersome movement that most people today would label "evangelical" is populated with large numbers of people who are on the wrong side in the Truth War.

We are right back in the same situation the church was in a hundred years ago, when modernists were busily re-inventing the Christian faith. Far from being a strong voice and a powerful force for the cause of truth, the evangelical movement itself has become the main battleground.

The Vital Importance of Biblical Discernment

I ran across this great post by John MacArthur on the value and importance of Biblical discernment. I think this is one area that the American church is lacking. It is hard to tell what is true and false when folks think neither exist. It is also a quality of discernment that brings the need to expose falsehood, false teaching and to point out error. Unfortunately it seems that the only error in many peoples' eyes is actually pointing out the error in others' teachings. Put another way: accusing someone of being judgemental is the only sin "everyone" agrees on.

If there is a wolf in the midst of the sheep, the shepherd does not coddle the wolf or feel bad because he is the victim. No, he takes care of business and runs the wolf out or shoots him. If there is a wolf in sheep's clothing within the midst of the church, we ought not coddle them or feel bad that folks are picking on them because of their false teaching. We must expose it and "run them out" or at the very least, we must look for the zipper on their sheep costume.

God's Word, God's grace, God's truth is far too important to be flippant.

Anyway I hope you enjoy.

In its simplest definition, discernment is nothing more than the ability to
decide between truth and error, right and wrong. Discernment is the process of
making careful distinctions in our thinking about truth. In other words, the
ability to think with discernment is synonymous with an ability to think
biblically.

First Thessalonians 5:21-22 teaches that it is the responsibility of every Christian to be discerning: “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.” The apostle John issues a similar warning when he says, “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). According to the New Testament, discernment is not optional for the believer-it is required.

The key to living an uncompromising life lies in one’s ability to exercise discernment in every area of his or her life. For example, failure to distinguish between truth and error leaves the Christian subject to all manner of false teaching. False teaching then leads to an unbiblical mindset, which results in unfruitful and disobedient living-a certain recipe for compromise. Unfortunately, discernment is an area where most Christians stumble. They exhibit little ability to measure the things they are taught against the infallible standard of God’s Word, and they unwittingly engage in all kinds of unbiblical decision-making and behavior. In short, they are not armed to take a decidedly biblical stand against the onslaught of unbiblical thinking and attitudes that face them throughout their day.

Discernment intersects the Christian life at every point. And God’s Word provides us with the needed discernment about every issue of life. According to Peter, God “has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2 Peter 1:3). You see, it is through the “true knowledge of Him,” that we have been given everything we need to live a Christian life in this fallen world. And how else do we have true
knowledge of God but through the pages of His Word, the Bible? In fact, Peter goes on to say that such knowledge comes through God’s granting “to us His precious and magnificent promises” (2 Peter 1:4).

Discernment — the ability to think biblically about all areas of life — is indispensable to an uncompromising life. It is incumbent upon the Christian to seize upon the discernment that God has provided for in His precious truth! Without it,
Christians are at risk of being “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14).

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.

What Does It Mean "to Me"?

Here's a good blog post dealing with the idea of expository preaching, that is preaching that strives to tell the listener what the Bible says, not simply what it means for them.

John MacArthur does a nice job explaining why it is not necessarily up to the preacher to make the Word of God relevant. He says, "it is [relevant} inherantly so, simply because it is the Word of God".

Here are a few snippits: I encourage you to read the whole article.

The question of what Scripture means has taken a back seat to
the issue of what it means “to me.”

This seems to be the way many Christians view Scripture. It is not enough that we are learning about what God has done in history. It has to be about us. But it is not about us. This is one thing Rick Warren said well in Purpose Driven Life- It is not about us. [Of course, he spends the next several hundred pages explaining how it IS about us and what we do...but I digress]

I have been guilty of this myself, but I recognize the problem with this type of Bible "study" and Scripture memorization. We must be careful to not "claim" promises as our own when the context seems clear that it is not. Because, frankly, my own selfishness likes to make things about me, whether it is or not.

White Horse Inn recently had a broadcast where they called this type of Bible reading, "Texual Narcissism". Here is more from MacArthur:

But now and then someone tells me frankly that my preaching needs to be less doctrinal and more practical.

Practical application is vital. I don’t want to minimize its importance. But the distinction between doctrinal and practical truth is artificial; doctrine is practical! In fact, nothing is more practical than sound doctrine.

Too many Christians view doctrine as heady and theoretical. They have dismissed doctrinal passages as unimportant, divisive, threatening, or simply impractical. A best-selling Christian book I just read warns readers to be on guard against preachers whose emphasis is on interpreting Scripture rather than applying it.

Wait a minute. Is that wise counsel? No it is not.

He goes on to explain how if we don't actually understand what the text is saying, we cannot apply it's teaching to our lives. And that "application not based on solid interpretation leads Christians to all kinds of confusion." I would add, all kinds of spiritual weirdness.

How many times have Christians taken verses out of context and said "God told me" thus and such? Too many times. It has been said that the biggest threat to the faithfulness of the Church is not from without, but rather from within.

Be sure to read the rest of the article.

D.B.

Osteen Said What?

Here is a video that the Museum of Idolatry did that goes through portions of one of Joel Osteen's talks to see if what he says lines up with Scripture. It is a little distracting because it is like watching an Asian Old Time Kung Fu movie (his lips don't line up perfectly- at least not when I watched it).

But if you can get past that and realize what he is teaching to folks and how the author of the Museum of Idolatry goes through, questioning his theology.

What do you think? Is he accurate in his comments during the video?

Thanks, MLK, and Hero Worship

Martin Luther King, Jr. was both a driving force behind the Civil Rights Movement and a spearhead of the same. So when you find yourself not having to stand outside a restaurant to eat while patrons of another race get to sit down and eat inside and out in the sun, cold, or rain, you can thank Dr. King. You can think of the same when go to a voting booth or apply for a job. The works and accomplishments of Dr. King in the area of civil rights are not to be diminished.

With that said, the man was also not perfect. Adultery, plagiarism, leanings toward socialism: the evidence is all there. However, perhaps worst of all is the theology Dr. King. I mention it because Dr. White of aomin.org has a peculiar interest in dredging up and highlighting the bad theology of Dr. King, and he has done so recently.

From http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_500215_008/ (“The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus,” February 15, 1950):

The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadaquate. To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: "Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possible have." In other words, one could easily use this as a means to hide behind behind his failures. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit og God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers.
The appearance of such a person, more divine and more human than any other, andstanding and standing in closest unity at once with God and man, is the most significant and hopeful event in human history. This divine quality or this unity with God was not something thrust upon Jesus from above, but it was a definite achievement through the process of moral struggle and self-abnegation.

If it appears that Dr. King is denying the deity of Christ yet retaining the language of Christ’s divinity so that Dr. King may remain within the Christian fold, appearances may not be deceiving. From http://books.google.com/books?id=Uwi_HJUbJUMC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=luther+king+calvin&source=bl&ots=YRIa1nsD3R&sig=vIMa07HK8EF-suXj2spJEReDlIA&hl=en&ei=xZkLS4vbHcWKlQeZyuDvDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=luther%20king%20calvin&f=false

The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr, Volume 3, by Martin Luther King (Jr.), Clayborne Carson, Ralph Luker, Penny A. Russell, Louis R. Harlan, “A Comparison and Evaluation of the Theology of Luther with That of Calvin,” p. 189-190:

Hence, we must affirm that Christ is a unitary personality, and this unity we find in his own ego. There is nothing in rational speculation nor New Testament thought to warrant the view that Jesus had two personal centers. We must then think of Christ as a unitary being whose divinity consists not in any second nature or in a substantial unity with God, but in a unique and potent God consciousness. His unity [with] God was a unity of purpose rather than a unity of substance.
Concerning the work of Christ the two reformers stressed a substitutionary theory of atonement. They maintained that christ actually took the place of sinners in the sight of God, and as a substitutee suffered the punishment that was due to men. But all of this is based on a false view of personality. Merit and guilt are not transferable from one person to another. They are inalienable from personality. Moreover, on moral grounds, a person cannot be punished in the place of another.
Another weakness in this theory of atonement is that it is based on the assumption that the chief obstacle to man's redemption is in the nature of God. But there was never any obstacle to man's redemption in God himself. The real obstacle to man's redemption has always lain in man himself. It is from this standpoint, therefore, that the death of Christ is to be interpreted. Christ's death was not a ransom, or a penal substitute, or a penal example, rather it was a revelation of the sacrificial love of God intended to awaken an answering love in the hearts of men.

Yes, he moves from denying the deity of Christ to denying that the death of Christ was a substitutionary atonement, despite the likes of Isaiah 53 or Matthew 20.

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

Of course, Dr. King is not the only one who is flawed. Over the years, Dr. White’s treatment of issues concerning the Trinity has not always been coherent and has never truly covered all the bases. Moreover, I think one can find that Dr. White also has had a reprehensible glib dismissal of the idea that certain non-Christian persons worship the one god that exists. And other unflattering things can be said of other religious leaders.

The point is this: When it comes to heroes, one should follow the words of Lush and “just take the bits you think that you can use.” Admire and remember the admirable actions of these heroes and thank them for their works, but do no more than this. If you do otherwise, you are bound to be disappointed by these heroes and their human flaws, or else lie to yourself to save face on their behalf.

Second point, in closing: Thanksgiving without thanks to God is nothing, period. Happy Thursday all!