Category Archives: Theology

The church’s new trinitarian crisis

04 Tuesday Dec 2018

Posted by in Theology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

The greatest theological battles in the early church were fought over the nature of the Holy Trinity. There were a great many heterodox views of the Trinity propounded in the first Christian centuries, most of them stemming from Greek philosophy. Many heresies denied the perfect union of God and man in the person of Christ; some denied Christ’s divinity, while others denied His humanity. Some heresies denied that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons; others denied that the three Persons of the Trinity are united in a single, shared divine essence. The orthodox Christian understanding of the Trinity was formally codified at the Councils of Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), and Chalcedon (451). Those who disagreed with the orthodox position were declared to be heretics (unbelievers) and were excommunicated from the church.

History has a tendency to repeat itself, and today the evangelical church is being overrun by heterodox views of the Trinity. However, this theological development has largely happened under the radar because it has occurred in the amorphous realm of popular theology, and not (largely) as a formal denial of orthodox trinitarianism by prominent church leaders, pastors, or theologians. Popular theology holds that the Father = Jesus = the Holy Spirit. This view is known theologically as “modalism” or “Sabellianism,” and was condemned as heretical by the early church. In conversations with my friends from seminary, as well as in my own experience, we find that people in churches all over the United States commonly say in their prayers that the Father died on the cross for their sins and rose from the dead. Some will even say “Father Jesus” in their prayers and pray to the Father “in your name.” Others will pray something like “Lord, thank you for dying on the cross for us, in Jesus’ name, Amen”—a very confusing prayer which seems to imply that “Lord” is the Father and that He, not Jesus, died on the cross. Prayers like these are seldom, if ever, corrected by pastors, even if prayed in front of the congregation—an indication that pastors think this sort of doctrinal error is a big deal.

The evidence for evangelical confusion about the Trinity is not merely anecdotal: a 2016 survey found that fifty-six percent of American evangelicals believe that the Holy Spirit is a force, not a person. While that is a modalistic view, seventy percent of evangelical respondents actually affirmed that Jesus is a created being, which is the Arian heresy (not modalism). See also this 2018 survey. It is easy to see how these views arise among people who have virtually no theological or Scriptural grounding and give little or no thought to the doctrine of the Trinity. If you ask evangelical Christians “Is Jesus God?” most would say “Yes.” Then if you ask them “Is Jesus a created being?” most would say “Yes” again, because they know Jesus was born to Mary. If you ask evangelicals “Is Jesus the Father?” most would say “Yes,” because they think Jesus = God = the Father. The majority think of the Holy Spirit as a force rather than as a personal being, even if they pray to the Holy Spirit, because they never see the Holy Spirit pictured in human form. Jesus, the One pictured in human form and sung about in church, is “God” to most people, while the Father is just another word for “God,” and the Holy Spirit is God’s power or force.

Very basic teaching in the Bible and theology is all that is needed to understand that God is three Persons in one essence. (For an excellent detailed exposition of the Trinity, see this book by Dr. Imad Shehadeh.) Yet many evangelical laymen appear to have a modalistic understanding of the Trinity. Their lead pastors may be orthodox trinitarians, but do not stress this or correct false ideas. There are several reasons for the development of heterodox views of the Trinity in evangelical churches.

  1. Many pastors think theology is impractical, and prefer to preach on topics that their congregants will see as relevant to their day-to-day lives. Sermons and small groups at most evangelical churches are primarily applicational in their orientation, not didactic. However, since the Christian faith is defined by theological formulations of doctrine, theology is actually at the core of what the church is and of what it means to be a Christian. Most people will never learn basic Christian theology if it is not taught in church services. Some pastors openly propound the view that theology is boring and largely irrelevant. But when pastors emphasize the importance of theology and exalt knowledge of the Scriptures, their congregations also become interested in theology and begin to see its importance. Some evangelicals have gravitated toward Reformed churches in recent years because traditional Reformed churches actually teach theology (even if their theology tends to get separated from exegesis).
  2. Many pastors are poorly trained in theology and the Bible. Many evangelical churches do not require a seminary or Bible college degree for their pastors, nor do many ordination councils. The seminaries themselves are increasingly emphasizing counseling and “practical ministry,” with ever-decreasing requirements in theology, Bible, and biblical languages. Preaching is taught as an exercise in application. Many new pastors are primarily interested in relationships, outreach, and counseling, and do not like to read theology books, church history books, Bible commentaries, or Greek and Hebrew grammars. While there was a time when most evangelical pastors and many laymen had a keen interest in theological study, few do today.
  3. Some pastors teach that the Trinity is a mystery which defies description or understanding. Some pastors simply teach that the Trinity cannot be understood or described, without ever giving the orthodox formulation of trinitarian doctrine. While there are some things about the nature of God and the holy Trinity that are beyond our understanding, God is knowable, and it is possible to communicate from Scripture the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity in a clear and understandable manner. Failure to do this will result in many people developing false ideas about God.
  4. Strong cultural forces are opposed to a trinitarian view of God. It is well known that politically correct chaplains and pastors refuse to pray in Jesus’ name in ecumenical settings, since Jews, Muslims, and others are offended by the assertion that Jesus is the divine Son of God. Politicians are careful to mention “God” but not “Jesus” so as to avoid offending those who do not believe in the trinitarian God revealed in Scripture. Within the church are anti-trinitarian influences from Oneness Pentecostalism, which comes partly through popular preachers associated with the Word of Faith movement. These and other cultural pressures have made many Christians hesitant to make strong statements about the Trinity. However, the points where the Christian faith is being attacked most strongly are the points which ought to be emphasized most strongly in order to prevent heresies from growing.
  5. Formal liturgy has been removed from most evangelical churches. There was a time when people recited and affirmed a formulation of orthodox Christian theology every time they went to church. Usually this was the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed, although some denominational creeds have also been used. In every service, prayers were read which clearly expressed a trinitarian view of God. The strongly trinitarian Doxology or Gloria Patri was sung in every service. Trinity Sunday was celebrated once a year on the church calendar, giving the pastor an opportunity for focused teaching on the nature of the Holy Trinity. These are traditions which date back to the early centuries of church history, and they reflect the stress which the early church placed on correct understanding of the Trinity as absolutely essential to the Christian faith. The wholesale removal of these traditions has resulted in many churchgoers neither knowing nor believing fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. While modern evangelical churches may wish to make small adjustments to traditional creeds in response to problems that theologians have long pointed out (such as the statement that Christ descended into hell), it is important for theology to be taught in weekly church services, and it is important to give people in the church the opportunity to make a verbal affirmation of their faith. If prayers are made spontaneously instead of read, then those who lead in prayer must be instructed in how to pray (pray to the Father in Jesus’ name), and should be encouraged to include a trinitarian doxology in their prayers.
  6. God the Father has been neglected. For decades, evangelical churches have increasingly neglected God the Father. Songs and preaching alike are mainly about Jesus, with a secondary focus on the Holy Spirit in worship. The Father has been forgotten. Thus, most Christians have no concept of who the Father is or what His relationship is to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They have the idea that because Jesus is God and God is One, the Father is somehow the same as Jesus. This is not just due to a failure to teach basic theology but also to a failure to teach the Bible, since the Bible cannot be understood without distinguishing the Father from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Contemporary Christians would be shocked to learn that Jesus was not the primary focus of the early church’s worship and prayers—God the Father was. They would be surprised to know that many or most uses of “God” in the New Testament refer specifically to God the Father. And they might become angry and argumentative if told that the Person on the throne in the book of Revelation is not Jesus, but the Father.
  7. Popular church music is not robustly trinitarian. Lester Ruth has noted that neither the most popular traditional hymns nor the most popular modern worship songs are robustly trinitarian. There are in fact many old hymns which clearly teach trinitarianism, and which worship God as triune. However, a list of the 70 most commonly published hymns in evangelical hymnals, as well as the 99 most popular songs on top-25 lists from CCLI shows that they both are lacking in the area of trinitarian theology. These popular hymns and songs are overwhelmingly about Jesus, with few or no references to God as triune, or to worship of God as triune. They seldom mention more than one Person of the Godhead, and usually use generic references such as “God,” “Lord,” and “King” which could be interpreted in non-trinitarian ways. Often the emphasis is on Jesus = God, an equation which is often misunderstood when there is no balance. Some modern songs even seem to express a sort of unitarianism, identifying Jesus as completely indistinct from the Father/God.

If many or most American evangelicals today hold a modalistic view of the Trinity, this gives rise to a troubling question: can someone believe in modalism and still be saved? The early church was unequivocal in affirming that modalists were not Christians. When Paul was combating anti-resurrection teaching in the Corinthian church, he wrote that “some have no knowledge of God” (1 Cor 15:34). When John was combating a teaching that denied the divine-human nature of Jesus Christ, he called those who hold this view deceivers and antichrists (2 John 7), and warned the church that to hold a false view of Jesus is to worship an idol (1 John 5:21). Today’s popular theology is amorphous and not formally defined; sometimes it is hard to tell exactly what people believe. Perhaps some people are just confused about terminology, but the reality is that many have a false view of God. The main reason why we see so many people walking away from the church in our day is that they were never saved to begin with. The preaching of the gospel must start with right theology, including and especially a right view of who God is.

Trinity

The importance of corporate confession of sin

13 Tuesday Sep 2016

Posted by in Ecclesiology, Practical theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

It has now been well over 100 years since a large number of Bible-believing American churches separated from mainline denominations because those denominations had abandoned belief in the Bible and in certain fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. When these churches left their denominations, they stopped using the denominational liturgy as well. While there are certain advantages to having a “free” service, there are also some serious disadvantages. One problem that has arisen in the evangelical church as a consequence of the removal of liturgy is an erroneous view of the Trinity. Many evangelical Christians believe that there is no distinction between the Father and Jesus, and I often hear people thanking the Father for dying on the cross for their sins—an appalling heresy which would be obvious if some affirmation of faith were read each week by the congregation.

Another standard component of high church liturgy that is missing in most evangelical church services is corporate confession of sin. The hymn or prayer “Lord, have mercy upon us” (Kyrie Eleison) was consistently a part of Christian liturgies since the early church. Historic liturgies usually also contained a separate prayer of confession (e.g., “Merciful God, we have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed”) and a prayer for forgiveness. Sometimes these prayers are read by a minister; sometimes they are read responsively by the congregation. Admittedly, these prayers and hymns often have theological faults; they may sound like a plea to be saved anew every week, and the minister may wrongly pronounce the congregation’s sins forgiven on the basis that they have read the right words or are part of the right church. Many people wrongly believe that performing the liturgy will get them into heaven. But there is also a biblical model for corporate confession; the most notable example is the Old Testament Day of Atonement, in which the high priest first made atonement for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people assembled before him. Many Psalms also include confession of sin (e.g., Pss 79:8-9; 130; compare Ezra 9; Neh 1; Dan 9). In the New Testament, the Lord taught His disciples to pray, “Forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us” (Luke 11:4). In a non-liturgical church service, corporate confession of sin could be as simple as a sentence in a pastoral prayer, or it could be an entire prayer where the congregation is asked to kneel. The pastor confesses that “I and my people have sinned greatly” and prays for God to have mercy upon His people.

In most evangelical churches I have attended, prayers offered during the service are about the worship service, needs in the congregation, missionaries, the sermon, the congregation’s response to the sermon, and so forth. I do often hear calls in churches for individuals to repent of specific sins. I rarely hear a pastor call the whole congregation to join with him in confessing their sinfulness and asking God to have mercy upon them. Whatever the reason for this may be, it certainly breeds spiritual arrogance. There does not seem to be a sense that the pastor and the whole congregation are in dire need of God’s mercy and grace on a daily basis. In some instances pastors may be too proud to confess that they are sinful. More commonly, there are people in evangelical congregations would be offended if the pastor confessed that they are very sinful people. Many people in churches believe that they are basically good, and only sin occasionally. But perhaps this is as much a product of failing to practice corporate confession of sin as it is a reason for not practicing it. If a congregation is told every week that they and their pastor(s) are offending God by many of the things they do and say and think, they will not think as highly of themselves (cf. Rom 12:3). They will recognize their neediness before God, and will understand that they must recognize and battle the sin that is in their life. They will not be so offended when a pastor asks God to have mercy on “us” for “our” sins and to bless us even though we do not deserve it (cf. Psalm 103:10).

Corporate confession of sin is not necessary to be saved, since salvation is an individual and personal matter. But corporate confession is an act of humility and a prayer for needed grace (unmerited favor). It also communicates to people that the sin nature has affected every aspect of their being, and that they are very far from perfection. Verbalizing the fact of one’s sinfulness on a weekly basis will not only result in obtaining grace and mercy from God, but will also guard against the rise of Pharisaical attitudes in the church in which some people view themselves in a perfectionistic manner and have difficulty either acknowledging their own faults or forgiving those of others—attitudes which have unfortunately been all too common in churches that do not practice corporate confession of sin.

Could Donald Trump be a successful pastor?

11 Wednesday May 2016

Posted by in Current events, Ecclesiology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

I do not desire to wade deeply into the politics of this year’s election season in the United States. I don’t see political action as something that will truly help people or solve the world’s problems. But the thought occurred to me the other day: what if Donald Trump had decided to start a church instead of running for president? Could the Trumpster succeed in the pastorate, as he has in politics? Trump is a businessman with a pragmatic, “do-whatever-it-takes-to-win” mentality. If he had decided to become a pastor, he might buy a beautiful building for his church, or, more likely, build a grand new one himself. He would hire experts who would tell him how to set up a church, get it running, and attract the initial congregation. He would find a way to get ordained. He would hire musicians to play whatever kind of music seemed most suitable. Every church service would be an impressive show, maybe with a steak dinner following. Experts on homiletics would write Trump’s sermons, which he would deliver with gusto. Sunday evenings might feature a concert in an outdoor amphitheater and fireworks afterward. Trump’s controversial comments on Muslims and politicians would make the news and lead people to believe that he is standing up for what is right. He would belittle pastors and churches who oppose him in order to get people to leave those churches and come to his church, which would be so much better.

With a high divorce rate among evangelicals and so much tolerance of sin, it is unlikely that most people would be bothered by Trump’s divorces, beauty pageants, casinos, and so forth. The standard of morality espoused by Trump would basically match what most people already believe and would give church members considerable freedom to live as they please. Trump’s theology would be somewhat erratic, novel, and idiosyncratic, but would likely be tolerated by many. In any case, Trump could not be voted out by the congregation, since he would own the church building. Perhaps he would offer perks for faithful members, such as free vacations at one of his resorts. Maybe he would give away raffle tickets every Sunday before the worship service, with a drawing held afterward. If the number of congregants started to decrease, he would immediately find out why and would shift course to bring them back. Big names would frequent Trump’s church to offer seminars and lead retreats. The church would have classes on financial responsibility and wealth creation, seminars on marriage and parenting, addiction recovery groups, a food pantry, and even Bible studies. Some of the teaching would seem very sound. The church would have a large counseling staff to help people work through their problems, and all of the counselors would be fully credentialed and experienced. Everything would be done first class. The youth group would take fun trips and compete for college scholarships; adults would go on cruises and take tours of the holy land. Trump’s staff would ghost-write books for him, which would make the bestseller lists. All things considered, I think if Donald Trump had decided to become a pastor instead of running for president, he would be widely regarded as a very successful pastor with a well-run church and a large following. Trump’s church might look very much like other prominent churches in the country, but with everything done bigger and better.

Many popular pastors of megachurches (and their wannabes in smaller churches) do in fact have the same pragmatic mentality as Donald Trump. I would suggest that these pastors and their followers have lost sight of what really makes a church successful. First and foremost, the church belongs to Jesus Christ, not to pastors or congregations, which means that things must be done His way, not our way. The church’s aim is to please Jesus Christ, not to build a personal empire or garner a huge following. The ends do not justify the means when it comes to church growth, if numerical growth is not the true goal of the church.

Decisions about how to do things in churches and Christian schools have now for decades been driven by pragmatic considerations about expansion and money. If starting a Saturday night service will bring in more people, then let’s do it, and let’s say that it doesn’t matter what day of the week you come to church. If having a rock band and a dance team attracts more people than having an organ and a choir, then let’s have the rock band and dance team. If most people now approve of women preaching, then let’s allow women to preach. If hosting a $100/plate dinner will raise funds for the building, then let’s have the dinner. Many other examples could be cited. The problem is that the church is not making its decisions by asking such questions as “What does God want us to do?” or “What does the Bible say we should do?” The questions driving the church’s decisions are ones such as “What will make the church grow?” and “What will bring in money?” It is time for the church to start making decisions again based solely on the Bible, and not on what people think is right or what will make a church “grow.”

There is no doubt that applying pragmatic strategies to achieve growth in a church can produce results. One reason why the Mormons have survived and expanded in spite of their patently absurd theology is because they require members go on evangelistic mission trips (two years full-time after high school) and to give ten percent of their income to the church. The Jehovah’s Witnesses require their members to do door-to-door evangelism. It is, of course, a good thing when Bible-believing Christians go on mission trips, give tithes to the church, and evangelize. However, the Bible requires that such things be done voluntarily; making them compulsory is a pragmatic shortcut to achieve church growth. Growth produced by shortcuts is always shallow and superficial, since it is not rooted in an overarching commitment to faithfulness to God and to His Word.

I may well end up voting for Donald Trump for president this fall, in spite of not agreeing with him about many things. But I would never vote for Donald Trump (or any of the other major candidates, for that matter) to be my pastor. It may be okay to vote for the least worst candidate for president (if your conscience allows you to do so), but the Bible sets forth qualifications for the pastorate that every pastor must meet. Donald Trump does not meet the biblical requirements to be a pastor, as stated in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:7-9. Of course, Trump is not a pastor and has not said that he wants to be one. But I think if he had tried to become a prominent pastor, he could have gained wide acceptance. There already are many talented, pragmatic people who have made a name for themselves in the pastorate and are widely considered to be successful pastors, who nevertheless do not even meet the basic biblical qualifications for becoming a pastor.

We need to stop measuring success by numbers and fame, and start measuring success the way God measures it—by faithfulness to His Word.

Why did Jesus go to the cross?

09 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by in Theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

This article is a response to some Christian hymns and songs that say something like, “The only reason Jesus went to the cross was for me. It was all because of His love for me!” This viewpoint leads to a serious theological problem when we read Mark 14:35, which describes what Jesus did in the Garden of Gethsemane: “And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass away from him.” We might think, “Oh, no! Jesus, how could You even consider the thought of not dying for my sins in order to save me? Don’t You care about me?” But as we read further in Mark’s account, we find that this was not what Jesus was thinking about at all. Jesus says nothing at Gethsemane about the salvation of His followers. If Jesus was waffling at Gethsemane over the question of whether to redeem His followers, He would have been discussing the issue with His disciples (who certainly would have urged Jesus not to go to the cross). Instead, Jesus prayed to God the Father about the possibility of avoiding the suffering which lay ahead of Him, but concluded by saying, “Not what I want, but what You want” (Mark 14:36). In fact, Jesus was going to the cross for the same basic reason that He originally came to earth as God incarnate: it was the Father’s will, and Jesus was absolutely committed to doing the Father’s will.

We tend to think of the cross as all about us. We think the whole reason why Jesus went to the cross was to save us. But from Jesus’ perspective, the cross was all about God. Jesus went to the cross in order to please His Father. Yes, He knew that He was the Good Shepherd, laying down His life for His sheep (John 10:11; 15:13; 1 John 3:16), but this was not His primary thought at Gethsemane. His primary thought was about doing the will of God. Even as He hung on the cross, Jesus’ thoughts remained consumed with God: He said, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”—not, “Oh you wicked people of the world, why did you do so much sin to make me have to suffer like this in order to redeem you?”

To be clear: Jesus never “waffled” or considered not going to the cross—Jesus was asking the Father if there was any other way, all the while maintaining His determination to follow the way the Father had determined for Him. Jesus’ prayer to be spared from the agony of the cross was not made without concern for the salvation of His followers. He had repeatedly assured His followers of His love for them and the certainty that He would save them. But when facing the most intense pain and suffering that anyone ever could face—the payment of an immeasurably great penalty for all the sins of the whole human race—Jesus felt intense stress and emotional pressure. He prayed that if there was some other way, the Father’s will might be accomplished without enduring the unimaginable agony of the cross. Yet when all others would have backed out, Jesus did in fact walk boldly to the cross and die, in submission to the will of His Father

Thus, from a theological point of view, it is most accurate to say that Jesus went to the cross to do the Father’s will, and that the Father sent Jesus to the cross in order to save the world. John 3:16 does not say “Jesus loved the world so much that He went to the cross to die for everyone’s sins.” It says, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes on Him would not perish but have eternal life.” The reason why the Father sent Jesus to the cross was because of the greatness of the Father’s love for the people of this world (cf. Rom 5:8). While popular evangelical theology sees little or no difference between the Father and Jesus, the cross can only truly be understood in light of Jesus’ relationship to the Father.

As a point of application, it is wrong and self-centered for us to think of things as if they are all about ourselves. Jesus was not totally consumed with us when He went to the cross—He was totally consumed with God (the Father). We, too, need to be totally consumed about doing the will of God. If we are, it will result in doing what is best for our fellow man, since God loves mankind more than any of us ever could.

3 John 2 and the Prosperity Gospel

10 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by in Bible, Theology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

Most contemporary Christians have heard of the prosperity gospel (a.k.a. the “health and wealth” gospel. Many popular “televangelists” are proponents of the prosperity gospel, which claims that if you give your life to Jesus, God has promised to make you financially wealthy and physically healthy. This is a message that people want to hear, so the popularity of prosperity theology is not surprising. Prosperity preachers strongly emphasize that Christians must give their money to that preacher’s ministry in order to experience God’s financial blessing. Most proponents of the prosperity gospel are associated with the Charismatic, Pentecostal, and/or Word of Faith movements.

Baptistic Christians, including myself, widely agree that the prosperity gospel turns the true gospel on its head, since the New Testament promises persecution and suffering for Christ in this life, with no promise of physical prosperity until after this life is over (Acts 14:22; Rom 8:18; Phil 3:10-11; 2 Tim 3:12; 1 Pet 4:13; 5:1). But rather than analyzing verses which contravene prosperity theology, in this article I would like to analyze the verse which was originally claimed as the exegetical basis for prosperity theology. This verse is one that is under the radar of most Christians, since it occurs in the shortest book of the New Testament, 3 John.

Beloved, I pray that in all things thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth. – 3 John 2

Back in 1947, Oral Roberts was a poor thirty-year-old pastor of a church in Enid, Oklahoma who was dissatisfied with his salary, and discontent with his poverty and namelessness. If we are to believe Oral and his wife Evelyn, it was reading this verse at random one day, and seeing it in an entirely new light from the midst of spiritual and emotional trauma, that marked the turning point in Oral Roberts’ ministry. (See David Edwin Harrel Jr., Oral Roberts: An American Life [Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1985], 65-66.) From here on out, Oral would preach that God wanted all Christians—himself included—to be financially prosperous and physically healthy. As Oral developed the prosperity gospel, it quickly displaced the genuine gospel message in his preaching and writing, to the point where the real gospel was completely silenced (if, indeed, Oral ever did preach the real gospel). Rather than preaching the message that genuine disciples of Jesus must renounce the things of this world and endure persecution, Oral preached that genuine Christians would be healthy and wealthy, and that people should come to Jesus in order to become physically prosperous. As Oral and his preaching became famous, many other preachers followed in Oral’s footsteps, and created the various forms of prosperity theology that exist today. The original claimed biblical basis for the prosperity gospel was 3 John 2. (For more on how this verse has been used in the charismatic movement, see Heather L. Landrus, “Hearing 3 John 2 in the Voices of History,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 11.1 [2002]: 70-88; Mark E. Roberts, “A Hermeneutic of Charity: Response to Heather Landrus,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 11.1 [2002]: 89-97.)

Third John 2 is seemingly as ordinary a verse as any in the Bible. Commentators widely recognize it as a stereotypical greeting for a letter of the period, though surely the greeting was a heartfelt prayer when uttered by the apostle John. John, who was facing great opposition from false teachers, wished peace and prosperity for faithful Gaius, to whom he addressed this letter. There is one specifically Christian element to the greeting, which is the address “Beloved.” But a standard feature of letters from the Koine period is the writer’s inclusion of a wish of good health for the addressee in the greeting (see Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, Anchor Bible, vol. 30 [New York: Doubleday, 1982], 788-90).

The most important exegetical feature of 3 John 2 to note with regard to the prosperity gospel is that John’s prayer for Gaius’ good health is just that—a prayer by a man, not a promise from God. The Bible repeatedly promises temporal suffering and persecution for following Jesus, with physical prosperity only promised in the life to come. We do not pray that persecution would befall us or other believers—in fact, we pray to be delivered from troubles—but we do expect that problems will come.

It is ironic, though not atypical, that such a common, ordinary verse as this one was misused to create a whole heterodox theological system which contravenes so much of the clear teaching of the New Testament. This single verse, lifted from its historical and biblical context, was assigned a novel and foreign meaning through the imagination of a young preacher who coveted fame and fortune. It is a lesson for all of us to handle the Word of God with great care, and to resist the common temptation to spiritualize a biblical text in order to give it the meaning that we desire to preach.

The Rationality of Faith

19 Sunday Jul 2015

Posted by in Theology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

The relationship between faith and reason has long been the subject of both philosophical debate and popular misunderstanding. When people today say “I believe it on faith,” what they often mean is that they do not have any reason to believe something. Society conditions us to think of faith as irrational or as having no basis. But not only is biblical faith rational, to not have faith is to be completely irrational. It is rational to trust someone who is competent and honest, and it is irrational to reject the testimony of a witness of high character.

The skeptic’s motto, “Question everything,” is self-contradictory and impossible to live by. It denies the certainty of all knowledge, but is itself a propositional statement, and therefore is self-contradictory and illogical. If one really believes the statement “Question everything,” his response will be to ask “Why should I?” Either he will come to the conclusion that he should not, and therefore that the motto is wrong, or else he will descend into a downward spiral of contradictions, doubts, and confusion. There must be some things, called properly basic beliefs, that we do not and should not question. These beliefs form the basis of other beliefs that we develop through experience and sensory evidence. The scientific method, for example, cannot be used to prove itself, and so acceptance of it must precede the discovery of anything that it is used to prove. One can compare basic beliefs to the definitions given in a dictionary. Each word in the dictionary is defined by means of other words, so that one must have a vocabulary of basic words before he can understand anything. There is nothing irrational or incorrect about our understanding of these words, but they are in fact something that can only be learned by some innate process. Not all basic beliefs are specifically religious in nature, but belief/trust in God, which is faith, is properly basic.

Having faith in God entails having faith in God’s Word, and therefore the Bible is the basis for all Christian belief and practice. Although the Bible does not make specific statements about every issue, it provides a solid foundation on which other beliefs can be based and by which other beliefs can be measured. A great many commonly held beliefs can easily be disproved by showing that they are in some way contradictory to the Bible. The Bible may not say anything in particular about the subject or premises of a particular theory, but very often the conclusions or implications of scholarly research are at odds with a biblical Christian worldview.

There is no conflict between faith and reason. Everything taught in the Bible is coherent and rational, and there are no contradictions. If someone says he holds some extrabiblical belief “by faith,” and this belief is incoherent or contradictory in some way, then it is not truly by faith that that person holds that belief—it is just irrationality.

People who come out of an Enlightenment or modern scientific background tend to struggle with the concept of faith. They are trained to exalt human reason above all else, and to seek verification through the scientific method as a prerequisite for belief. These things are so ingrained in their way of thinking that it never occurs to them to step back and consider that the scientific method cannot be used to verify itself, nor can it give absolute certainty. In fact, postmodern culture and academia have taken rationalism to its logical conclusion, and as a result have become relativists. Reason itself becomes circular without a foundation—namely, a foundation of faith in God and in His Word—and one is left with no ultimate standard for adjudicating among competing truth-claims. Faced with these competing truth-claims, the postmodernist becomes confused and frustrated, and simply follows the herd or believes what seems pragmatic, without being able to sort anything out in a satisfactory manner. Without any ultimate standard or basis for what they believe, postmodernists say that there is no absolute truth, although in fact they contradict themselves by stating this and many other things absolutely. Thus, relativism is really an expression of frustration with the unbeliever’s inability to make sense of the world apart from faith in God and His Word; it is anything but a reasoned conclusion which results from careful study. A relativist is, properly speaking, an irrationalist. Someone who knowingly accepts logical contradictions is irrational. Thus, the attempt to live by reason alone without faith is unreasonable.

The Bible is very clear that faith is a requirement for salvation (Eph 2:8; Heb 11:6). But because the modern scientific worldview says reason demands that everything must be proved, rather than trusted, there are many well-meaning apologists who seek to prove the Christian faith through science and reason. In some cases apologetic ministries supply helpful means for Christians to defend what they believe against critics. But some models of apologetics seek to do away with the need for faith by claiming that all Christian belief can be proved by rational argument. The problem with evidential arguments, such as Richard Swinburne’s, is that they deal only with probabilities. They can show that Christian doctrine is very likely to be true, but they cannot prove it indubitably. Faith is needed for absolute assurance because we cannot yet see everything we believe in (Heb 11:1). While Christian faith is reasonable, reason cannot by itself arrive at its tenants, for any process of human reasoning must begin with foundational, a priori, truths which are arrived at by faith. Both human reasoning and the scientific method are too limited to produce the bedrock truths of which saving faith consists. Of course, since Christianity is true, its truths can be demonstrated by scientific analysis of the evidence and by logical argumentation. However, if one only believes Christian truth because of his ability to argue for it and to verify evidence, he will be quickly shaken if someone presents only one minor piece of evidence which appears to be out of place, or one minor argument which seems like a valid criticism. He will always be wondering if there is some piece of evidence out there that he has missed that will disprove his beliefs. In contrast, the man who has faith (belief + trust) in God is like Mount Zion, which cannot be moved, but stands forever (so Ps 125:1).

One final point about faith: faith is by its very nature simple, and the attempt to mix it with other things will weaken it. Second Corinthians 11:3 speaks of “the simplicity and purity which is toward Christ,” and warns Christian believers of being tricked, like Eve, by Satan’s craftiness. Christianity is, to be sure, philosophically sound and hermeneutically sound, and the critics are fighting against the evidence. But if your “faith” rests in what is “out there,” it will be quickly shaken by every new argument, by each new archeological discovery; if your faith rests in the Word of God, it will stand firm against all assaults. Keep going back to the plain and simple truths of Scripture, and do not let others lead you down rabbit trails. Beware of being drawn into philosophical debates about the Christian faith. There are spiritual issues involved in philosophical discussions, for which reason critics will raise endless objections and produce endless excuses for not believing, all of which are smokescreens to cover for a wicked, rebellious, prideful heart. Beware of becoming too sophisticated. The truth is always, clear, simple, and straightforward.

To summarize some key points from this blog post and the previous one: (1) Faith is a virtue which can be defined as a mean between gullibility and skepticism. (2) Faith always takes an object. (3) Our faith is no better than the object in which we place it. (4) The Christian’s faith (= belief + trust) is in God and in His Word. (5) We, as Christians, do not take a leap into the dark, but a step into the light. (6) According to Romans 1:17, there is a difference between initial faith and continuing faith. (7) Unlike rationalism and empiricism, faith gives total, permanent assurance (Heb 11:1).

The virtue of faith

08 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by in Apologetics, Theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The word “faith” is used in many ways today. It is important to understand correctly what faith is, because the Bible is very clear that faith is a requirement for salvation (Eph 2:8; Heb 11:6). The faith which is necessary for salvation is, specifically, faith in God, in His Son, and in the Christian gospel. But the New Testament also uses the term “faith” in a broader sense, such as when Jesus admonished Peter for having little faith (Matt 14:31). Faith has two components: belief (intellectual) and trust (volitional). Faith is never a leap in the dark. It is rational trust.

It is common for people today to speak of misguided or false faith—that is, a belief/trust in the wrong thing. But the Bible presents faith as a virtue. Faith is listed among the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23. Faith is listed among the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:9 (cf. 1 Cor 13:2). Faith is everywhere spoken of positively in the New Testament.

The classical virtues are often defined as a mean between two extremes, and faith may be defined as a mean between gullibility and skepticism. Faith, like love and joy, is always a virtue if exercised according to the proper sense of the term. There is therefore no such thing as misguided or false faith, properly speaking. One may have misplaced trust or false beliefs, but the English word “faith” traditionally was used solely to describe a virtue. Faith is always right, if it is true faith (cf. 2 Thess 3:2). Today, non-Christian religions are commonly called other “faiths,” but properly speaking they are other religions or cults. Their truth-claims are lies, and their followers are gullible, deceived, and depraved. They have no claim to the virtue of faith.

How does one avoid both gullibility and skepticism, and only place his faith in what is true and right? How does one know whether to be trusting or skeptical? The answer has to do with character and holiness. Every truth-claim that one is presented with is made by some person or group of people. If the person is honest, moral, upright, and holy in every respect, we ought to be inclined to believe the claims he makes. However, if the person has some character flaw, we ought to be skeptical or disbelieving, no matter how convincing he may sound. In the end, there is only One whom we may trust absolutely, and that is the One who is absolutely holy—namely, the triune God. What God says is to be believed without question, because it is impossible for God to lie or deceive or to be mistaken (Num 23:19; Tit 1:2; Heb 6:18). The Bible presents a moral standard that is higher, holier, truer, more pure, and more just than any human standard ever devised. The character of God’s people is qualitatively different than the character of unbelievers. This shows that the Bible is God’s Word, and that God is absolutely holy and trustworthy. What godly men say, we are to be inclined to believe, though we must compare what they say to what God has said as the ultimate standard. This is an important principle, which therefore bears repeating: faith is to be exercised in proportion to the character of the one making the claim, with all claims to be measured against the claims made by the triune God, who is the only perfectly trustworthy One. So how do you know whether to believe someone? You know on the basis of his character.

An illustration: in a court of law, if two witnesses tell different stories, the court examines the character of the witnesses. If one witness has a bad reputation and poor character, and the other witness has a good reputation and high character, the witness with the better character is trusted. When it comes to spiritual matters, the contrast could not be any clearer. God is holy, and the fruit of the Spirit is entirely good. Satan is evil, and he and his followers are entirely bad. So when Satan contradicts what God says, what should you do? Should you say, “Well, that sounds plausible—now I’m confused”? No way! Believe the Witness whose character is perfect, for He can be trusted to tell the truth.

In my next post, I will look more specifically at the rationality of faith–that is, the relationship between faith and reason.

A critique of Amish theology and practice

28 Sunday Jun 2015

Posted by in Theology

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

This is the last of a series of three posts on the Amish. In this post, I will examine some of the theological problems with the Amish form of Christianity, while also recognizing commendable aspects of the Amish.

First, let me recognize that there is some variation among different groups of Amish, and what is said of some may not be true of others. But many ex-Amish will affirm unequivocally that the Amish are not genuine Christians. That is, they will say that the Amish are Christian in name and outward form only, and not in reality. Although I do not have personal experience in an Amish church, I assume this is because salvation in the Amish church is equated with baptism and church membership, with no teaching about the need to be converted at a specific point in time. Surely there is a point in time when every genuine Christian went from not having a relationship with God to having a relationship with God, from being lost to being saved, from not having the Holy Spirit to having the Holy Spirit, from not having his sins forgiven to having his sins forgiven, and so forth. In churches where there is no teaching regarding the need for a conversion experience, in fact most people in those churches have never had a conversion experience, i.e., a time in which they have prayed to ask God to save them, confessing their sins and their faith in Christ. But one cannot be saved by works, even if those works are baptism and church membership. If, as it seems, the Amish indeed do hold to a form of salvation by works, this would be their largest and most consequential error.

The requirement to take oaths in order to be baptized and join the Amish church is certainly unbiblical. The only biblical requirement for baptism is that one has been saved (by confessing one’s faith in Jesus as the crucified and risen Son of God, and asking God to forgive one’s sins through the blood of Jesus). Likewise, the only biblical requirement for joining a local church is to be saved and baptized. The Amish practice of swearing oaths to join the Amish community evidently originated in Jakob Ammann’s belief that the Amish were the only group of true Christians, and that therefore one could not be saved without accepting the Amish form of Christianity; however, this belief could only be correct if salvation were by works, and salvation is not by works (cf. Eph 2:8-9). Admittedly, there are numerous other Christian churches and denominations that maintain unbiblical requirements for baptism, and that require subscription to a church covenant in order to become a member of the church, but the oaths required by the Amish are particularly burdensome, and the Amish practice of shunning is severe.

The Amish belief in pacifism is certainly unbiblical. The pacifism of the Amish and Mennonites was a natural reaction to the savage persecution they endured at the hands of their “Christian” neighbors—whether those neighbors were Reformed, Lutheran, or Catholic. Those persecutions engendered a very passionate opposition among Anabaptists to any and all forms of physical violence. But Exodus 22:1, for example, affirms that it is no sin for someone to kill a man who breaks into his house at night. Warfare was frequently commanded by God during the Old Testament era, and in the New Testament the right of the state to wield the sword is affirmed in Romans 13:4 (cf. Luke 22:36).

An extreme aspect to the Amish pacifism is their opposition to proselytizing. This aspect of Amish theology is certainly unbiblical, given all the New Testament exhortations to preach the gospel, and all the New Testament examples of the apostles and their coworkers proselytizing unbelievers. One can see by this Amish practice the extent to which they follow tradition over Scripture. One also wonders how a Christian who truly cares about the lost people around him could refuse to share the gospel with them.

The Amish also seem not to care enough about the spiritual condition of their children. They take a “hands-off” approach to their children in their teenage years, not restraining them from participating in sinful activities. On the positive side, this ensures that their decision to join the church, if they do make that decision, is made of their own free will. But loving parents discipline their children, even as teenagers, and continually exhort and admonish them to do what is right.

The Amish insistence on a radical separation between church and state is another sour aftertaste from the persecutions they endured at the hands of state-sponsored churches. But there is nothing in the Bible which prohibits a government from adopting Christianity as its official religion, nor is there anything in the Bible which prohibits a Christian from participation in government.

The Amish opposition to higher education is probably necessary to preserve their identity. Education gives people the ability to think independently, which inevitably results in individuals contesting certain ideas held by the community. It is true that there have been many instances of young people departing from the teachings of Scripture after encountering anti-Christian ideas in academia, but it is also true that a church without education is a church which lacks depth and maturity. Christians have always promoted education as a means of understanding the Bible more fully and accurately, among other things.

On the positive side, the Amish could be compared to the Rechabites who are described in Jeremiah 35. The Rechabites were the descendants of Jonadab the son of Rechab, who was prominent at the beginning of Jehu’s reign, in 841 B.C. (2 Kgs 10:15-16). The events of Jeremiah 35 occurred about 240 years later. Jonadab had made his sons and their descendants swear to live as a separated people according to strict rules: they could not drink alcoholic beverages, they could not own property or valuable possessions, and they had to maintain a nomadic lifestyle. More than 200 years after Jonadab’s death, his descendants were still living according to the rules that he had set for them (Jer 35:6-10). Rather than ridicule the Rechabites as “legalists” or “weirdos” for making and keeping these peculiar vows, the prophet Jeremiah commended them, and blessed them in the name of the Lord. While the situation of the Amish is not identical to that of the Rechabites, the idea of living as a separated people who follow unique rules is not necessarily bad or unbiblical.

Certainly one must respect the courage and determination of a people who refuse so steadfastly to conform to the dictums of modern society and culture. Their rejection of modernity entails enduring considerable ridicule, and also enduring the hard work of performing all their labor by hand, without modern conveniences. It is true that there is a dark side to modern technology, and the Amish have avoided this dark side by refusing to accept technology. There is a sense in which one feels more authentically human on a quiet farm surrounded by crops and animals than in the artificial world of a modern city, full of streets and skyscrapers. Also, in a world filled with violence one finds something refreshing in the peaceableness of the Amish, even if their extreme of pacifism is not right. The Amish are a group of people who have clearly defined beliefs and strong values, which they practice with remarkable consistency.

America’s sacred animal

01 Friday May 2015

Posted by in Current events, Theology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

,

It is well known that cattle are sacred to the Hindus of India. Recently there have been news stories about a law passed in the west Indian state of Maharashtra which prohibits the killing of cattle and the sale, possession, or consumption of beef. Even tigers and other carnivores at the Mumbai zoo are being made to eat white meat instead of red meat.

While the sacredness of cattle to the Hindus seems ridiculous to many people, and rightly so, I would like to suggest that the United States is in the process of making dogs (and their biggest wild relative, the wolf) a sacred animal. It seems that at least once a week I see a story on the local news in which someone is being prosecuted for killing a dog or for failing to properly care for a dog. Recently an overwhelming majority of voters in Michigan voted against allowing wolf hunting, even though biologists say that the wolf population is as high as or higher than it should be. Most people in Michigan and other states view the shooting of a wolf as something qualitatively different than the shooting of a deer, even though deer are docile animals and wolves are predators. (The wolves are eating so many deer that the DNR may cancel this year’s deer hunt in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula for the first time ever.) This is not just an American phenomenon, either—recently a group of Chinese animal rights activists laid down on the road in front of a truck that was carrying Tibetan mastiffs to a slaughterhouse, and proceeded to provide medical care for the dogs after “rescuing” them. (The popularity of Tibetan mastiffs in China declined sharply after numerous instances where they attacked and killed people.) Animal rights groups also objected several years ago when Baghdad police began to shoot some of the 1.25 million stray dogs in the city after they had developed a taste for human flesh and had begun attacking humans.

In the United States, it is illegal to sell dog or cat meat. In some states, it is illegal to eat dog meat for any reason. This is not too much different than laws in India which prohibit the butchering of cattle. Although I have never personally tasted dog meat, some of my Korean friends say that it is their favorite kind of meat, that it tastes like beef but is more tender. They can’t understand why it is illegal to sell and eat dog meat in the United States.

Since I don’t have pets, I am not exactly sure what the law requires of dog owners. But I wonder if someone could go to jail for not paying for surgery and chemotherapy if his dog has cancer. It seems that dog hospitals and clinics with 24-hour emergency rooms and advanced medical equipment keep proliferating, and health insurance for dogs is becoming commonplace. I would not be surprised to see the next version of Obamacare make health insurance for dogs mandatory. Nor would I be surprised to see hate speech laws expanded to criminalize derogatory remarks about dogs. Already in Michigan there are frequent rallies in defense of the pit bull, which is the most dangerous of all dog breeds.

I do not advocate unnecessary cruelty to animals, but at the same time it should be recognized that there is considerable confusion today about the difference between man and animals, due largely to the teaching of Darwinian evolution. I do not understand why people think that stray dogs and cats should be captured, then neutered and spayed or put in cages in the Humane Society, rather than shot and buried. I do not understand why a man who accidentally leaves a dog in a hot car, resulting in its death, should go to jail. That is an unfortunate accident, but from a biblical point of view killing a dog is not morally different than killing a rat.

The Bible teaches that man is qualitatively different than a dog or any other animal, because man alone was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27; 9:5-6). People who talk about their pet dogs as their “children,” as many now do, are seriously mistaken. The word “murder” is used less and less today where it should be. Where news headlines used to read “Police investigating murder” they now read, e.g., “Police investigating shooting death” or “Police investigate fatal stabbing.” A murderer is now called a “homicide suspect” or a “man convicted of killing.” Perhaps this is because the word “murder” implies moral guilt, whereas problems today are said to be the result of environmental or psychological factors and not willful sin. But where I do hear the word “murder” used with greater frequency is with respect to people killing dogs. From a biblical point of view, animals can be killed, but they can never be murdered. Only man can be murdered, since only man is created in the image of God.

In the Bible, dogs are portrayed as among the basest of all animals (cf. 1 Sam 17:43; 24:14; 2 Sam 3:8; 9:8; 16:9; 2 Kgs 8:13; Job 30:1; Ps 22:16; Isa 66:3). Male prostitutes are called “dogs” in Deuteronomy 23:18. Paul calls false teachers “dogs” in Philippians 3:2. Jesus warned more than once against giving good things to “dogs” (Matt 7:6; 15:26; Mark 7:27). The book of Revelation uses the term “dogs” to represent people who are loathsome and unclean (Rev 22:15).

While as an unclean animal dogs could not be eaten under the Mosaic Law, the New Testament affirms that all types of animal meat—including dogs—are now permissible to eat, since the Law was fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:9-16). Before the Mosaic Law, as well, it was perfectly permissible to eat dog meat (Gen 9:2-4). Dogs can make fun pets and can be useful for such tasks as protection and hunting, but they are animals—they are not human. Even in comparison to other animals, dogs do not have superior status; they are, in fact, singled out in the Bible as among the most despicable of all animals. The veneration of dogs in the United States would seem, then, to be a mark of a society that has departed from God and from a biblical way of thinking.

A funeral, and some reflections on death

06 Saturday Dec 2014

Posted by in Theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Yesterday was the funeral for my maternal grandmother, who was my last surviving grandparent. This has prompted a few thoughts on death and dying.

First, an outline theology of death and dying from the Bible.

  1. The Bible presents death as an enemy, both of man and of God (1 Cor 15:26). Death was never part of God’s original plan for the human race; it came into the world as a punishment for Adam’s sin (Rom 5:12-21). Death is emotionally and psychologically difficult for us to deal with because it is something that God did not originally intend for us to have to deal with.
  2. Jesus Christ has conquered death (Acts 2:24; Rev 1:18).
  3. Satan uses the fear of death to enslave (Heb 2:14-15).
  4. Believers in God have passed out of death into life (John 5:24).
  5. The one who keeps Christ’s Word does not see death (John 8:51, referring to eternal or ultimate death).
  6. The one who is “in Christ” has shared in His death and resurrection (Rom 6:3-4). Jesus tasted death for every man (Heb 2:9).
  7. God has written the last chapter to show how it all turns out. This brings us hope. One preacher said, “I read the back of the book, and we win.” No matter how much grief and suffering we may endure in this life, for those who have accepted God’s offer of salvation there will come a day when all grief, pain, and sorrow will be ended forever (Rev 21:4).

Another reflection: it is evident from the way most people treat death today that they do not believe in an afterlife. It used to be in America, that rich and prominent people sought to be remembered after they died by building great monuments at their planned gravesite—mausoleums, chapels, pillars, and so forth. They did this because they believed there is life after death, and they wanted to leave a continuing legacy and a remembrance of themselves. In fact, it was normal for people to visit cemeteries to remember the dead and pay their respects, with the understanding that the dead person’s soul was still in conscious existence, and that the dead body in the ground still belonged to that person and would someday be raised. (Side note: Bellefontaine Cemetery was the most-visited tourist attraction in St. Louis circa 1900.) Throughout the whole history of the world, it has been common for prominent men to build great grave markers for themselves, and for others to come and visit their gravesites. Today, however, the dominant attitude seems to be, “Death is eternal annihilation, so I’ll just live for the here and now, and I don’t care what they do with my corpse or how they will remember me after I’m dead.” There are few great tomb monuments these days, and many cemeteries and funeral parlors are struggling for business.

The great increase in cremation is another sign that most people no longer believe in an afterlife, resulting in a failure to view the body as sacred or spiritual. A dead body is viewed as nothing more than a clump of matter, to be disposed of in an environmentally friendly and cost-effective manner. But historically, and in the Bible, a proper burial was viewed as an honorable thing, while the burning or desecration of one’s corpse was a great dishonor (cf. 2 Kgs 9:35-37; Eccl 6:3; Jer 22:19; 36:30; Amos 2:1). While God is able to raise a cremated body back to life, Christians traditionally buried their dead, placing their bodies in the ground in hope of resurrection. The body was treated as a sacred thing, not as garbage, since it was recognized that it was made in the image of God, and that it will be used again in a new form.

Our society tries to sterilize death, and to avoid truly coming to grips with one’s eternal destiny. The death of a family member is a time when the subject cannot, and should not, be avoided.