Paul's Passing Thoughts

A Historical Survey of the First Century Christian Assembly – Part 3

Posted in Andy Young, TANC 2017 by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on December 7, 2017

 The following is part three of a four-part series.
Taken from Andy Young’s third session at the 2017 Conference on Gospel Discernment and Spiritual Tyranny

< Part 1  •  Part 2


 

Breaking of Bread and the Lord’s Table

In part two we were talking about what a first century home fellowship might have looked like. I asked the question, what was the purpose of a home fellowship? What was the purpose of the believers assembling together? I made the case that the purpose of fellowship was for the mutual edification of the Body; each believer coming together and using their spiritual gifts with each believer building up the other. This mutual edification was accomplished through four functions:

  1. Through teaching of the apostles’ doctrine
  2. Through fellowship
  3. Through “breaking of bread” (fellowship meals)
  4. Through prayer

In this lesson I want to focus specifically on the function of edification through the “breaking of bread”.   As I pointed out in part two, it is normal for families to share meals whenever they get together. Since believers are part of God’s family, the situation is no different. An integral part of these fellowship meals in the first century would have been observing the “Lord’s Table.”

In 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 we have this familiar account of Paul’s talking about the “Lord’s Table.” Those of you who have grown up in church and still go to church regularly, every time there is a “Communion Sunday” the pastor will read from this passage whenever they hand out the crackers and the grape juice.

23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.”
~ 1 Corinthians 11:23-30

Side note: Notice that the passing around of the cup did not immediately follow the passing of the bread. The cup came after dinner, “when He had supped.” Jesus passed around the bread, they ate dinner, then He passed around the cup.

Now can I be honest with you? There was a time when those last two verses in the above passage scared the life out of me. I grew up in church. I was saved when I was 7 years old. Any time we’d have communion in church my parents always told me I had to wait until I was old enough to understand it. I think I was 14 or 15 before I finally took communion in church. But ever since then these words in verses 28-30 were always resonating in my mind: “Examine yourself,” “eat and drink unworthily,” “eat and drink damnation.”

Communion service in church is always this somber, solemn event. You have the slow quiet music, every one has their heads down and eye closed cause you’re supposed to be thinking about your sin and the cross and Jesus’ sacrifice. And the whole time I’m replaying all the events in my life since the last time I took communion. “Ok, did I miss any sin? Is there any sin I forgot to confess?”  So, I want to make sure I’m good to go because if I’m not (or I think I’m not) and I let the plates pass, I know someone is watching. Someone is going to notice I didn’t take communion.  And then they’re going to wonder, “Wow what sin does he have in his life?” So now I’m doing it for the wrong reason. I’m doing it just because I’m afraid someone will see if I don’t, and then does that make me unworthy?

So there is this vicious cycle of introspection. I hated communion Sundays because I always felt like I had to carry this burden and play this game of jumping through all these mental and emotional hoops. And then a couple weeks later I might get a bad cold and I wonder, “Oh, is God judging me because I took communion when I wasn’t worthy?” And then you have to pray and ask forgiveness for that. It ties you up in knots.

It is not supposed to be that way. The institutional church has ritualized the Lord’s Table into some mystical experience just like everything else in Protestantism, and they use the Bible to support the tradition. I maintain that the Lord’s Table was not a somber occasion of introspection but rather a time of rejoicing and fellowship.

If our aim is to get at the truth, let us first make sure we begin with the correct assumptions, and the way we do that is to take the time to set the historical context. Let us go back to the very first “Lord’s Table.” No, I don’t mean the one recorded in the gospels.  We have to go back even farther than that to the book of Exodus.

I wonder how many people in church know the real reason Jesus met with His disciples in the upper room that night before He was crucified?  We associate communion with the Last Supper, but I want to stress here that Jesus was not instituting a new ritualistic religious observance. Jesus was there with His disciples to celebrate Passover.

I say “celebrate” because that is exactly what Passover was, a celebration. It was the Jew’s way of remembering and celebrating their freedom from slavery in Egypt. Yes, there was the whole death angel thing and the blood on the door posts and everything, but the real reason for celebrating Passover was to remember their flight from Egypt.

This is also the reason why the streets of Jerusalem were crowded with people on “Palm Sunday” prior to the crucifixion. The city was swelling with people who had made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover. In each of the four gospels we see this reference to the Passover immediately before the account of the crucifixion.

“Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified…Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.” ~ Matthew 26:2, 17-19

“And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?” ~ Mark 14:12

“Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover…Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.” ~ Luke 22:1, 7-8

“Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him;” ~ John 13:1-2

Now I don’t know if you’ve ever noticed this. All four gospels give an account of the crucifixion. But the gospel of John does not say anything about the last supper. Verses 1 and 2 of chapter 13 contain the only mention of it. There was the Passover, and then after dinner Jesus did such and such. So John doesn’t focus on the last supper at all. He chooses to focus on the things Jesus taught them after supper. You have chapters 13, 14, 15, and 16; four chapters of Jesus giving last minute instructions to the disciples, and then from there you go to chapter 17 and the garden of Gethsemane, and then the soldiers come to arrest Him.

So having said all that, aside from the Passover lamb, what was the other distinguishing part of the Passover? It is referenced in the above verses, but if you go back to Exodus we read this:

“Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.” Exodus 12:15

So on day one, before the feast of Passover, they had to get all the leaven out of their house. Now let us not dwell on the supposed symbolism of leaven. It is not important to this discussion. But my point is that we seem to have this idea that the only kind of bread Jews ever ate was unleavened bread. That is simply not true. If that were the case, God would not have commanded them to get rid of it. There is no point in saying “get rid of the leaven” if you are not using leaven in the first place.

What is leaven? Leaven is anything used to make baked good rise. Today we use either yeast or baking soda or baking powder as leavening agents. Yeast is a microbe that eats the sugar in the dough and digests it and produces carbon dioxide gas, and that gas creates little air bubbles between the strands of gluten in the dough and makes bread rise and get big and fluffy. Baking soda and baking powder cause a similar effect by causing a chemical reaction to take place in the batter. Any of you who have ever baked a cake or cookies knows that if you let your cake batter or cookie dough sit around to long before you bake it, they turn out flat because the chemical reaction is all used up.

Now in Old Testament times (and in some other countries they still make bread this same way) families made enough bread to last a whole week, perhaps more.  And they didn’t use yeast, they would use a “starter” lump which was a small amount of dough with some kind of leavening agent in it, and they would store that starter in a clay jar.  They also had these huge wooden kneading troughs that were big enough to make enough bread for a week. When they were ready to make bread they would add the flour and water and salt and sugar and oil, then they would add the starter lump and knead that all together.  When they were done they would take a portion of that dough and put it back in the clay jar and that would become the starter for the next batch they would make next week. So when God told them to get rid of all the leaven, they were to get rid of all the jars of starter they had in their house.

My attempt at Old Testament unleavened bread

What exactly is unleavened bread like?   Is it just regular bread made without leaven? Well not quite. There is actually a recipe for it found in Exodus 29:40 which says one tenth deal of fine flour (about a gallon) and one fourth of a hin of olive oil (about 3/8 of a gallon).  This is approximately 3 parts to 1. Now I remember thinking when I saw that simple recipe that this is the same recipe for pie crust. Same ratio and everything. 1-½ cups of flour and 1 stick (which is a half cup) of butter. You cut the butter into the flour until it is all mixed and then roll it out and bake it. That’s exactly how Israel made unleavened bread. They rolled it out flat into a pan and placed the pan over the fire or baked it in an oven. And what you have is something with the light and flaky texture of pie crust. Some people think of unleavened bread being like a pita or a tortilla, but it’s not. It’s the same texture as pie crust. In a minute I’ll get to why that is significant.

So this is the kind of bread they ate with the Passover meal. Now God told them that they were to eat this bread for seven days. This would seem to suggest that it was a command from God. But in reality, it becomes more a matter of practicality than simply a command from God. In fact, if we were to look at the account we would see that this is not so much a command as it is God simply informing them of what to expect over the next week.

The the very next day after the Passover, Pharaoh is so engraged over the death of his own son that he wants the Jews out of Israel immediately. He can’t get them out of there fast enough. This is why God told Israel that on the night of the Passover they were to have everything ready. They took baths, they got dressed, and they had their shoes on because they had to be ready to flee at a moments notice. And since they put all the leaven out of the house they didn’t have time to make any bread after they left. All they had was this unleavened bread.  They couldn’t make a week’s worth of leavened bread because God told them to put the leaven out of the house.

So along with the celebration of Passover you have this feast of unleavened bread that is incorporated with Passover, and this is all part of this celebration remembering when Israel was freed from Egypt, and they ate unleavened bread for the next six days afterwards because that’s the only kind of bread they had to eat.

Fast-forward a thousand years or more, give or take. We find Jesus in the upper room with his disciples and He passes around bread to them. Can I stress this any more? This was not a new thing to them. For one thing, even if they were eating a regular meal they would have had bread because bread with the meal was part of the culture. Since this was the Passover meal, the bread was unleavened bread.

Now go back to what I said before about the pie crust. What happens when you put your fork through pie crust? It breaks. It is the same with unleavened bread – you can’t tear it or cut it, you have to break it because that’s its texture. So when you hear this expression, “breaking bread together,” this is a reference to the breaking of unleavened bread that was part of this Passover celebration.

I think there is significance to this.  As we saw in part two, when the believers gathered for fellowship one of the functions of edifying each other is the “breaking of bread.” Could it be this is reference is more than just about sharing a meal together?  Could this be a reference to New Testament believers observing the Passover and eating unleavened bread? Certainly in Acts 2 it is since at this point in the early history all the believers are Jews. Notice that they never stopped being Jews. The ceremonial feasts had special significance to them, especially now being disciples of Christ.

Fast-forward once again to our opening text in 1 Corinthians 11. Now we don’t have Jews, we have Gentiles, and quite possibly a mix of Hellenistic Jews as well, all believers, all having fellowship together. There is a strong implication in this text that they still observe Passover. We see no evidence of Jesus ever implementing any new ceremony or tradition. The only thing He said at the last supper was to do this in remembrance of Him.

Jesus’ point was that every time you have this celebration of Passover, when you break the bread, remember my broken body. When you drink the wine, remember my shed blood. So He wasn’t telling them to do anything new. If anything it was a way of saying, remember my last day with you before my death.

And along with that last day, remember everything I taught you that night in the upper room, all 4 chapters-worth in John’s gospel.

Along with that last day, remember that I will not drink this wine with you again until we drink it together in the Kingdom!

So if we are to assume then that the believers in Corinth were in fact observing Passover and eating unleavened bread for that reason, what is the deal with Paul’s rebuke to them? What is  all this talk about damnation and being unworthy?

Again, we need to start with the correct assumption, so let us try to figure out the context.  Rather that starting at verse 23 like most churches do, in an attempt to establish context, let us backup to verse 16.

16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the assemblies of God. 17Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18For first of all, when ye come together in the assembly, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.”

We need to take this apart because there are several key phrases in this passage that give us clues as to what is going on, and I’ve emphasized those phrases above.   Let us start with this word “contentious”. This is the Greek word φιλονεικος (“philoneikos”). It is a compound word. You have “philos” which means “to be fond of” or “love for” (Philadelphia – city of brotherly love. Philanthopy – love for mankind.) The second part is the word “nikos” which means “to conquer or rule over.” So you have one who is fond of ruling over others. One way of translating this is “rivalrous”.

The suggestion here seems to be a class issue where you have some who view themselves to be in a certain social strata. The idea of rivalry or having those who deem themselves better than others because of their social standing runs counter to the reality of the Body of Christ. Paul says that kind of thinking has no place here. We have no such custom. Remember what Jesus said?

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, ‘Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you…’”~ Matthew 20:25-26

So here we are now in this Gentile culture, and this is what Jesus talked about. Paul says that I know you guys have this custom where you think that if you have a certain social status that that gives you the right to rule over others and entitles you to certain privileges (and that is the key word, privilege). You do indeed have a situation in these fellowships where you have people from every social strata.  You have some who are merchants, some who would be considered aristocrats in society, and then you have a large number who are bondservants. So these people are bringing these social divisions into the assembly. But that’s not going to fly here. That’s not how we do things in the assembly. In fact Paul calls it heresy.

19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you”

What is the heresy?  Giving preference and recognition to those with a higher social standing.  Now look at this next part. Because you want to create this hierarchy of importance…

20When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. 21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken” ~ 1 Corinthians 11:20-21

Paul says, you are not meeting for the right reason. Your motivations are wrong. You’re not here to fellowship with each other and celebrate Passover. You have the socialites getting to the assembly early, and because of their assumed privilege they don’t think they have to wait around for the bondservants to get there. What is supposed to be a time of fellowship and mutual edification has turned into a drunken slosh fest. And then by the time the bondservants and other latecomers get there, there is no food left and they go hungry. Now Paul gets really nasty.

22What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the assembly of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.” ~ 1 Corinthians 11:22

Here’s the distinction – those who have houses to eat and drink in, (the privileged, the elite, the rivalrous, those who are fond of ruling over others) and those who have not. The have’s and the have not’s. This is the clear social distinction that they seek to bring into the assembly.

Now when you consider what these home fellowships had turned into, especially when it came to celebrating Passover and Paul’s scathing rebuke of them, these next verses should make abundantly more sense. We have now come back to where we started.  This is really not that difficult to understand when we start with the correct assumption. Let’s begin with verse 27. Paul has just finished reminding them that with the Passover is a remembrance of Jesus’ death. Now he says this:

“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” ~ 1 Corinthians 11:27

Guilty is the key word here. When we hear guilty we immediately think condemnation. And since Protestantism has this focus on the law being the standard for righteousness there remains this notion of still being under law and being under condemnation. So then was it ever any wonder that any of us had this nagging anxiety in the pit of our stomachs every time we took communion? Wondering, “Am I guilty?”

This word translated “guilty” is the Greek word ενοχος (“enochos”). It is derived from a root word that means to hold in or to be liable for. It carries with it a sense of responsibility. It does have a legal usage. When we speak of liability we are talking about legal responsibility.  The law in every state requires drivers at minimum to carry “liability” insurance on their car.  That means that you are legally responsible (liable) for any damage done to someone else’s property in the event you cause an accident.  Liability also has an accounting usage. You have assets and liabilities. Assets are things that add value, liabilities are things that take away value.

Do you see what Paul is saying here? Are you going to take responsibility for your behavior?  When you come together for fellowship are you an asset to the fellowship or are you a liability?  If you start behaving the way these Corinthians were, especially when it comes to the Lord’s Table, you are a liability. Write that word “liability” in the margin of your Bible.

“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be a liability of the body and blood of the Lord.” ~ 1 Corinthians 11:27

You take away the value of it. Furthermore, verse 29.

“For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” ~ 1 Corinthians 11:29

For some reason this word is consistently translated “damnation”. The Greek word is κριμα (“kreema”) and it means judgment or the sentence rendered by a judge. It is a legal word. It carries with it no religious connotation. It is the root word in several other familiar words in the NT for example.

κρινω (kreeno) – the process of rendering judgment. Legal proceedings. (“kreema” is the derivative used above in verse 29)

διακρινω (dia-kreeno) – discernment. Judging between.

κατακρινω (kata-kreeno) – to judge against – condemn; condemnation

All of these words appear in some form in this passage in 1 Corinthians 11.

Damnation has a religious connotation and implies eternal condemnation in hell, or Sheol, or ultimately the Lake of Fire. Notice what happens when you talk about damnation in the context of this passage. When you tell people that if they take communion and they are somehow not worthy, they are in danger of damning themselves to hell. Can you see how this can be confusing? It is confusing because you are starting with the wrong assumptions, the wrong premise.

Now without straying too far off track let me put it in these terms. You have people thinking this way because Protestantism is a religion that keeps people under condemnation on purpose. You tell people they need to live by “faith alone.” You tell them Jesus keeps the law for them. You tell them any time they think they’ve done a good work that they put their justification at risk. And now you’ve got this very same kind of perpetual introspection going on during communion when they are supposed to be celebrating and remembering. And now they think, “Wow, if I am unworthy to take communion, maybe I’m not really saved. Maybe I need to ‘get right with the Lord.’ Maybe I need to respond to an alter call. I don’t want to take communion when I shouldn’t be and end up being damned.”

What’s Paul saying? Three words are in play here; judgment, discernment, and condemnation. Let us consider these verses with a better understanding of these three words in their context.

“For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation (kreema – judgment) to himself, not discerning (dia-kreeno) the Lord’s body.” ~ 1 Corinthians 11:29

“For if we would judge (dia-kreeno, use discernment) ourselves, we should not be judged (kreeno, have the need to be judged, go through legal proceedings).” ~ 1 Corinthians 11:31 

“But when we are judged (kreeno, when we go through legal proceedings), we are chastened (it is for the purpose of Fatherly discipline) of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.” – ~ 1 Corinthians 11:32

This is so simple. This is the difference between discipline and condemnation. This is the difference between being under law and not under law. The world is under law. When they are judged, they are condemned because they are under law. But when God “judges” us, it is for the purpose of Fatherly discipline and not condemnation. Can this be any clearer?

Let me make this as simple as possible. Use good discernment.  That is Paul’s rebuke to the Corinthians. They were not using good discernment. This drunken fest into which they turned the fellowship and the fellowship meal was not using good discernment. And in the process they became a liability to the Body of Christ. Do I need to go through all the verses about our “conversation,” our way of life, the way we conduct ourselves in this world? Do I need to go through verses about controlling our bodies, controlling ourselves, because this is part of our sanctification?

Do you see the application here? Use good discernment so that you are not a liability to the fellowship. Peter said judgment must begin at the household of God. This is what he means. Use good discernment, and if you don’t there may come a point when discipline and correction is necessary so that you do not become a liability. This is why Paul said what he said in verse 30.

“For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” ~ 1 Corinthians 11:30

This isn’t God striking you dead. Yes, it may be Fatherly chastisement, but this is simply God allowing the natural consequences of your behavior to take its toll. Think about it. If you have this drunken fest going on and people are eating and drinking themselves to excess, what kind of toll is that going to have on the physical body? And if you have others showing up late and there is no food for them, are they going to get nourishment and be healthy and robust? So it affect both groups of people here. It doesn’t just affect the individuals using bad judgment, it affects the whole assembly.

So what was Paul’s solution? Just wait for everyone to get there. Verse 33

“Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation (kreema –judgment). And the rest will I set in order when I come.”
~ 1 Corinthians 11:33-34

Bad word. It is not the word for condemnation. It is the word for “judgment” or “discipline.” The kind of judgment that results from using bad discernment.  Condemnation has to do with sin and eternal damnation.

To be continued…


< Part 1  •  Part 2

Advertisements

How To Debate A Calvinist: Part 5 – By John Immel

Posted in John Immel, TANC 2017 by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on December 5, 2017

The following is part five of a five-part series.
Taken from John Immel’s fourth session at the 2017 Conference on Gospel Discernment and Spiritual Tyranny
~ Edited by Andy Young

Click here for part one
Click here for part two
 Click here for part three
Click here for part four

 

Self-Esteem

Self-esteem has become a synonym for all things evil with humanity. Self-esteem has become a function of pervasive depravity. Therefore in the Calvinist world, the goal is for man to loath himself.

There are a series of cultural myths I want to address first. The first one is that good self-esteem is effectively to have no self-esteem; that to have self-esteem is essentially narcissism. But here is the dirty little secret: we all have self-esteem because we all pass judgments on ourselves. What we are really talking about in the issue of self-esteem is what judgment do I apply to my own existence? We all apply moral verdicts to our actions, thoughts, and values.

The second myth involves the pop-culture definition, that self-esteem equals moral absolution. Really, we treat self-esteem more as a coping mechanism that refuses to apply any moral judgment to any personal aspects. It is a fraud. We cannot help passing judgments on our immoral behaviors. Blanket moral absolution is an illusion.

The other option is self-esteem equal self-absorption. This is a singular preoccupation with an internal life openly rejecting existence and the inter-dependencies of all people and things. This is the brute who cannot conceptualize his existence outside his own reality. He is an exploiter and a destroyer because he wants to consume for his own fulfillment at the expense of everyone else.

Does this type of person really exist? Perhaps, but there are very few, and they are usually cultural aberrations. But it is a common mythology that is handed down, and as long as you accept the premise that this is what self-esteem looks like, you will be inclined to believe that any variation of individuality in self-esteem is really this archetypical description.

The last myth is that self-esteem is the by-product of social affirmation; that it can be created by participation trophies, smiley faces, or amoral acceptance of other people. But kids who receive participation trophies know instinctively that they didn’t do anything to earn it, and so ultimately is has no meaning. No matter how many times you pat someone on the back and tell them “good job”, at the end of they day the individual cannot help but to pass judgment on what he really did or did not do.

These myths are not self-esteem because they either render no judgment from the self or require no value from the self.   Each of the five pillars in the web of tyranny is designed to make you pass the harshest judgment you can on your own existence.

The following is a quote by Nathaniel Branden from his book, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem:

“Self-esteem is the disposition to experience oneself as being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and of being worthy of happiness. It is confidence in the efficacy of our mind, in our ability to think. By extension, it is confidence in our ability to learn, make appropriate choices and decisions, and respond effectively to change. It is also the experience that success, achievement, fulfillment – happiness – are right and natural for us. The survival-value of such confidence is obvious; so is the danger when it is missing.”

The web of tyranny is designed to persuade you to lay down your happiness. It is designed to persuade you that you are not competent to understand reality for yourself. Self-esteem persuades us that it is ok to be happy.

I remember some years ago when I was still trying to wade through everything, when I was praying I found myself really, really happy about whatever. And then I would find myself praying and apologizing for being happy because I was scared of the equation that if I was in fact happy that it represented some error on my part. That’s how deeply ingrained these doctrines had become. For many people, as they come out of these doctrines, one of the biggest things that will betray them is the fear that they are not allowed to be happy and that if they are in fact happy there is something spiritually and morally wrong with their existence.

How often do we find ourselves second-guessing ourselves the moment we realize we’ve had success in something? And how many times when we have sat in church has the guy sitting in the pew next to you or the guy standing up in front of you talking to you told you that if you have an achievement it isn’t yours? What makes you think you have any claim to the content of your achievement? It is all designed to beat you down and to eradicate any sense of self-respect.

One of the challenges we have in the modern age is that, as human beings, we have become very good at insulating ourselves from the danger of nature. Most of us live at a level of prosperity that the rest of the world and the whole of humanity has never known. We are inclined to think that it is a given, but it is not. What are considered to be luxuries are the by-products of a long chain of intellectual conclusions that has produced such prosperity.

But the world is profoundly dangerous. Most of us would be hard-pressed to last a week alone in the woods. But the way we are built is to take the content of nature and conform it to our existence, which is exactly right and proper. So when given over to the elements we must first, and almost immediately, figure out how to keep nature from killing us. But the imperatives of day-to day survival today are not the same as they were a hundred years ago. So for us it seems foolish to discuss real peril when it comes to the failure of making individual choices.

But the fact of the matter is that it isn’t any different. If we fail to make rational choices to achieve and have success and fulfill happiness we will die. Just because we are insulated at the moment doesn’t mean we will be insulated forever. The survival standard is exceedingly high. There is fantastic danger in failing to understand this.

So why do we need self-esteem? The answer is simple. Self-esteem is the need for a consciousness to learn to trust itself. I talk about making choices in my last chapter of Blight in the Vineyard. After people have been subjected to going to pastors and constantly vetting the content of their lives through the minds of others, it is hard for them to find a way to make even the most mundane decisions in life. For many people, the choice of whether to go to the store to just buy ice cream will come with this enormous emotional and intellectual hurdle. You can so atrophy your ability to make choices in this world that you will NEVER be able to trust your own consciousness. That is why these doctrines are so destructive.

A volitional consciousness, one that must make choices, is a mind that must choose to think…or not; must choose to be rational…or not. Man is not automatically reality-focused. Man must intentionally orient his consciousness towards the elements of his life. This is the fundamental of life and death.

This begs the question, how do we actually go about building this self-esteem?


The Practice of Living Consciously

This is a respect for the facts of reality. This is being able to look at reality, understand what it’s telling you, and then arrive at the correct conclusion without evading or hedging. It is a determination to be present in each moment of action. In other words, you are confronted with a fact of reality, it demands your attention, and you determine just to be there with that.

This is hard to do, because you are typically doing one of two things. Either you are reflecting on something that happened in the past or projecting out to where you want to go in the future. How many things could be solved if we just dwelt on what needed attention at the present moment?

Living consciously is being eager to acquire information, knowledge, or feedback that impacts our lives. This goes to one of the myths about self-esteem that assumes that you don’t have any ability to critically evaluate your moral action. But someone who is conscious in the moment does so because he knows that moral action is the better choice and advances his success.

The Practice of Self-Acceptance
This is the zealous quest to see ourselves inside and out. It is taking responsibility for your thoughts, feelings, and actions without evasion, denial, or disowning – and also without self-repudiation. This is the common trap that gets so many people to accept the premise that pervasive depravity is true. Contrary to the doctrine, we are very aware of what happens inside of us. And so we say to ourselves in a self-reflecting moment, “Yeah, I know that’s wrong. And since I know it’s wrong and I’m thinking it anyways, that must mean I am morally depraved.” No, what it means is you have to be able to successfully identify yourself where you are. It is not a catastrophic moral failure to recognize an error inside yourself.

We need to give ourselves permission to think our thoughts and experience our emotions. They are what they are. We need to look at our actions without necessarily liking, endorsing, or condoning them. This is the virtue of realism applied to itself. This is our barometer of moral action. Once we can identify ourselves and assess ourselves where we are then it becomes trivially simple to figure out how to correct our course of action.

The Practice of Self-Responsibility
I’ve identified an error, so now what am I going to do about it? We are the author of our choices and our actions. We are responsible for life and our well-being. We are responsible for the attainment of our goals. We cannot borrow someone else’s moral action to get to where we want to be. We are responsible to find ways to exchange value to achieve our goals. This is crucial. If I have a goal that I cannot achieve myself, then it is my job to give somebody else value to help me get there. They do not have an obligation to help me just because. We are responsible to answer the question, “What needs to be done?”

The thread binding all of these is a respect for reality. It is this respect that Calvinist doctrine seeks to undermine at all costs. I call this “spiritual crack”: the endless determination to make you fundamentally dependent on their leadership at every turn and in every instant and at every moment. It is designed to make you addicted; to so erode your self-will that you cannot possibly do anything else. It is evil personified.

Calvinists want you to feel helpless in the face of reality. If you are helpless in the face of your own reality, you will be willing to embrace theirs. They want to inspire you to withdraw and escape. They want you to feel hopeless so that you will beg them to make a new reality. The doctrines are designed to make you hold yourself in the highest suspicion.

Take the doctrine seriously and it will so erode your ability to make a decision that it will render you impotent. Most people intellectually cheat. They smuggle in self-esteem and put on a good face in church. But over time, it will erode your commitment to your own capacity and your own achievements to the point where you become functionally useless at whatever you do best. You end up losing respect for your own existence.

This is what opens you up for such profound exploitation. Once they have you doubting your own existence there are no longer any personal boundaries. People can do whatever they want to you. What objection can you make? What objection WILL you make since you don’t value yourself to draw a boundary? How can you expect moral action out of anybody else? This sets up a standard at church that everybody can use you for whatever purpose, and at any point that you object, you must be the sinner; you must be the problem.

To overthrow their effort you must fall in love with that which exists; you must fall in love with reality. And then you must fall in love with your place in reality. You must live consciously, accept the responsibility of your life, and accept yourself.

Now go forth and take action for your own life!

~ John Immel


Click here for part one
Click here for part two
 Click here for part three
Click here for part four

A Historical Survey of the First Century Christian Assembly – Part 1

Posted in Andy Young, TANC 2017 by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on December 4, 2017

The following is part one of a four-part series.
Taken from Andy Young’s first session at the 2017 Conference on Gospel Discernment and Spiritual Tyranny

Part Two  •  Part Three >


 

Clearly there is a problem with the institutional church. But what is the alternative? I honestly don’t believe that Jesus ever had in mind what passes today for “the church”. Ironically what we see today in the beast that is institutionalized religion is frighteningly reminiscent of the religious and political climate in which Jesus found Himself during His ministry. And I daresay that He would be any less harsh with the likes of the John Pipers and the John MacArthurs and the Kevin DeYoungs of the world than He was with the scribes and Pharisees.

So what is the alternative? Does the Bible prescribe a model for us to follow. I will say outright, no there is no prescribed pattern. In other words there is no place in the NT where any of the apostles said this is how you meet and this is what you do.  We can, however, come to a better understanding of just what God had in mind when He chose to make mankind His literal offspring.  Let us begin by examining the forerunner of the 1st century assembly, the Jewish synagogue.

 

A History of the Synagogue

The word synagogue is from the Greek word συναγωγη (soon-a-go-gay). It is made up of the prefix “soon” meaning “together with” and the verb “a-go” meaning “to lead or bring”. Literally then it means “a bringing together.”

There is very little information regarding the origin of the synagogue. Most of what is assumed about the synagogue is due to tradition. This is because the synagogue is so closely associated with Jewish institutional religion. Most people simply assume the synagogue was a central fixture among Judaism going back as far as Moses.

However the origin of the synagogue is probably much more recent than that. Some historians believe that the synagogue evolved out of necessity during the time of Babylonian captivity. Since the captive Jews had no access to the temple in Jerusalem for worship and sacrifice, spontaneous assemblies of Jews would meet in their local communities for times of prayer and teaching. These captive Jews would gather at a location central to their community, perhaps someone’s home. In time, many would erect buildings for this select purpose. These buildings were called “Beth K’nesset”, or “House of Assembly”.

If the name alone doesn’t suggest that these buildings existed for a sole purpose, consider also that the configuration of these buildings had dedicated certain rooms for specific functions; one room for prayer, another for instruction, and so on. Some synagogues even had fully organized religious schools.

Excerpt http://scheinerman.net/judaism/Synagogue/history.html

“What happened to the Jewish people in Exile in Babylonia? We know that Exile lasted for 70 years, until Babylonia was conquered by the Persian Empire under King Cyrus, who gave the Jews permission to return to their land and rebuild their central sanctuary. During those 70 years in Babylonia, Jews settled and built homes, started businesses and raised families. They faced an unprecedented religious crisis: Exiled from their homeland and unable to offer sacrifices to God, since offering could only be made in the central sanctuary in Jerusalem, the Jews in Babylonia wrestled with whether their covenant with God was still operative. The prophet Ezekiel, who had preached before the Destruction and who had gone into Exile with them, assured them the covenant was eternal, and that God would some day return them to their Land. He shared with them a vision of valley of dry bones which God would bring back to life, covered with muscles, sinews, and flesh, a divine sign that the nation Israel would one day be resurrected from exile to live again as a nation in her own Land. In the meantime, to preserve their traditions, it seems that the Jews in Babylonia gathered together on market days (Mondays and Thursdays) and participated in some combination of worship and study. Some scholars believe that these gatherings gave rise to worship services, and that prayers were composed for use at this time which were eventually brought back to the Land of Israel when some of the Exiles returned, and incorporated into the cult worship when the Second Temple was eventually built.

“Most of the Jews in Babylonia, however, remained there even after King Cyrus permitted them to return to the Land of Israel. By then, most Jews had been born in Babylonia; some were even the children of Jews born in Babylonia. They had built homes, businesses, and lives in Babylonia. While sacrifices could be offered only from the altar in Jerusalem, prayers could be offered anywhere. The focal point was still Jerusalem, however, as we know from Daniel’s prayer — he faces Jerusalem when praying to God. In time, schools of study grew in Babylonia, especially in the aftermath of the Destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 69 C.E., where prayer and study were full-time activities for the learned class. By the first century, synagogues emerge as the central institution of Jewish life once the Temple is destroyed, a place where study, worship, meeting, celebration, and civic meetings take place. There were synagogues not only in Babylonia, but in Alexandria and throughout the Land of Israel, in places such as Dora, Caesarea, Nazareth and Capernaum”

Hang on to that idea “central institution” because I’m going to come back to that.

After the return to Israel following captivity, the synagogue remained a vital part of the Jewish community even after the reconstruction of the temple. In Jerusalem alone, at the time of its destruction in 70 AD it is estimated that there were between 390 and 480 synagogues.

Synagogues were the cultural center for the Jews. It was as if they were expected, because they were Jews, to gather at the synagogue on the Sabbath. But since the synagogue was also the place where teaching took place, I can conceive groups of Jews going to the synagogue at different times during the week for instruction or to attend community functions of some kind.

Synagogues were not restricted to specific locations. No uniform design or floor plan existed, and so each community of Jews was at liberty to build their synagogues as they saw fit to meet their own requirements. They could be located on the seashore, along riverbanks, in the center of town, or even in private dwellings.

As such, the synagogue was also often used as a place of lodging for travelers. Many private dwellings in this culture often contained fully furnished third floors for the express purpose of housing visiting out-of-town family members. Therefore, it is likely that purpose-built synagogues or private dwelling used for that purpose may have been constructed with the same third flood lodging space. Consider this, the term “inn” that is found in Luke 2 that was already occupied by the time Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem is more properly translated as “guest chamber” and could refer to this upper room of a private dwelling. Indeed, this guest chamber, as well as the upper room where Jesus and the disciples held the “last supper”, the upper room where the 120 disciples in Acts 2 were filled with the Holy Spirit, and the third floor window out of which Eutychus fell when he fell asleep during Paul’s marathon teaching session in Acts 20 could have very well been in a synagogue.

Now you don’t have to be a Bible scholar to do this. Anybody with some kind of rudimentary Bible app with a search function can do this. You can quickly search your Bibles and you swill find no mention of synagogues in the OT. Now there might be one exception to that in Psalm 74, which I believe is a lamentation regarding Israel being led into captivity. There is one mention in verse 8 about the enemy burning up all the synagogues. But in that instance the Hebrew word translated synagogue is referring to fixed times and seasons or more specifically festivals and the places where those festivals were held and does not necessarily imply a synagogue in the sense we know it per se.

Furthermore, there is no commandment to be found anywhere in the OT instructing the Jews to build synagogues. However rabbinical Jews will suggest otherwise. Now this is organized, institutional religion we’re talking about here. We’re talking traditions, we’re talking orthodoxy. Look at what they do. They claim that that Torah mandates that Jews follow all properly instituted decrees accepted by the community at the time the decree was made.

That is to say this – here is the logic behind this: They claim the Torah commands that everyone follows the decrees of the religious leaders. So if the religious officials make a decree that says you must build a synagogue, then the command to build a synagogue is sanctioned by the Torah. This is how they conclude that synagogues are a Torah-mandated institution. And the scripture they use to back this claim is Deuteronomy 17:11.

“According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.”
~ Deuteronomy 17:11

Now looking at this verse, there is a huge problem here.

This verse is the conclusion of a larger context that is dealing with legal matters. You’ve got a dispute between two parties. Moses says if you cannot resolve the matter, you go to the place that God appointed for judgment. You go to the Levites and they will settle the dispute. And when the Levites render a judgment, you will do exactly as they say according to their verdict.

Notice this is very specific context to this verse. And what did the Jewish religious leaders do? They took a verse in scripture and applied it to an incorrect context. They took something that was talking about rendering a judgment in a legal matter and said, this verse means we are commanded to do whatever the leaders tell us to do. This is orthodoxy or tradition with Bible verses hung on it. In this case this is how they get to synagogues being a scriptural mandate. They have conflated religious orthodoxy with scripture.

And this is the thing I want you to get out of all of this. Synagogues today are still characteristic of ancient Jewish synagogues. But what I think has become obvious by now is that synagogues also share in common many characteristics of today’s institutional church.

Notice the progression. Let us accept the assumption that synagogues began as a means to fulfill a cultural void during Israel’s captivity. This happened spontaneously – of its own accord. It was local. It was within specific communities. This was the result of what happens when individuals get together and figure out a way to solve a problem. But look at what happened over time. Look at what happened when some authority got its hands on it. It became institutionalized. Synagogues today and synagogues in the 1st century drifted far from what they were originally intended to be.

Is this not a parallel to what happened with the church? First century believers met spontaneously in local assemblies. They probably began in these same synagogues, but I would imagine that due to being a follower of Christ being in conflict with the religious orthodoxy within the synagogues there in Jerusalem, many of these believer found themselves ousted from their local synagogue. There were no longer welcome there.

In John chapter 9 we have the account of a man who was blind from birth and Jesus came along and healed him. The Jewish leaders wanted to know who it was that healed him. In fact, they didn’t believe at first that this man was ever really blind. They went to his parents, his parents said, look he’s a grown man, he can speak for himself. You need to discuss this with him. And John says that the reason the parents said this was because they were afraid that they would be thrown out of the synagogue if they acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah.

When they came back to this man who was healed they asked him again. And what’s funny about this is the man gets kind of testy with these guys. He says, you already asked me this question and I already told you. And then he says, why are you so interested in Jesus? Do you want to be His disciples too?

And then he becomes even more impertinent with them. He says, you guys say you are disciples of Moses but yet you cannot answer if Jesus is the Messiah or not. This man who healed me – not everyone can do that. Only someone from God could do that. And these religious leaders got really angry at this point and they say, how dare you instruct us! And at the end of this account we read that they threw him out of the synagogue.

So I’m sure this kind of thing happened over and over in Jerusalem with the early believers. So they began to assemble and fellowship among themselves out of necessity. And I’ll get into more of what that might have looked like in later lessons. But here you have believers meeting spontaneously, seeing a need and finding a way to solve a problem. They had need of fellowship, they had a way were they could exercise their spiritual gifts for the purpose of building each other up. They had a way of providing for those among them who were in need. And this goes on like this for the first 50, 60, 70 years or so.

And then what happens? Some authority steps in and decides to centralize all the fellowships under one umbrella. You have the institutionalization of the home fellowship into what becomes the institutional church.

So this is my point. You can see what happens here.   There is this parallel between the synagogue and the institutional church.

 

Worship in the Synagogue

Now one other way in which we have a similarity between synagogues and the institutional church is with this notion of worship. In each of the sources I came across as I was researching the history of the synagogue, this idea of “worship” kept coming up. Every source was stuck on this notion of the synagogue being a center of worship. I saw this repeatedly.   And I think in our modern culture, and as historians review this information from the past, history becomes colored with the current understanding of the meaning of words, and so this idea of “worship” somehow implies some kind of ritualistic observance; some kind of liturgy or progression of acts that one performs toward a deity, and this is called “worship.” It might be reciting a prayer, reading holy writings, listening to a sermon, giving offerings, some kind of sacrifice.  This notion of worship then is applied to Christian worship and the institutional church.

One might ask the question, why do we go to church? I remember one time in particular when one of my own kids asked that question. Now, there are several fundamental fallacies with that question which I’ll get to, but lets take the question for what it is. The orthodox answer is we go to church to worship God. And that sounds like a reasonable answer.

Well, right off the bat, there is one glaring fallacy that should be obvious in the question itself. Why do we go to church? Stop right there. What are you assuming by asking that question? You are assuming that church is a place to which you go. So from the start the question is irrelevant because you should reject the premise of the question.

But assume you get past that faulty premise, the next thing you need to ask is what is the definition of worship? Worship is a modern English word that simply means to ascribe worth to something. Our understanding of the English word worship is not what the Greek and Hebrew words mean. We understand worship as this ritualistic experience that we somehow believe is required of us by whatever deity we happen follow.

And Christians are no different. If you don’t believe me, then ask yourself why you run yourself ragged every Sunday. Christians love to talk about a day of rest, but consider what you put yourself through every week. You get up at the crack of dawn, probably the same time you do for work during the week. You shower and primp and make sure you look your best, putting on your best clothes so that no one will think you’re not “fit for worship.” If you have kids, you run around the house trying to keep them corralled, getting them dressed and fed and washed and primped and then making sure they don’t get rumpled or dirty before you get to church. If you teach Sunday School, you have to get to church extra early to get things ready for your class. Oh wait, I have a committee meeting after the morning service; sorry honey, that roast you have in the oven at home is going to have to wait. And I’m sure there are any number of scenarios you could add to the mix.

You put it all together, and for a day that we are told is to be a day of rest, Sundays are probably the most stressful day of the week. To be quite honest, I came to point where I hated Sundays. And it wasn’t because of the doctrine I was going to hear. It was because of the hassle and just how exhausted I knew I would be at the end of the day.

All of this for some vague notion of worship.

But what did God have to say about worship?

Probably the best treatise on worship in the Bible is found in the gospel of John chapter 4. Now I will get there eventually, but I am going to set up some background first. A little more Jewish history. Many of you will probably already be familiar with this, but since most churches only view the OT in a redemptive context and have little to no interest in the historical context, I’m sure there a great number of people who will not comprehend the significance of just what is taking place in John chapter 4. This is why I am going to take the time to lay this groundwork.

So, Israel wanted a King. In the early history of Israel they were governed by judges, and then a little later God dealt with Israel directly through the prophets. So during the time of the prophet Samuel the people looked around at the other nations around them and saw their kings and their prestige, and they came to Samuel and said, hey, we want a king too. So God conceded to their desires and gave them Saul. Of course Saul ended up being a man who was rife with character flaws, so God unseated him and put David in Saul’s place, and you have this dynasty of kings that issues forth from David’s lineage. The next king following David was Solomon who is traditionally known as the wisest man who ever lived. Solomon too ended up having some character issues at the end of his life, and this ended up having direct bearing on what happened with his son, Rehoboam, who succeeded him. Because of the things Solomon did at the end of his life God said He would rend the kingdom from his son.

So there was a man named Jeroboam who had been a servant of Solomon. And one day a prophet came to Jeroboam and he told him that God would give to him ten tribes of Israel. So when Solomon heard this he wanted to kill Jeroboam. Jeroboam flees to Egypt, Solomon dies, and Rehoboam becomes king.

So now Jeroboam hears the Solomon is dead. He goes to Rehoboam and tries to make peace with him. Rehoboam doesn’t know what he should do. He calls in his advisors. The older, wise advisors say, yes make peace with him, give his what he asks for. The younger advisors who grew up with Rehoboam said, here’s what you say to Jeroboam. You think my father treated you harsh? Just wait!

“And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins. And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.” ~ 1 Kings 12:10-11

So Jeroboam ends up leading a rebellion against Rehoboam. Jeroboam prevails, and the kingdom is divided. So you have the ten tribes of Israel to the north, also known in many OT scriptures as “Ephraim,” and you have the kingdom of Judah to the south.

Now here’s where it gets tricky. The temple is in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is part of the southern Kingdom of Judah. The Jews were required by the Moasic law to go to Jesursalem for all the major feasts, Day of Atonement, Passover, and so forth. They were supposed to bring gifts and offering to the priest in the temple at Jerusalem. Now that you have a divided kingdom you can imagine that for the people in the northern kingdom this would prove to be troublesome. I’m sure there were many devout who would still make the pilgrimage despite the tension between the two kingdoms, but for the most part, not many people are going to risk getting in the middle of this political powder keg.

Jeroboam realizes this, and being a shrewd leader he also realizes that if people keep going to Jerusalem they might eventually turn against him. And he says this in 1 Kings 12:

“Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan. And he made an house of high places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi.”
~ 1 Kings 12:28-31

And of course you know then the northern kingdom was infamous for having all manner of idolatry, and you know what happened with King Ahab and Jezebel and so forth.

Now I set all that up to bring us here. When we get to John 4, Jesus is in Samaria – the region that was once the northern kingdom. So already we are in a region that according their history and religion forsook going to Jerusalem for worship.

Second, we have to take into account the time of captivity. After 70 years, you have Ezra who leads a remnant back to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. But not all of those who return settle in Jerusalem. Some will go back to their homeland. And now they are accustomed to this practice of having a synagogue, assuming this was a practice that started in Babylon. Also by this time the synagogues have the beginnings of becoming institutionalized. So then for the next 400 years or so you have created a culture where it is perfectly acceptable to worship in a synagogue instead of making the trek to the temple in Jerusalem. These synagogues are going to be located wherever it is convenient, whatever a particular community needs. You are going to have all manner of “traditions” develop. And so when Jesus meets this woman at the well in John chapter 4, this is the background she’s coming from.

So now we will finally get to the text of John 4. This is a very familiar passage of scripture, and typically most teachers will focus on the first part of this account where Jesus offers this woman the “living water”. I want to focus on the second part of this interaction beginning with verse 19. So lets begin by reading there.

19The woman saith unto him, ‘Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. 20Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.’”

Now before we go on I want to interject something here. The King James translates prophet with the indefinite article “a”. But in the Greek, the word prophet is preceded by the word “hoti” which is the demonstrative pronoun “that”. So what this woman is actually saying is, “Sir, I perceive that you are that prophet.”

Now just a few chapters earlier in John, we have all the people coming up to John the Baptist and asking him are you the Christ, are you Elijah, are you “that prophet”? So who exactly is the one identified as “that prophet”. This is actually a reference to Deuteronomy 18. Moses is talking to the children of Israel and he says this.

“The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;” ~ Deuteronomy 18:15

“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” ~ Deuteronomy 18:18

So this tells us two things. First it tells us that the people in Israel at this time have been waiting for this prophet to come along that Moses talked about. But second, it tells us that this woman at the well had some knowledge of Mosaic Law. Not only was she aware of Moses speaking about “that prophet”, but she also knew enough to know that Mosaic Law required certain types of ceremonial observances to take place in Jerusalem at the temple.

Now this woman is a thinker. Clearly she has some cognitive dissonance going on in her mind because of this conflict she perceives between her understanding of Mosaic Law and the traditions and orthodoxy she grew up with. Remember this all this historical background we’ve just covered?

Furthermore, she senses something different about Jesus. She recognizes Him as more than just a teacher. He knows all about her and who she is and has made this offer of “living water” to her. She sees Him as more than just a teacher but as an authority who might be able to help her resolve this conflict she has in her mind.

Notice how Jesus answers her question. Verse 21

21Jesus saith unto her, ‘Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.’”

Understand that in the Old English, the word “ye” is a plural, collective form. So when Jesus says “ye”, He doesn’t mean her specifically, he means “all of you”, or “you” in a general sense. People in general. So what is Jesus point? He says, you’re really asking the wrong question. You are getting all hung up about a location, about WHERE worship happens because you have a wrong assumption about worship. How do we know this? Look at the next verse. 22

22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.”

Now let’s skip this phrase at the end, “salvation is of the Jews” because that can be a whole other study on its own, and if you want to discuss this later we can do that. But I want to stay focused on this idea of what is worship.   Jesus says you are all preoccupied with “where” to worship you don’t even know “what” you are worshipping. “Ye know not what.”  The Greek word is “iedo” and it means to perceive, or “to see”, in this sense “see” meaning “to understand”.

Jesus says we5* understand worship because we know what salvation means. Or perhaps Jesus is really saying, to understand salvation is to understand worship. Look at the next verse:

“23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”
~ John 4:19-24

So worship doesn’t happen at a place. It is not the fulfillment of some ritualistic requirement of your favorite deity. It doesn’t matter if you worship in this mountain or at Jerusalem. There is coming a time (in fact, it’s already here, it NOW IS) when true worshippers worship in spirit and in truth. Worship doesn’t happen at a place. Worship happens in spirit and in truth. Now what does that mean?

Well let’s consider this. What did Jesus come to do? He came to die on the cross to end the law. That OT covenant that was the last will and testament of Jesus Christ; that OT law that imprisoned sin. It acted as a guardian to all those who believed God. Their sins were imputed to that Law. There was a promise of a new birth. Jesus died, He ended that testament, and not only did He take away all sin with Him when he ended that testament, but the promises that were in that testament could now be realized. A will cannot be executed until the testator dies. What’s in a will? It’s a promise to the people mentioned in it that they will receive some benefit upon the death of the testator.

So now, all those OT saints who died under the old covenant, who are waiting in Sheol, who were under the protective custody of the Law, now the law is taken away, and the promise of the New Birth is realized. Anyone who understood the OT scriptures should have understood this.   This is why Jesus was so incredulous at Nicodemus – he was a teacher of Israel and he had no clue what it meant to be born again.

The New Birth makes us God’s literal offspring. We are born of the spirit. And as such we are no longer under condemnation. Now we are free to go and live lives pleasing to our Father. We can aggressively pursue obedience to the Law and thus show love to God and to others. What did the apostle Paul have to say about that?

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”
~ Romans 12:1

This is where Paul makes the transition from justification to sanctification. At the conference last year, John Immel spoke about sacrifice as the highest moral ideal and how this notion of sacrifice permeated everything in the culture, and still does as a matter of fact. In fact it’s gotten even more insidious. Now you take that cultural expectation of sacrifice, and you overlay it on top of what Paul is talking about in Romans, and what you see is that Paul loves to take jabs at current cultural norms.

Paul’s audience was familiar with the concept of sacrifice. Now he takes that concept and turns it on its head and talks about being a “living sacrifice”. What impression must that have made to the people in that time? Paul, sacrifice means death. How can you sacrifice yourself and still be alive? And the answer is you can’t, and that is the irony that Paul uses so effectively here. To them sacrifice was their idea of worship. Sacrifice was something that was expected of the gods. But you have to get rid of this notion that worship means you have to sacrifice something to your god – big “G” or little “G” god. That’s not worship.

Paul says that as a believer, to be a living sacrifice is your reasonable service. Now the word there for service is the word “latria”, and the root word is used to refer a hired menial servant. Not a “doulos,” that is a bond servant. This is a “latria,” a menial servant. In fact I would not be surprised if this is where we get the word “latrine.” They had public toilets in the Roman empire, so cleaning one of these public facilities would be considered a menial job.

What’s interesting is that this word can also imply worship. Guess what. When you go around and demonstrate love to God and to other through aggressive obedience to the law, you are being a living sacrifice. Every time you show love to God and others, you are worshipping. Paul said this is reasonable. The word there means logical. This is the logical conclusion of what it means to be a child of God. As God’s child the least you can do is be a living sacrifice. The least you can do is show love to God and others, and when you do that you are worshipping. That is what it means to worship in spirit and in truth. That is the kind of people that the Father seeks to worship Him.

Now before I conclude this lesson, let me make one other little side note here. If worship then is defined as the result of showing love to God and others, do you have to be a believer to worship God? Think about the answer to that and we can discuss that afterwards.

I think it should be obvious at this point, that worship is not something that happens at a place. Yet institutional religion tells us that we must go to a place to worship. Not only are they wrong about salvation, and justification, and a myriad of other doctrines, they don’t even understand the true meaning of worship. They are like this woman at the well to whom Jesus said, “You don’t even know who or what you worship.”

Notice how much today’s modern institutional church mirrors the culture of the 1st century Jewish synagogue. Jesus didn’t intend for His Body to be an institution that follows adherence to a strict religious code of conduct, feigning some obscure notion of worship and thinking that will somehow earn them points with the elder and keep the salvation train rolling along. He intended for His Body to operate as a family under the idea of love; fellowshipping together, encouraging each other, building each other up, using their gifts. This is the least we can do. This is being a living sacrifice.   This is worship. This does not, this CANNOT happen in an institution.

In my next sessions, I am going to spend some time looking at what happened in a typical 1st century assembly, what they did, and contrast that with what’s going on today in institutional religion.

To be continued…


Part Two  •  Part Three >

How To Debate A Calvinist: Part 4 – By John Immel

Posted in John Immel, TANC 2017 by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on November 30, 2017

The following is part four of a five-part series.
Taken from John Immel’s fourth session at the 2017 Conference on Gospel Discernment and Spiritual Tyranny
~ Edited by Andy Young

Click here for part one
Click here for part two
 Click here for part three
Click here for part five

In Defense of the Individual

We started out addressing the central fulcrum of almost all Calvinist arguments – an ongoing quest for an undisputed authority so they can ultimately redefine reality however they see fit. Their endless appeal to all things “biblical” is because they believe that is where they borrow their authority so that they can dictate to you whatever it is they think they want you to know.

We then went on to talk about specific arguments that Calvinist use to control you in context to my “web of tyranny” so that you can understand how Abolition of Ambition and Collective Conformity are used together to keep you intellectually subservient and willing to abandon your individuality.

At then end of part three I stated that you had to successfully advocate for your own individuality. This is so crucial because tyranny cannot thrive in a world of self-confident individuals. Tyranny requires your deliberate subordination – your willing sacrifice of self – to whoever is in charge. So the confident individual, the thinking man, will not be willingly subdued, but he will fight back. We have to get comfortable with the fact that we must defend our individuality.

John Locke is a key figure in the course of human events. Locke made a series of arguments that laid a very profound foundation that culminated in the U.S. Constitution, specifically the separation of Church and State. This foundation has given America political autonomy and political freedom. This is essential to understand in the defense of your individualism because Locke’s arguments are the validation of the individual within the context of a civil society.

I did a full evaluation of John Locke’s philosophy at the 2014 TANC conference. But in this lesson I simply want to focus on some primary points. The first thing I want to discuss is an excerpt from “A Letter Concerning Toleration.” This document was originally published in 1689 which appeared amidst a fear that Catholicism might be taking over England. Locke is responding to the problem of religion and government by proposing religious toleration as the answer. This “letter” is addressed to an anonymous “Honored Sir”, but it was actually Locke’s close friend Philipp van Limborch, who published it without Locke’s knowledge.

“Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must need answer you freely that I esteem the toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their faith – for everyone is orthodox to himself – these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ.

“In the second place, the care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, because his power consists only in outward force; but true and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God. And such is the nature of the understanding, that it cannot be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force. Confiscation of estate, imprisonment, torments, nothing of that nature can have any such efficacy as to make men change the inward judgment that they have framed of things.

“It may indeed be alleged that the magistrate may make use of arguments, and thereby, draw the heterodox into the way of truth and procure their salvation. I grant it; but this is common to him with other men. In teaching, instructing, and redressing the erroneous by reason, he may certainly do what becomes any good man to do. Magistracy does not oblige him to put off either humanity or Christianity, but it is one thing to persuade and another to command, one thing to press with arguments, another with penalties. This civil power alone has a right to do; to the other, goodwill is authority enough.”

This is a powerful argument against the algebra of orthodoxy that I discussed in part one of this series. Historically, orthodoxy and the people controlling the definition of orthodoxy has always been about merging political force with doctrine. This is why almost immediately after John Calvin writes his “institutes” he becomes one of the main political figures in Geneva, and in very short order they have a religious theocracy. In every instance Protestant Christianity must push for solidarity between civil government and religious orthodoxy because it must be able to control the definition of reality. You can only do that if you can burn people at the stake.

John Locke correctly identifies that the role of the magistrate cannot be the role of the “soul-saver.” He accepts the premise that human reason is sufficient to the cause of his own consciousness and that man cannot be compelled by force to believe any given orthodoxy. Locke makes a clear distinction between the role of religion and the role of government (force). When these philosophical tides roll across the Atlantic and land in the New World, the closest America ever got to the Dark Ages was the Puritan theocracy in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

The framers of our Constitution were absolutely sure that such a theocracy should NEVER be allowed the opportunity to grow in ascendancy. The separation of Church and State was designed to limit that fundamental power. They didn’t want the magistrate using force to compel people from heterodoxy into orthodoxy (a.k.a. “political correctness” in religious terms).

“It will be answered, undoubtedly, that it is the orthodox church which has the right of authority over the erroneous or heretical. This is, in great and specious words, to say just nothing at all. Every church is orthodox to itself; to others, erroneous and heretical.”

This is the fundamental conflict within all of Protestant Christianity. Everybody wants to pretend that their definition of “orthodox” is the correct one, so everybody outside that specific definition is, by definition, in error. So the only question within Protestant Christianity is about who has the authority to compel you to believe their definition. The only way to answer that question is to ask who has the biggest guns? It is always a question of who has the most force.

“So the controversy between these churches about the truth of their doctrines and the purity of their worship is on both sides equal; nor is there any judge, either at Constantinople nor elsewhere upon the earth, by whose sentence it can be determined.”

John Locke’s argument successfully made toleration the fundamental principle of Christian doctrine. He pointed out that those bragging of their spiritual pedigree and doctrinal orthodoxy were really seeking political power and hiding behind the name of Jesus. The only thing that saves man is what happens by persuasion of the mind. Souls cannot be won with government force.

Notice, Locke fully believes that man’s salvation resides in his choice to follow rational arguments.

Notice how these arguments go the heart of our 21st century conflict.

At every turn, Calvinists are returning to the primordial ooze of these historical doctrines; the right to sustain dictatorial power over the course of your intellectual individuality. The point here is they all think that their orthodoxy is the sum of their own mind. You have no obligation to subordinate your mind to theirs.

In Locke’s second treatise on government he goes on to lay the foundation for the nature of government. In chapter two on the State of Nature, Locke says that to understand political power correctly man must first understand his natural state. The natural state is equality. We all, as individuals, reside in our own existence. This is not to be confused with “abilities” or “outcomes” specifically. All men have a right to their own existence by virtue of being individuals. By extension, this means that God would not have appointed some men to subjugate others. This is a root argument against the premise of slavery.

The law that governs the State of Nature is Reason. This is the way man interacts with his own existence and solves the problems of his life. Reason touches that all men are equal and independent. The State of Nature is a state of liberty. The law of Reason says that no man may harm another man’s life, health, liberty, or possessions. There is no subordination of men that authorizes one to destroy the other. Inasmuch as man preserves his life, he must also seek to aid in the preservation of another’s liberty, health, limb, or property.

This is a very different social organization than had ever been conceived before. Up until this time, man was the by-product of the collective. But Locke understood that all of us solve our problems by reason, and because man must be free to solve those problems in order to survive, that means there is a reciprocal responsibility to not cause harm to other individuals as they seek to do the same.

Reason wills peace and the preservation of man, therefore the Law of Nature puts into everyone’s hand the right to punish the transgressor of Reason and to hinder the violation of Reason with violence. This is a crucial distinction. I do not have the right to impose myself upon you and steal what you have, but in the event that I do that you have the moral right to defend against it and to prevent it by violence. Any such man who has violated Reason has thus entered into a State of War. It then becomes the obligation of free men committed to reason and liberty to use violence to repel that action.

Locke’s definition of “property” is an essential evolution of thought. He correctly establishes the roots of “private property.” Property is the product of labor. As you go about using reason to solve the problems of existence you have artifacts of that process. That is your work product; the outcome of your labor. Individuals employ their industry to create the substance of their life. Men in the State of Nature must work to survive.

There is an unbreakable relationship between your reason, the product of your labor, and your ability to enjoy that labor unharassed. Seizing man’s property is the same as seizing man’s life. Locke correctly identifies that man is indivisible from his work. He correctly integrates human existence by identifying that reason is the root of man’s production. Thus man’s life and man’s property are corollaries of existence. By contrast, historically man has always been a cog in the wheel of the collective, therefore the work that he does is the rightful property of the collective.

Locke goes on to discuss the beginning of political societies. He identifies the correct order in social relationships. Historically it was assumed that the State was the social primary. Men were born into the State, and their lives were disposed of at the will of the State. Locke says otherwise.

“Men, being by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without consent. A man can only divest himself of his natural liberty, and put on the bonds of civil society, by agreeing with other men to join and unite for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties.

“This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the State of Nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or one government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.”

Why do men agree to join and unite? According to Locke it is for the comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one among another. Here is his fundamental point. The reason we enter into civil societies is to enjoy the fruits of our labors. You will recognize this concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice the individual comes first.

Here is the progression: Man is first a free, sovereign agent; he labors to create property to satisfy his survival and enjoyment; he seeks social relationships to expand his freedom; he consents to social contracts; government is by consent of the governed.

Here is where I think John Locke did the world a favor. He identified the root of all civilized societies. The root is the individual. The individual’s proper State of Nature is Reason. Private property is a by-product created by rational effort. Government and social contracts are the consequence of individual life, liberty, and happiness. You enter into government contracts to protect yourself from encroachment. Thereby government is subordinated to the individual.

John Locke laid the foundation for a peaceful society by placing theological issues firmly in the realm of personal conscience and delimiting the government purpose. That foundation set the minds of men free, and a light was set forth throughout the earth.

But there was one thing that John Locke did NOT do. He did not tell people how to be effective individuals.

And it is for this reason we will now turn our attention to the last building block of individual defense.

…To be continued.


Click here for part one
Click here for part two
 Click here for part three
Click here for part five

How To Debate a Calvinist: Part 3 – By John Immel

Posted in John Immel, TANC 2017 by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on November 17, 2017

The following is part three of a five-part series.
Taken from John Immel’s third session at the 2017 Conference on Gospel Discernment and Spiritual Tyranny
~ Edited by Andy Young

Click here for part one 
Click here for part two
Click here for part four
Click here for part five

 

What we have just witnessed over the last two parts of this series is how Calvinists use the various arguments to compel you down a specific line of thinking. Paul Dohse’s discussion on the redefinition of Biblical terms is fantastic because Calvinists manipulate definitions so that they can define an alternate reality. They presume the right to define words however they choose so that it fits whatever narrative they are after, and that narrative is always driving you towards your subordination to whatever their dictates are.

In part one of this series I discussed the Orthodoxy Happy Dance- their ability to take the definition of orthodoxy and make it mean as much or as little as they choose. Whatever the historical or intellectual pedigree happens to be, they reserve the right to pick and choose which parts serve their purpose. In the end, this makes orthodoxy a myth because it ends up having no objective definition.

Then we talked about how Calvinist use Universal Guilt, Dictated Good, and Incompetent Masses as intellectual standards to control how you interact with them. If you are incompetent then you are guilty, therefore they have the moral right to compel you to a given action.

But another problem is revealed the moment Calvinists encounter anybody with any ambition or anyone who refuses to suborn to the collective. Therefore, in order for them to maintain their control over you, they must force you to find your identity in the collective, which means you must be willing to abandon any personal ambition or notion of your individuality.

Collective Conformity is effectively “political correctness.” It is a powerful force in service to tyranny- when somebody decides that the definition of the collective, and failure to abide by the collective, can be met with some sort of social force. When you want select people to think you are good, when you crave their affirmation, when you play by their rules so that they might commend you as a worker of God, this is collective conformity.

But living for someone else’s affirmation means you cannot value your own moral and intellectual judgment. You are irreparably harming your critical powers. Thinking is your human responsibility. Despotism gets its energy from mentally weak mobs. Despots must oppress ideas because thy must render the human mind impotent. Mystic despotism thrives because people feel it more important to conform to the group than to think for themselves.

Here are some of the common arguments that people use to force you into social conformity. In general, these arguments are designed to imply that the individual is epistemologically and physiologically dangerous; that individuals are predators; that individuals are without real purpose; that individuals are selfish.

 

The “Lone Wolf” Argument
It is designed to conjure the image that wolves are effectively predators. Therefore if you are by yourself you are necessarily a predator. This is known as the “loaded question fallacy.” To defend the individual is to defend a harmful instinct. If I reject the notion that just because I am an individual that I am dangerous, I am immediately considered dangerous.

But more importantly, it is an argument that is not based in reality. The fact is, wolves are highly territorial pack animals. If you are a wolf, you are running in a pack. Wolves are governed by the “alpha” male and female, so wolves live in a hierarchical structure. If a wolf finds itself alone it is because it has been driven away by the pack because it is weak or diseased or infirm. Lone wolves are not dangerous peak predators, they are the ones driven out.

If you want a better analogy of a lone wolf, look at the preachers who used to be part of the Calvinist “in” crowd but suddenly find themselves on the outs after having run afoul of whatever the accepted behavior is as determined by the other “alpha” male preachers in that crowd. Or consider those who have had to resign their posts after being exposed for some sort of sexual indiscretion. Those are the lone wolves still trying to vie for a position back in the Calvinist collective.

The other problem this argument brings is that it presumes that a pack isn’t predatory; that if you are part of a group you won’t do predatory things. Wolves by definition are predators. They survive by preying on weaker animals and consuming them. They hunt in packs. Jesus rebuked the Jewish religious establishment by calling them “ravenous wolves”.   Jesus condemned the elites for being predatory. It was a group-think problem.

The fact is that mobs are far more dangerous than individuals are to civil society. That includes the mobs of pastors and elders at your local Calvinist church. Not only do they feed off of each other’s affirmation and feed off the benevolence of the laity, but the moment you decide that you don’t want to absorb whatever they say, suddenly they put you outside the pack, and yet somehow you are the predator. This is a fantastic inversion of reality.

 

The “No Man Is an Island” Argument
This is also known as the “Out There By Yourself” argument. It is designed to package self-sufficiency with subjectivism.   If you are subjectively driven, that must mean you are intellectually in error. This is designed to inspire you to believe that individuality is the same as isolation. Isolation implies immorality.

If you are isolated you have nothing to tell you that you are wrong. The implication is that the reason for individuality is to hide from a moral critique. You will see this accusation a lot. The thinking is that if you were part of a group, the group would be able to tell you what you are unwilling to hear. Somehow groups can’t be wrong because they borrow collective morality from among the individuals.

It also implies that individuality is a danger and a liability. You cannot know the truth because your mind is in isolation. Isolation is selfish. Your gifts and talents are not being used for other people. This is erroneous because it assumes that people are entitled to what you have and what you are.

The real disaster of this logic is that it eradicates personal boundaries. One of the reasons that people end up so exploited in church situations is because they are told they have no right to set a boundary on what other people can consume in their life. So what you end up with is no ability to say, “No, you are not allowed to do that to me. You are not allowed to take that from me.” And then you are not allowed to complain about the exploitation because, by definition, your existence is at the disposal of the collective.

 

“The Princess and the Pea” Argument
One day they preacher comes up to you and says he is concerned about you. And since his job is to speak hard things to you, he is going to tell you that you haven’t been to church in a while, and he is very concerned about your soul. The person who hears this sort of reluctantly acknowledges this and agrees that, no, it’s probably not a good thing that he hasn’t been in church as much as he should.

This person has just conceded the premise that his attendance at church had to do with comfort. If this is you then it is highly likely that, as you are trying to figure out how to pull yourself out of this local Calvinist juggernaut of destruction, you have very real intellectual disagreements. You have very specific reasons as to why you are no longer interested in being in attendance at this church. But you haven’t yet had the courage to get around to getting away from church because you’ve been so conditioned to being there.

So you go out and start shopping around to figure out if there is someplace else you would like to go; a place that is more agreeable to you. But by letting the preacher frame the conversation around your comfort you are basically saying that your reasons for not wanting to be here has nothing to do with rational objections.

What he is really saying is that your theological pedigree is related to your feelings. This is a fundamental problem. You are not having a “feeling” objection, you are having an intellectual objection, and he is trivializing your objection.

This is why I call this “The Princess and the Pea” argument. In the classic fairy tale by Hans Christian Anderson, the princess’ claim to authenticity was validated by her sensitivity to being able to feel a pea under twenty mattresses. What she “felt” was more important than any tangible qualities of a princess. Likewise, pastors will trivialize your motives for leaving by focusing on your heightened sensitivities rather than tangible intellectual reasons. Comfort = feelings = listening to doctrines that are pleasing.

Now that they have framed your objections in terms of “comfort” what they are really saying to you is that if you are leaving because you are uncomfortable, what they are telling you is that you are unwilling to hear the hard truth. This is the point where they trot out the passages of scripture about people gravitating towards other doctrines because of having “itching ears”. See, if you were a “true Christian” you would want to hear hard truths. You would embrace the uncomfortable. You would submit to what we have here because we will discuss your pervasive depravity.

You must push back on this assumption. You must not let them frame the argument in terms of feelings. You must let them know that the reason you are leaving is because you have rational intellectual disagreements with their orthodoxy. Any claim made about you not liking hard truth is really a strategy to appeal to your pride. It is designed to get you to justify yourself by declaring your willingness to suffer.

Hard truth = things that are painful.

Things that you don’t like elevates suffering to a virtue. They want you to concede that if you were really interested in growing spiritually, you would be willing to stay and listen to what they have to tell you. They want you to concede that truth is painful; that you shouldn’t get any benefit out of it. They want you to concede that individuals are weak because they don’t like pain. They want to equate rejection of pastors as rejection of truth. This is what you must resist at all costs!

 

The Cramped Little Lives Argument
The implication with this argument is that your individual life equals “small”; community life equals “big”. This is another example of the alternate reality they want you to accept. How many times have you heard somebody say that you should do something that is bigger than yourself? They want to imply that individual life is petty and collective life is significant. It presumes that importance comes from collective consciousness. Something is only important if lots of people want to do it. A failure to embrace the collective consciousness is a failure of your moral existence.

But the reality is exactly the opposite. Community life equals borrowed existence. Remember, Calvinist preachers have to borrow their authority, they have to borrow their righteousness, and they have to borrow somebody else’s mind. So any time they are in the business of telling you that you have to borrow the collective life to have significance, what they are really saying is you have to embrace somebody else’s vision to empower your life. That isn’t big, that’s small. If that is true of you, you just told me that you are vacant inside. It means you do not have the individual energy to go out and identify virtues and values and pursuits that are worthy of your existence.

 

The Gossip and Slander Quicksand
Most people know they want intellectual independence, but then they encounter one of these arguments, so they bounce back and forth trying to decide how much they conform to the group versus their own ambition. As long as they have conceded some level of their own incompetence and guilt, it is very hard to dig themselves out of this trap.

Some people start to “get it” at some point and genuinely push back against the arguments that seek to keep them part of the collective. This is where Calvinists begin to accuse you of gossip and slander. But remember, since they are in control of reality, they get to decide what constitutes gossip and slander. As long as they don’t like what you happen to say to somebody else, as far as they are concerned you are gossiping. Trying to get into a “Biblical” discussion about the actual definitions of gossip and slander is useless.

But Calvinists reprobates who call themselves preachers only want silence on the true things. They don’t want to talk about when they are actually committing evil. They don’t want anyone calling to account their moral virtue.

 

The “I Don’t Like Your Tone” Argument
There are a couple variations on this. “What you say might be true, but how you say it drives men away.” Or, “Humble people don’t talk that way.” “You are proud/arrogant!” These are all variations about tone. The premise is that they get to determine what is the right way to talk. It is an attempt to invalidate your argument because you have some perceived character flaw.

Understand this; when they start objecting to your tone, they have no other objection. It is their last gambit to authority. It sets up their judgment as the standard of correct discussion, and if you concede that your tone might have been wrong, you have just conceded their authority. If they are right about your tone then why aren’t they right about the subject of your objection? If you accept the premise, they can then dismiss or reject anything that does not fit their standards.

I will tell you the truth: you will chase your tail trying to become socially qualified. The moment you concede that someone else has the right to determine how you talk, you will end up in this endless cycle of trying to meet some standard of conversational etiquette that you can never accomplish because they will constantly change the standard to meet their own expectations. It is a powerful method of social control. They can eliminate any scrutiny by dictating qualifications.

 

The “You Are Bringing Harm to the Cause of Christ” Argument.
This is the implication that by being so visible in your disagreement with leadership that you will do irreparable damage to the church’s reputation. As a result, young people will want to have nothing to do with Christianity because of the strife and contention they see.

Every time I hear some variation of this argument, the more I realize how much the doctrines of determinism and pervasive depravity are really an intellectual fraud. If you are a Calvinist, is there any human agency in God’s salvific plan? The answer is clearly, no. It does not matter what your favorite Calvinist personality stands up and says. They are useless. Period.

That being said, does it matter what I say? Does it matter that I disagree with the pastor on a certain issue? No. No matter what you say or how you say it or the tone that you use, it is irrelevant if there is no human agency involved in salvation. According to Calvinism, if young people are going to hell, it is because God wants them to.

 

How then do you rebut your Calvinist tormentors?

  • Never debate scripture. There is no persuasion – only authority.
  • Never debate authority. You don’t have any, and they will never recognize it if you do.
  • Refuse to accept their moral judgment of you. If pervasive depravity is true, they don’t get to borrow morality in order to condemn you. By accepting their moral judgment you are framing the interaction that their judgment is the one to which you aspire.
  • Reverse the frame. The moment they lob a moral accusation against you, call them to account for their moral depravity. By their own admission, they are the ones who are evil, so call them on it.
  • Never apologize or equivocate on independent judgment.
  • Debate reality. Never let them get away with redefining reality.
  • Defend individuality.

Moral depravity is a central doctrine. They have no intellectual integrity when they claim any moral credit. I understand the struggle people have with this because Calvinists have done such a masterful job of claiming the moral high ground. But what I am telling you to do is to double-down on their own moral condemnation. Take the doctrine of depravity seriously, and remind them of it every time they talk. Say it out loud, “The only reason you say that is because you are evil.” Never let them pretend they have moral worth. They can make no vicarious claim to Jesus’ righteousness.

If you have an intellectual conclusion, don’t apologize. When they accuse you of being an individual and thinking for yourself, say, “Thank you.” “I’m glad you recognized that.” “I’m glad that your pervasive depravity allowed you to see truth for a moment.”

Any time they want to dance back into what “the Bible says,” stop them. You say, “No, that’s not what the scripture says. Your sin-corrupted evil mind projects into scripture.” As a free man, my judgment is effective.  I reject the absurd moral judgment that comes with the accusation that humans make mistakes. Human understanding is not measured by omniscience.

In America we are being led down a path where the rugged individualism that is implicit in the understanding of the U.S. Constitution is under full assault. We must become good at defending ourselves and the right to be ourselves and the right for others to be themselves.   Individualism is not a liability; it is a virtue!

…To be continued.


Click here for part one
Click here for part two
Click here for part four
Click here for part five

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: