Counseling the Unsaved
“Salvation is not a mere mental assent to the death and resurrection of Christ; it is joining Christ in that death and resurrection through the Holy Spirt.”
We live in a day of Christian impotency in regard to living that glorifies God. The glory of megachurches and dynamic multimedia presentations cannot cover for the fact that Christians have no answers for life’s toughest problems. This shouldn’t surprise us because our spiritual forefathers didn’t believe mankind possesses the faculties that comprehend reality itself. Martin Luther considered reason to be man’s foremost deception.
Few Christians understand our Protestant roots, and therefore are confused about its present-day rotten fruits. The assumption is that we still don’t have something right while the source is assumed impeccable. For purposes of this post, the introduction can be boiled down to this: for 500 years, Protestantism has emphasized salvation and not Christian living because Protestantism views salvation as a process, not a finished work. Hence, the goal is to be able to “stand in the judgment” rather than a focus on Christian living, and frankly, Christian loving. For the most part, the laity doesn’t even understand how most Protestant pastors process reality itself.
Christian living is uncharted territory. Don’t be deceived by all the literature proffering a Christian living that is sanctification by justification. Christian living that is salvation in process is a fundamental principle of Protestant thought.
Regardless, the answer is to get busy and reverse the trend. Let’s not worry too much about what we don’t know in regard to Christian living which is not much, but let’s start somewhere and continue to learn. So, if an unsaved person unwittingly comes to us for help, how should that person be guided?
If that person wants to change, they have come to the right place because our wisdom should come from the One who created us. He who created us knows how to fix us. However, keep in mind that the vast majority of Protestant counselors don’t believe that people can be fixed whether they are Christians or not. The use of the word “change” among Protestant counselors is outright deception; Protestant ideology does not endorse people-change in the literal sense. “Change” is really “heart change” which is a mere capacity to SEE reality differently for the purpose of wellbeing, not well-doing that glorifies God. For an example of that, watch this clip very carefully and think about what this “Christian” bestselling author is really saying.
Hence, Protestants point to “saints” in perfect peace as the goal while their own lives and the world around them are burning down, but is that peace from God, or their Gnostic worldview?
So be encouraged; if someone comes to you—you don’t know much, but you at least believe people can change. Now to the subject at hand: how should we counsel an unsaved person?
A good start is to tell the unsaved person that God’s wisdom can change his/her life for the better. In fact, many secular organizations use many wise principles that help people change for the better, and these principles are common to all people because of how creation is wired. But we offer something more: forgiveness in Jesus Christ (Aside: “Christ” is a term for “Messiah”).
You see, a person can stop doing a sin, but unfortunately, they are still accountable for the sin. The fact that they stopped doing it will improve their present life, but they will still be condemned for the act committed. The Bible states this to be the fact because they are still “under law.” The law keeps a record of every violation against it and God will condemn according to those violations accordingly. It is not true that an unsaved person cannot change, they most certainly can, but they are still under condemnation.
Jesus Christ died to end the law. If they believe in Christ, they not only have temporary change for the better, they have forgiveness for every sin they ever committed. What about really, really bad sins? Is the really bad sin in the law? Then it’s taken away. Is it not in the law? Where there is no law there is no sin. What about future sin? Where there is no law there is no sin.
So, if they believe in Christ, they can sin unabated without condemnation? No, because Christ was also resurrected by the Holy Spirit. They are not only believing in Christ’s death, they are believing the old them that was under law also dies with Christ, and is also resurrected with Christ in the “new way of the Spirit.” Instead of temporary change, they can have real change: the old self dies and is resurrected into a new person; now that’s change! Salvation is not a mere mental assent to the death and resurrection of Christ; it is joining Christ in that death and resurrection through the Holy Spirt.
What is the “new way of the Spirit”? Simply stated, the law that formerly condemned the person they were is now the guide to love God and others. In addition, fear of death is not necessary because fear of death has to do with judgment under the law when it formerly condemned us. Sin also uses the condemnation of the law to enslave people because it cannot be used to please God by those who are under its condemnation.
Said another way; we are offering eternal life rather than a more comfortable condemnation. But also, life more abundant in the here and now.
What about future change for the glory of God? Well, you have now gained a brother or sister—that’s a journey that you will now take together. You are now two counselees sharing the mutual experience of God’s instruction and leading by the Holy Spirt who has sealed us until the day of redemption. We know Him because he will never leave us or forsake us. Neither of you know much, but you will learn it to together for the glory of God.
And salvation is not a process, growing in love is a process, and there is no fear in love. Salvation is a settled issue, and Protestantism is not salvation.
paul
Taking Back the Bible from Christian Academia: Confident Study of the Scriptures, Part 2
Originally published October 1, 2013
Let us now look at some basic principles for learning. Although the Bible is full of mysteries, allegory, and parables (but mostly objective truth), these are all for the purpose of teaching you something. God is not a God of confusion. Those mysteries belong to us:
1Corinthians 3:19 – For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” 20 and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” 21 So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
And….
Luke 10:21 – In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 22 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” 23 Then turning to the disciples he said privately, “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! 24 For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.”
Again, this was turnabout. Instead of the elitists controlling the wisdom, God was delivering it directly to the people and keeping it from the “wise” which is most often used by the Bible authors pejoratively.
The primary problem at Corinth was dependence on world philosophy. And frankly, that’s exactly what’s wrong with the church today. Commentary on the Bible is immeasurable. Again, the industry that interprets our Bibles for us is a multi-billion dollar business. This isn’t how the biblical teachers taught. The citations of outside sources to make specific points to be applied to life are completely non-existent in the Bible. The Bible doesn’t borrow any wisdom from the world at all. In a few places, it’s used for examples of bad behavior and false teachings, but the Bible is its own source for any positive truth or revelation. Christ and the apostles only cited other Biblical authors. All books of the Old Testament are cited except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. Christ quoted from twenty-four Old Testament books.
So, know that the Bible is written to you, know that you can understand it, know that you are responsible to properly understand it and teach it to others (MATT 5:19 ff.), and interpret the Bible with the Bible. The Bible has 42 authors; their writings should be your commentaries. That’s 42 commentaries which is plenty of commentary for any library. The biblical writers make their points via other Bible authors exclusively. To be honest with you, I got rid of all my Bible commentaries. The only one I have left is MacArthur’s Bible commentary and I only kept it because of its extensive cross-referencing. I put little stock in MacArthur’s opinions as he is no longer trustworthy and has become a follower of men. But again, I find his extensive cross-referencing useful.
As far as interpretation by the commentaries of other Bible authors, you can find online resources that list Old Testament quotes in the New Testament. When a New Testament writer cites an Old Testament text, you can then read those passages in order to gain understanding in regard to the point that the New Testament writer was making.
Remember these basic principles as well: application to life (obedience) leads to more understanding, and remember that God communicates in a straightforward manner and doesn’t want confusion, but rather edification (1COR 14). God’s goal is edification. His people die for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6). Also pay close attention to what’s being stated. The Holy Spirit is not like us who often write things with a goal for volume rather than substance. Remember those literature assignments in school that had to be 3000 words? That’s not how the Holy Spirit writes. Every word of God is for life (Matt 4:4), and ALL Scripture is profitable for equipping (2TIM 3:16,17). Be patient as learning wisdom for life from the Scriptures is a lifelong endeavor. Do not be too concerned with what you don’t understand for now, it will come with time and diligent study. Seeds of future understanding are being planted in your mind and God’s word will not return void.
Therefore, when you read or study your Bible, look for the plain sense of the text. If you decide to study a particular book or epistle, read through it a couple of times thoughtfully and make note of what it is plainly stating. Then make note of other Scriptures cited by the author and read those as well; they are commentaries on what you are reading. Paul cites the Old Testament about 41 times in the book of Romans. Those passages should be read as commentaries and for further clarification.
Before we move on let me note that one of the most powerful tools for understanding is daily Bible reading. An overall flavor of biblical content is extremely important and probably efficacious for discernment. If you don’t do anything else, partake in daily Bible reading.
Parabiblical information is an aid. However, Susan and I have gleaned things from the book of Romans that we have never been taught before and are life transforming; this happened without any research in regard to historical background or customs of that time in Rome. Our study of Romans has included little information apart from the book itself. But if you do use parabiblical aids this is key: as far as historical background, customs, or philosophies that might be alluded to in the particular text that you are studying, use secular sources that don’t have theological axes to grind. This assures that the source isn’t seeing something in the history that they want to see.
For topical study, do not, I repeat, do not buy a Christian book on the subject. More than likely it will be eisegetical rather than exegetical. Get a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and look up the key words and read all of the verses for yourself in context. I would also recommend Naves Topical Bible which will list Scriptures that address the subject you want to study. Buying a Christian book on the subject gets back to others thinking for us. How telling that this ministry continues to hear complaints that Sunday schools and Bible studies are usually conducted from recently published books that are the present-day Reformed rage.
Now let’s look at the all-important issue of translations. The Old Testament is pretty straight forward as it was overseen by the Jews. The New Testament has been attended to with far less anti-eisegesis. Nevertheless the multitudes of different translations and TYPES of translations offer an awesome resource for us. If there is any commentary worth more than the Bible authors (and there is not), it is the translations. New Testament translations offer the opinions of hundreds of Greek scholars. Some translations are literal word by best English word translations (literal translations; ie., the KJV). Other translations, known as paraphrases, attempt to show the ideas or intent behind the Greek words. You can look at all of the varying opinions, and determine which ones fit the context and what other Bible texts teach about the same issue or subject.
Then there are the expanded translations by Greek scholars. These are very interesting. These expand Bible sentences to reflect the Greek moods and tenses in the best and most accurate English words. An example of this would be Kenneth S. Wuest’s expanded translation of the New Testament.
Now let’s discuss the manuscripts that these translations come from. The original writings are gone; eg., the actual letter that the Romans held in their hands or the early copies thereof. Translations are taken from manuscripts which are composed of ancient fragments. These fragments may be actual copies of the original and also based on ancient commentaries that rehearse Bible verses such as the writings of the early church fathers. Most English translations come from either the Received Text or the Critical Text. These are manuscripts based on differing sources of fragments and other ancient texts. And there is a difference. The Critical Text has 2,886 fewer words than the Received Text, and calls into question the validity of 41 verses found in it. In other words, some translations exclude words and in some cases entire verses that are in dispute. Sources that document these differences can be found, once again, ONLINE!
Another problem with the New Testament as far as English translations are concerned is that most of our English translations came from the Reformers. In fact, Chapters and verses were first used in the Geneva Bible which was a Calvinist study Bible. It’s the Bible that arrived in America on the Mayflower, and in the true spirit of the Reformation, it was the law in Scotland that every household of means was required to purchase one. Progressive Justification was the doctrine/gospel of the Reformation, and bias towards that doctrine permeates the English translations, particularly in regard to tenses. Clearly, in the aforementioned manuscript texts mentioned, there is a difference in many verses between salvation as past and present continuous.
In regard to these discrepancies, it is up to us to study in order to show ourselves approved. God doesn’t do it all for us. He superintended the transmission of the Bible while allowing freewill. And by the way, the Bible documents its own transmission (There are books that document the historical transmission of the Bible as well). Did you know that? In my own daily Bible reading I see references to this in many different ways, which brings me to another learning tip and the significance of daily Bible reading: that would be the BIBLE NOTEBOOK. This is some form of the Bible in a notebook with tabulated sections. Sections can be divided into subjects of interest, and as you see references in your daily Bible reading, you compile those references in the appropriate section. One can also use the same process to document Reformed aberrations that favor the false gospel of progressive justification which is perpetual resalvation and perseverance by faith alone in sanctification. These discrepancies are going to be found primarily in the ESV, but are also prevalent in many other translations.
This brings me to yet another tip regarding Bible Study software: you can jettison the catalogue process by using Bible study software that will do comprehensive word searches in all translations. Let’s say that transmission of the Bible is your interest. You can search key words like, “word,” “book,” “write,” etc., and then read those verses in context.
(As an aside, a basic observation in the category of transmission that can be made is that words can be written down by many different means on many different materials and are difficult to control unlike electronic data).
Lastly, because of the internet, you can also research lesser known translations such as the Aramaic/Hebrew New Testament. The argument here is that Greek was a vehicle, but not the vernacular of the people who wrote the New Testament. In other words, the Greek may not properly transmit the Hebrew mindset and what they meant by certain phrases etc. This brings us to the importance of systematic theology.
All of these considerations must work together with the fact that the Scriptures are written systematically. There is a method; doctrines, covenants, etc. make this clear. Obviously, it is more than fair to say that the tabernacle was a systematic theology. Creation was done systematically. Ever heard of the “Solar System”? We see a system in the book of Revelation: seals, trumpets, woes, methods, documents, timelines, and specific places. God is a God of order. This is the importance of systematic theology and its elements: justification; sanctification; imputation; Christology; Pneumatology; anthropology; hamartiology; soteriology; ecclesiology; angelology; eschatology; etc. The fact that systematic theology is not taught in the churches is scandalous and indicative of Protestant control mania.
There are many considerations and schools that make a complete picture of truth. A word in a translation that in some way contradicts sound soteriology must be suspect and investigated. I recommend Cambron’s Bible Doctrines: Beliefs That Matter and Barackman’s first edition of Practical Christian Theology. Avoid the other three additions as he gravitated toward radical aspects of Reformed theology after the first addition. Obviously, John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion is a systematic theology and has been greatly expanded upon for contemporary use by Michael Horton’s The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way. This systematic theology will determine the interpretive outcomes of a whole generation of pastors.
The next point is eschatology as part of this vast biblical system. The study of last things is critical to showing how the Bible all fits together, especially in regard to soteriology. Old Testament and New Testament eschatology fits together for the making of one picture showing how covenants fit together with God’s plan of salvation. A lack of emphasis on eschatology has had a catastrophic effect on the church. To minimize eschatology is to deprive God’s people of hope, and a wealth of spiritual information. For one, consider that J. Barton Payne’s Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy catalogues 737 prophecies that are either fulfilled or reiterated in the other texts by different authors writing hundreds of years apart. As we have observed here at The Potters House, eschatology also fits the plan of salvation in regard to judgments and resurrections as one would expect to be the case. Eschatology is vital for a proper understanding of the Scriptures. In regard to pastors who deemphasize eschatology, mark them and flee from them.
In regard to the question of the best Bible study software, you can consider software that has the elements we have discussed in this study. However, I would recommend Olive Tree online software, and it is very inexpensive. It has the most important feature, a word search engine. It will do a comprehensive English word search, but it will also do a Greek word search. This enables you to see how a Greek word is used in other passages—this is very telling in regard to the original intent behind the word. Also, if you do an English word search for a certain word in both the New Testament and Old Testament, you can see what the Hebrew counterpart is to the Greek and vice versa. You can get many different translations, and if you hover over any word with your mouse, the Greek or Hebrew word will appear with its definition. If a definition is not available, it’s an English filler for the purpose of flow and readability.
And don’t forget Google. Google is an extremely powerful search engine. It is also virtual world knowledge connected to virtual mind. What do I mean by that? If you want to recall something you read in the Bible several years ago but you don’t remember where it is in the Bible or even the exact wording, all you have to do is Google the fragment or the idea and a link to an article about it will appear. A wealth of information regarding any subject can be called up in seconds. And thoughts such as, “I wonder if the Bible talks about that?” can be answered in seconds. Merely Google the thought and a vast amount of information will appear. I am convinced that the final form of the final kingdom that will rule the Earth in the last days has feet of iron mixed with clay because of the Information Age. Tyranny is only effective to the degree that it can control information. This is why our founding fathers were pro education and information. This is why they proliferated information of all kinds with aggressive intentionality.
The dumbing down of America is no accident—it is the road to tyranny. The dumbing down of the Protestant church is no accident—it has always been predicated on tyranny and always will be unless Christians take back our Bible.
paul
What is the Race of Faith? Justification or Sanctification? Or Both? A Biblical Evaluation: Introduction
“Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.”
~1Corinthians 9:24
One can focus on all of the white noise of denominationalism, but most either proclaim or unwittingly function according to the idea that salvation is a process instead of an instantaneous and complete transformation. In fact, any example to the contrary is nowhere to be found among religious institutions. The institutional church, or simply “Church,” is founded on the idea that salvation is a process; it has a beginning and an end.
If salvation is a process with a beginning and an end, the Christian life must be treated as a salvation process. Hence, you are saved by salvation, you continue to be saved by salvation, and there is a final salvation. Therefore, the Christian life isn’t so much about holy living, but salvation. Who will deny the salvation centrality of the church since the Reformation? “Make[ing] disciples” (Matt 28:19) is understood as learning more and more about salvation, not Christian living. After all, salvation is still in process. We hear it constantly: “Sanctification is the growing part of salvation.” Does salvation grow?
If a different direction is to be taken in order to please the Holy Spirit resulting in His unleashing of heavenly power, it must be started outside of the church because the church is not going to give up on a 500-year tradition. Said another way: the church is not going to admit it has been wrong for 500 years. If the case is made here, nothing can be done about it within the church.
The theses of this series is fairly basic: salvation is a gift, but there are rewards for Christian living. A gift is not a reward because a reward is earned. Because the focus of the church (this includes all stripes of Catholicism and Protestantism) has been salvation, and salvation is a process, the race of faith is the process. God began the process, and we are involved in the process which is a race ending in the reward of final salvation.
Be sure of this: ALL church denominations represent differing beliefs on the proper way to run the race and thereby receive the reward of salvation. And granted, there are many Scripture texts that seem to say just that, but it is the contention of this series that those texts seem to say that due to the church’s narrow salvation-centered approach to the Bible. The aversion to a studied theology among the laity is therefore prevalent. It is a tradition and way of life. No person should become incredulous at the suggestion that theology is even disdained among the laity. Reason is nothing more than demonic musings, and blind faith pure as the wind-driven snow.
But what are the consequences? Is there danger in seeing salvation as a reward? Or is the danger in the freedom of once saved always saved (OSAS)? Is there some kind of guardrail that keeps Christians from wanton libertinism that is both gift and reward, or is the confusion due to the omittance of theological training among the church’s laity?
This series will approach these questions from the viewpoint of Scriptures that call for perseverance. These same texts are used by many to make the case for perseverance in salvation for the purpose of receiving the reward of final salvation.
One such biblical text is 1John 1:7-9. That is where we will start in part one.
A Lesson in Thinking for Church People Using Super Bowl 49
I am old enough to know that standing by your personal convictions will never yield more friends. This is a solid and reliable principle that will serve you well if you live by it. This principle has even worked very well for me in the realm of Christianity which offers the most formidable test for such a notion. This is because no other people group is comprised of a larger percentage of lazy thinkers who believe reason is some sort of works salvation.
And after Super Bowl 49 ended Sunday night, things were looking a lot like church. At the end of the game, the Seattle Seahawks, who have the best running back in the NFL (Marshawn Lynch), had the ball on the Patriots’ one-yard line with 26 seconds left on the clock and one timeout. As most know by now, Pete Carroll called a short pass play that was intercepted by undrafted rookie Malcolm Butler.
I Googled and Googled and Googled and could not find one advocate for the Carroll play call. While some stopped short of aping the consensus; i.e., “the worst play call in NFL history,” the assertion that it was actually a good call is nowhere to be found.
This always makes a thinker suspicious unless they are in church. Whatever is the consensus in church is usually wrong if not damning, so it’s really confirmation more than suspicion, but when a situation is immediately obvious to everyone in the secular realm, individual integrity should still be maintained. Often, everybody but the thinkers are doing it.
What are some basic principles of independent thinking? We have already mentioned one: stand by your convictions and let the chips fall where they may. In other words, don’t be ashamed of what you believe to be true. Majority rarely sides with truth. Secondly, evaluate the opinion/position by thinking about the words that make up what is being said. Before you agree/disagree with what’s being said, do you really understand what’s being said? Thirdly, does history support the position? This is just good old fashioned, grammatical historical interpretation that works in church or out of church.
Hence, let us consider: “One yard, and you don’t give the ball to the best running back in the league?!!” “There is doubt that the guy known as ‘beast mode’ wouldn’t gain a yard?!!” “Instead of beast mode, Carroll went least mode.”
Shockingly, this was virtually asserted by many former hall of fame players and the top sports commentators. Why is that shocking? Because when the ball is on the one-yard line, that’s the line of scrimmage and NOT the length of ground Lynch would have had to cover to make it into the end zone. As you can see from the picture below of the actual beginning of the play, Lynch needed to cover about six yards in the midst of a brawl of 300-plus-pound linemen.
But regardless, note the following placard and think…”But, it was NOT just one yard!”
And it’s far from being a sure thing anyway. In Super Bowl 16, the 49ers stopped the Bengals who had the ball on the one-yard line. They stuffed running back Pete Johnson, a human bowling ball, on the line of scrimmage. Johnson had a reputation for running directly at defenders and mowing them down. In addition, the Bengals also had the greatest offensive guard to ever play the game, Anthony Munoz. Johnson and Munoz from the one—a sure thing, right? Wrong, because when the line of scrimmage is the one, what you have is a six-yard war zone where anything can happen.
Granted, Lynch had averaged more than four yards per carry during the game (which is really about ten yards of ground covered), but that is not the same as red zone goal line running. In open field play, the offence is far less predictable because of the length of field in front of them. So, what is Lynch’s goal line running history? It’s abysmal. The following statistics are from sports writer Eric Goldschein:
On the other hand, there are also statistics for Lynch’s success from that distance all season, and they’re not pretty: He went a mere one of five from the one this year, succeeding only against the Giants (in three attempts). Whether teams know they’ll have to stop the run when Lynch gets in that close, or the offensive line simply isn’t as good up front when the box is stacked, Lynch is generally unsuccessful in the red zone unless there’s some ambiguity about the play call (he was 6 of 15 from the five).
Undoubtedly, these statistics weighed in on Carroll’s decision. If Lynch got stopped on the first try, Seattle is still on the one-yard line or farther with about 10-15 seconds left on the clock and no timeouts. That’s a bad situation. That leaves one do-or-die play.
Instead, according to Carroll, if the pass play didn’t work, they could have run at least two more plays including a running play because they still would have had a timeout left. Not only that, as you can see from the picture below, the play should have been an easy touchdown.
The fact is, the right call was made, but Butler executed a stellar defensive play on the ball. Butler had done his homework, recognized the formation, and did what is known as “jumping the route.”
I will close with a fourth principle: the thinker’s curse. Knowing that the call was actually the right call, you will have to endure constant rhetoric about “the dumbest call in NFL history,” and worse yet, from people who should know better. Regardless, never back down from being a thinker.
Is Pete Carroll a thinker? I am not sure, but he has a thinker’s attribute, viz, leadership. Ironically, in the national TV broadcast of the game, former Bengals wide receiver Chris Collinsworth who played in the aforementioned Super Bowl 16 also fustigated the call. Collinsworth (who apparently has some memory issues) argued that if Lynch could be stopped from the…here we go again, one yard-line, then so be it. In other words, Carroll could have insulated himself from criticism by calling a more conservative play. If they lost, no one would blame him.
But that’s not what a leader does. A leader makes the best call because it’s the best call. He/she does not make decisions based on Facebook friends list repercussions.
A thinker thinks and stands by their convictions formed by the thinking, and they define themselves by those convictions and let the chips fall where they may. And the results will ALWAYS be the same….
Their friends list will be grounded in quality, not quantity.
paul
Taking Back the Bible from Christian Academia: Confident Study of the Scriptures, Part 1
Originally published October 1, 2013
The Apostolic Church’s greatest nemesis was Gnosticism. An understanding of how Greek philosophy influenced the landscape of that day is critical to understanding what was behind many things written by the Apostles and Christ. Greek philosophy was the driving force behind Gnosticism, and it was predicated on an elitist academia who were supposedly the gatekeepers of truth and wisdom. Supposedly, these were the enlightened minority who should necessarily lead or rule over the unenlightened masses. They were, and still are responsible for repackaging the “deep” things of God so that the unenlightened masses can use it in some way to cope with life. In religious circles we call this, “orthodoxy.” In secular circles we call this, “Psychology.” Those who cope rather than overcome are always the shadows of orthodoxy.
Enlightenment was a pedigree that you were born into; predetermined by the universe, gods, or God Himself. Hence, formal schools were mostly populated by the affluent to prepare them to lead or rule over the unenlightened masses. It’s very little different today as most pastors are graduates from universities that the majority of people can’t afford. Ability to obtain a degree from a noted seminary is part and parcel with being qualified to be a pastor (even if you are a pedophile). Pastoral search committees immediately toss resumes that are anything less than a Master’s degree. Lay pastors are seen as a lower class of leaders and are paid accordingly. They are seen as necessary for churches who can’t afford the “real deal.” This whole tradition, at least in Western culture, began with Plato’s Academy. The Academy is really the foundation that all seminaries are built on. They follow the secular pattern of Western culture.
This was the elitist atmosphere in Judea when Christ showed up. God’s people were sheep without shepherds and living on a heavy/steady diet of orthodoxy. Jesus called it “the traditions of men.” Jesus came and circumvented the whole elitist construct which often invoked, “By what authority do you teach these things?” Christ never contacted or checked in with the formal academia of that time; they had to come to Him as Nicodemus did in the darkness of night. He was “the teacher of Israel” which probably means he was among the most prominent. It is also interesting to note that his name means “power over the people” which is the same idea as the Nicolaitan movement of that day which was primarily a Gnostic movement. That name means “power over the laity.”
Jesus took God’s truth directly to the people. He cut out the middleman, so to speak. This was revolutionary. This is EXACTLY what the apostle John was addressing in 1John when he wrote “you have no need for anyone to teach you.” He wasn’t excluding the need for teachers, he was excluding orthodoxy. He was excluding a dumbed-down version of “God’s truth” by the elite for the consumption of the supposedly unenlightened masses. And that is exactly what John was contending against. 1John refutes several teachings that were Gnostic ideas permeating the church in that day. Christ mentions the Nicolaitans specifically in His seven letters to the churches. Historically, they were known to be of the Gnostic school of thought.
Furthermore, the Bible always addresses God’s people as a whole and not the leadership specifically. The New Testament epistles always address the whole congregation. This is very telling. The Bereans searched the Scriptures themselves to verify the teachings of the apostle Paul and were called “honorable” for doing so. This is very telling as well.
Christ’s methods of teaching and approach had built-in opposition to the whole elitist caste system. He himself was not formally educated; the foundation of His assembly was built with men who were uneducated—they were the blue collar working class of that society. In the same way the elitists taught mysteries that the common people could not understand, He taught mysteries and parables to the common people that the elitists could not understand. More than likely the apostle Paul delighted in saying, “Behold, I show you a mystery.” That was turnabout play, mysteries were not revealed to the common people in that day.
Christian media and education is a multi-billion dollar business. History has never seen a country like America endowed with the same gargantuan Christian education system. Yet, Christians in this country are woefully dumbed-down and propagandized with European traditions and superstition. Our seminaries merely parrot European orthodoxy and their penchant for dumbed-down congregants. Yet, Europe’s history and societal woes in no way recommends itself for an example to follow. Those who know European history are dumbfounded that the Reformers and Puritans could be posed as religious heroes. American Protestantism is basically the European model that has never embraced the priesthood of believers.
This tradition translates into Christians consuming a mass of “Christian” information via published books, novels, movies, Christian radio, the internet, and TV/cable programs. Christians do not read and study the Bible for themselves. If they did, Christian media would not be a multi-billion dollar business. Instead of the Information Age and its tools being used to show ourselves approved, we use it to saturate our minds with the opinions of others. This is orthodoxy on steroids. It makes Paul’s “ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth” the understatement of the ages. This point can be solidified by the mere observation that the Information Age has not put seminaries out of business. Why? Because Christian academia is not a teacher—it’s an authority.
This is a segue for getting to my first point. The Bible must be returned to its proper place as the only authority in the church. We must obey God rather than man. The idea that making a book the authority in some way demeans God’s splendor is a metaphysical sleight of hand. To use the idea that God should not be minimized to the exegesis of a book is to praise God for being so awesome that we cannot really know anything about Him. “He’s not a precept, He’s a person,” etc., add nausea. Worship becomes a celebration of subjectivity as a way to praise God. God was way ahead of this little game:
Psalm 138:2 – I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name (KVJ).
Apparently, the concept of praising God’s glory above anything earthy like mere words written on a page annoyed Christ to some degree:
Luke 11:27 – As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
While God reminds us that indeed His thoughts are above our thoughts, He insists that we not lean on our own understanding; hence, we may assume we can understand the alternative. We are clearly responsible before God for objective truth, and no one will give an account for our own lives but us. Listen to whom you will, but you are personally responsible for what you believe. Does a book seem a little earthy and unspiritual to you? Well, they are present at the White Throne Judgment, and judgment will be rendered according to what is “written in the books.” In the book of Revelation we see that Christ instructed John to “write” what he saw. We also read Christ’s warning to not add or take away any words from the book.
That’s where confident Bible study begins. We must trust it as God’s sole authority. But why a book? The answer is so easy that we readily miss it. God created reality as we now know it, and that reality is interpreted through words. To comprehend any present reality, it must be described by words. God spoke the world into existence with words. We know light as light because He defined it by the word “light.” God instructed Adam to name the animals with words. Animals can only be defined by such names. If we see an animal that we are completely unfamiliar with, we ask, “What is it?” Words describe general reality and particular reality. One may also ask, “What kind of animal is that?” Words interpret reality. God’s Law is interpreted by words; so, it stands to reason that His enemies will want to interpret truth/reality in some other way. This is where philosophy can lead us to more understanding or death. We must remember that words mean things.
The points so far can be argued from Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount. The audience was the spiritual peasantry of the day. Yet, the hermeneutic for that sermon can be found in the following:
Matthew 5:1 – Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. 2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
He “taught” them. As my Grandmother might have said, They got a learnin’. That means they had everything they needed to understand what Jesus wanted them to know. The sermon is to be taken on face value. The words mean what they mean. This audience is NOT the spiritual elite of that day. Jesus ends the sermon by saying the application of those words to life will result in said life being built on a sturdy foundation. The sermon sought to change their lives. It taught them how to think, how to worship, how to pray, and how to act. At the end, they were astonished that he taught these things without the authority of men.
This is first and foremost: to know that God’s word is to us, that it is our sole authority, that we are solely responsible to know it and obey it, and next, that God has sustained its original intent and meaning.
Perhaps one reason Christians do not read their Bibles very much is because we have been taught that we can’t really understand it. Many Reformed churches teach their parishioners that Bible reading merely flavors or prepares their hearts for what they must learn from the elders:
You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul (Dr. Devon Berry: Clearcreek Chapel .org archives; How to Listen to a Sermon)….
The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word. The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching. So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will (Ibid.)
Such a statement is indicative of Reformed thought and should raise the ire of a child. Yet, American Christians are so dumbed-down that they listen to such without even blinking.
Therefore, few Christian fathers in America think they are qualified to teach their family the Bible. Oddly, this is not the sentiment in faiths like Islam and many cults. Is their growth, as opposed to the decline of Christianity, due to the offering of something objective? Tragically, many married couples that have been Christians for years seek counsel for what they should already know. Often, this counseling makes the situation worse because it comes from those who didn’t teach them the full counsel of God to begin with. Few parishioners are aware of their pastor’s epistemology. There is no concern for how their elders approach God’s word because the pastor himself is the authority. That’s the problem.
Moreover, we must be confident that God has sustained the Bible’s intent and meaning. Christ’s very mandate to the church was the following: go to all nations with the authority of His word and teach everyone to observe it and keep it. It may then be assumed that He has superintended the Bible and its canonicity. Yet, God involves us in the process. He has promised us that the truth will be available for those who seek it, but we must study to show ourselves approved. That study involves hard labor in all areas of epistemology. We must insist that God has made objective truth available to man for its primary purpose: “everything we need for life and godliness.” It may not tell you how to fix cars, but it will certainly teach you how to be an auto mechanic who pleases God.
This may entail a strong endeavor to gain knowledge of the skill apart from the Bible in order to fulfill the biblical mandate. I think you get the message; God gave us an extraordinary instrument known as a “brain.” We are to use it, not download the thoughts of others with a mindless flash drive. You will be held responsible for the actions that the downloaded information produces. You are responsible, not the source who fed you the information. Christians need to start reading the ingredient labels on the cans. You are to work out your OWN salvation with trembling and fear. Each person will be judged according to their OWN work. Being judged by our works is synonymous with being judged by what we choose to believe. We best not let others make that choice for us. To do so is to let others determine our eternal destiny. Perhaps there is not a greater measure of insanity; seeking for others to think for you. They will not stand in for you before God, why in the world would you let them think for you?
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment