Nye/Ham Debate Indicative of Christian Cluelessness
Even as I write this, creationist Ken Ham is debating Bill Nye the Science Guy. In fact, we have the debate playing live at the Potter’s House and some who dwell here are watching.
I watched some of the debate and found it most interesting, but yet the huge conundrum looms. If the TANC research institute doesn’t know anything else, we at least know this: Christians don’t understand the basics of soteriology, but yet pounce on these creationist frays like a pride after the kill.
Said another way, they don’t even understand the gospel, but are hell-bent on proving God created the Earth in six days. Ken Ham is right, evolution is a contra gospel, but we don’t even understand our own gospel. Moreover, Christians will fixate on Ham’s scientific lectures with bated breath while demanding milk and cookies in regard to theology and preaching.
This is by design; this is, in fact, Protestant indoctrination. The heroes of our faith were Platonists that rejected all truth by empirical study. Martin Luther believed that the key to spiritual wellbeing is to see all of creation as a gospel narrative for the purpose of revealing our vileness in a deeper and deeper way. Creation and life is a gospel narrative that aids the Christian in self-death. Luther’s primary problem with the Jews was the following: their tradition of emphasis on individual study and reason. Luther stated that reason is an ugly whore who should have dung rubbed in her face to make her ugly. John Calvin and Luther both attributed the idea that the Earth is round to demonic deception. The colonial Calvinist Puritans followed suit by attributing the scientific discoveries of Benjamin Franklin to demonic activity.
Over the centuries Protestants have let their hair down a little and dichotomized knowledge according to the material and spiritual. There is worldly knowledge which has some present practical benefit, but spiritual knowledge must be brought to us by those with special gifts preordained by God. Christians therefore demand truisms to live by and are offended when a teacher insinuates that they can understand the deep things of God. In contrast, the deep science of creationism gives them toys to play with in the sandbox of life. We are experts in creationism, but our lives are no different from that of the world. How unpowered are we? The badge of honor among Christian mothers in our day is their imperfection. The indwelling Holy Spirit can’t enable them to keep a clean and orderly house, but He can save your soul—really, He can, don’t you believe us?
And one should be careful that the argument really isn’t over the mere mechanics of the narrative. On the one hand, yes, God created the Earth in six solar days, but on the other hand, the creation shows forth God’s glory and our wickedness. The story should be interpreted literally in regard to science, but redemptively in regard to reality. God really did create the Earth in six days, but the ONLY reason He did that is to show our wickedness as set against His holiness.
Hence, Christians clamor about to be well studied in the mechanics of the narrative, but don’t know the theological difference between grammatical interpretation and redemptive interpretation. The former assumes that the Bible serves a wide spectrum of purposes for the Christian, especially as wisdom to live a holy life—the latter assumes we can’t live a holy life and the Bible only serves to show us our wickedness in a deeper and deeper way. Every verse is about our sinfulness as set against the holiness of God. That’s the difference between grammatical interpretation and redemptive interpretation.
Most Christians are oblivious to this issue that concerns the very interpretation of reality itself, but they can give you all of the arguments for why the story of Noah’s ark should be read literally in regard to the narrative. But in regard to being confronted about how to apply the Bible to life, a blank stare ensues followed by the muttering of, “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus” or, “We will pray for you” or, “Go to the pastor for a gospel pill.”
And in fact, Ken Ham hobnobs with redemptive interpretists all the time. Most notably, Christian mystic Chad Bresson who has written articles for Ham’s Creation Museum magazine. Bresson is one of the founders of the Earth Stove Society, a New Covenant Theology think tank. The first tenant of NCT according to the ESS is that ALL reality is interpreted through the cross. Ham published an article by Bresson positing the idea that even green grass should have a Christocentric meaning. Any other significant conclusions about green grass are just shadows that obscure the full glory of the Sun (Son).
Let me conclude with this point: job-one is having a firm grip on what the gospel is. Protestant academics will not stand before Christ in your stead—stop acting like that is the case.
paul
Home Churches, the Institutional Church, and the Kingdom of Heaven
Church history reflects a glaring conflict between home assemblies and institutional religion. The early church met in homes and the Jewish temple at Jerusalem. This was a continuation of the home synagogues that existed prior to Peter’s sermon at Pentecost. However, though they met in several homes and the temple, they knew the temple would be destroyed according to Christ’s prediction.
We have all heard of the spiritual romanticism associated with home churches in countries like Russia and China. Also known as the underground church, by all indications they are flourishing assemblies. Their home fellowship model is by necessity, but it begs the question: does the home church model foster healthy discipleship while the institutional church strangles the former? Church history shows clearly that this is the case. Powerful movements that yield many converts have always started as home fellowship movements and then slip into mediocrity when they become institutions. Almost all of the denominations that exist today started as home fellowship movements.
I am presently doing research on this for two books, and the information is far from being obscure history. The Baptists started as a home fellowship movement, and this was by necessity also because they broke with the Reformers on the issue of infant baptism. Their home fellowships were outlawed and many members were executed over the issue of baptism. As time passed, Baptists were assimilated into the Protestant institutional church.
Another example is the Methodist Church. Methodism started as a New Testament church model. Wesley started societies of home fellowships that were organized within circuits. Each circuit, a designated geography, contained several home fellowships of 10-15 people. The results were staggering, and likely responsible for the Great Awakening in the colonial era. But unfortunately, Wesley sought to reform the Church of England with this movement rather than the societies being a replacement.
However, much more may be at stake than methodology. The debate between the church models may parallel a given position on what the kingdom of heaven is. According to John MacArthur Jr., the kingdom of heaven is a sphere or a realm where God has domain over His people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7Iz-MIxXC0). This is consistent with the Reformed view overall.
Let’s note the important difference. This view posits the idea that the kingdom of heaven is a realm of influence orchestrated by the Holy Spirit. As a former grammatical interpretist influenced by redemptive interpretists, MacArthur is going to be conflicted on this. He would probably hold to the belief (and rightfully so) that the “flesh” is the mortality of the believer where sin dwells and wages war against the Spirit and our minds. As a half-pregnant Calvinist, MacArthur is at odds with authentic Reformed thought on this wise. True Reformed kingdom theology holds to the idea that the flesh is also a realm, not a remnant of the old self in the believer. We remain unchanged, only the realms change. This is realm manifestation experienced by the believer versus new creature change.
In contrast, there is the view that God’s kingdom is a literal physical kingdom that is in heaven. The kingdom is not on earth, only its citizens are on earth. The Old Covenant had a physical representation of God’s kingdom on earth. That representation has been replaced by the priesthood of every believer. We are the temple, and each and every believer represents the physical temple in heaven. The Holy Spirit doesn’t operate in a realm, he operates in us. Therefore, don’t be confused by the language of some who say Christ is in us; by that they mean we are only experiencing the manifestation of Christ in the kingdom realm. Faith is merely an ability to experience kingdom manifestations, but we are not really valid participants.
Hence, there is the belief that Christ ushered in the kingdom on earth. Yes, the pure form of the kingdom is in heaven, but its spiritual manifestation is progressively manifested on earth. This view of kingdom theology is the basis for reconstructionist and dominion theology. The objective manifestation of the kingdom is in heaven, and it is subjectively experienced on earth—it’s a spiritual kingdom. As the church shows forth the gospel on earth and seeks to control every corner of it , the subjective manifestation of the kingdom becomes progressively more objective until the kingdom dominates the earth. This also matches the Reformed gospel of progressive justification and glorification.
In contrast, there is the belief that God’s kingdom remains in heaven (hence, the name), and that God will bring the physical kingdom down to earth at an appointed time. Until then, the mandate is to make as many disciples as possible, not to participate in the ushering in of the kingdom. An ushering in of the kingdom necessarily focuses on the centrality of temple worship and an institution that unites as many people as possible.
This is the crux issue in regard to ecumenicalism. It’s individualism versus collectivism. Wesley societies coincided with the freedom and individualism of the American Revolution and the combination had a profound effect on history. Slaves, by necessity, already had an established home fellowship network so the Great Awakening was particularly prevalent among them.
Home fellowship societies are about disciple building—the institutional church is about kingdom building. Christ said he would build His assembly—not His kingdom. It is doubtful that His kingdom needs any building.
The final question is this: is a biblical kingdom theology, in reality, consistent with the home fellowship model and contrary to the institutional church?
paul
What is the Bible and How Should We Use it?
CLICK ON TO ENLARGE:
Well, here we are, at least in the American church. More than 2000 years after the birth of Christ’s assembly most Christians can’t define what the Bible is and what it should be used for. When using the term “law” in a conversation with a well-known pastor of our day, he asked, “Paul, when you use the word, ‘law’ what are your referring to exactly?”
My answer to him is my first point. The Bible is God’s wisdom that answers life’s questions. Sorry, but people don’t believe in a god that can’t answer life’s difficult questions. People may be lost, but they aren’t stupid; a god that can’t save your marriage probably can’t save your soul. In our first TANC conference, my wife Susan shared, according to her research, why most people give up on church. By and large, the reason given was the church’s inability to answer life’s difficult questions.
But what can we know and not know, and what should we do with it? The Bible answers that question also:
Deu 29:29 – The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
There is your answer. Some knowledge belongs to the Lord, but we can understand much and we are responsible for it. In this verse, we also see its principle purpose—to change our lives. We are to do the words. We are to learn them and do them. By the way, that is the very definition of a disciple. A disciple is a learner.
So here we are today. The discussion even rages over the very meaning of the word “gospel.” In another conversation with a pastor, I asked him the following: “Is the ‘gospel’ simply the good news of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, or is it something more?” His answer: “That’s a good question.” No it isn’t—that’s a stupid question, and we don’t know the answer. Many bemoan the reality of our youth fleeing church when they graduate from high school. But why would they want to hang out with us? We can’t even define the word gospel! This is why we addressed the definition of the gospel in our Romans series—it’s our very first lesson of that series by the way.
This laity ignorance is by design. Knowledge empowers, and Protestantism is an institution predicated on the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Baptism is our membership, the tithe is our membership dues, and death is our retirement. The laity has become the audience of clergy performers. They revile duty to personal responsibility while insisting on duty to the institutional church. Of course they do, if you attended your own personal duty, you soon wouldn’t need them. There is no money in discipleship, the big bucks are in salvation and the keeping of it. Clearly, I repeat, CLEARLY, Augustine, Luther and Calvin taught that duty to the institutional church is efficacious to keeping your salvation.
This could be yet my third point: does the Bible reveal to us what church is and how we should do it? Absolutely. In short, the Bible answers all of life’s questions that God wants us to know, and this is a very deep well. Christians are called on by God to be thinking disciples. As church historian John Immel stated in our first conference, this is a moral issue, and also a matter of life and death. Should wives always obey their husbands? Brother Andy addressed that in last week’s Acts series. To find the answer to that question, read the historical account of Ananias and Sapphira. Peter even gave Sapphira an out in not lying for her husband, and unfortunately she made an uninformed choice. The Bible is a lifesaver, Moses continues from the aforementioned citation:
Deu 30:15 – “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. 16 If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 17 But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, 20 loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.”
Let’s go back and answer the question from the first pastor. What do we mean when we speak of “the law.” Well, the law is all of Scripture. That is how Moses uses that term. Law is the full counsel of God. The law is how to do life. And as an old friend of mine from Texas used to say, “boy howdy” do I get a lot of grief when I posit this idea. The pushback primarily comes from the Reformed peanut gallery. They have the Bible dichotomized into all sorts of different covenant theologies and uses of the law. It’s all very complicated so the average parishioner just shuts up and takes their word for it. The right way to look at the Bible is also very complicated, but here is the key; for the Christian and mankind in general—it’s intuitive, i.e., it’s a common sense issue. And the former controls how we interpret life, and the latter frees us to interpret life wherever the Bible takes us. Whether you are a Christian or not, letting others think for you has always been a matter of life and death. This is fairly apparent from a cursory observation of history.
And here it comes: “Oh, so we shouldn’t work on the Sabbath, snicker, snicker.” “You’re saying we should wear seamless clothing LOL!” “Oh, so we should stone rebellious children.” Etc., etc., you have heard them all. Let’s first back up a little and establish the fact that ALL Scripture contributes to knowledge concerning how we live our lives.
2Tim 3:16 – All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
In regard to the idea that all Scripture is breathed out by God,
Matthew 4:3 – And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4 But he answered, “It is written,
Due 8:3 -“‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Every word that comes forth from God’s mouth as recorded in Scripture contributes to life in some way. ALL of it is profitable. Parsing Scripture according to relevance for our lives is taking away from it—an act sternly warned against in Scripture itself. Now, let’s establish the fact that the law is a word that speaks to all of Scripture.
In Matthew 5:17,18, Christ refers to all Scripture canonized at that time as “the law or the prophets.” But then in verse 18, he refers to everything as “the law.” In Luke 24, we have “the prophets [v.25],” “Moses and all the prophets [v.27],” “the scriptures[v.32],” “the law of Moses, …the prophets…the psalms[v.44],” “the scriptures [v.45],” “the writings [v.46],” all used interchangeably in this chapter. As a matter of fact, verse 27 officially calls the whole cannon of that time, i.e., the Old Testament, “the scriptures.” In the first part of the verse, Christ refers to the Scriptures as “Moses and all of the prophets.” In the second part of the verse, it calls Moses and all of the prophets “the scriptures.” Here is my point: It’s all the same . It’s all the “law.” There is no way you can take the Decalogue, the prophets, the Psalms, the wittings of Moses, or any other segment-like-chapters of Scripture and relegate it to less significance for faith and order. I even take exception to a present uselessness for parts of the law. Though we would not stone rebellious children in our day, the fact that God at one time did command his people to do so should teach us how much God loathes rebellion in any form. Certainly, we are not obligated to the Old Testament law that commands us to let the poor glean what’s left of our harvested fields, but does it teach us what God expects concerning our attitudes toward the poor? Absolutely.
It’s all the same. It’s all “scripture” with equal authority. According to Matthew 22:23-33, Jesus argued with the Sadducee’s from the writings of Moses and called it “scripture.” He even based his argument on the present tense verb “am” to argue for a resurrection. Scripture is also called the “law [Psalms 1:2, James 1:25].” Christ called Scripture “all that I have commanded you” in Matthew 28: 20. The Apostle Paul proclaimed his writings to be “the commands of the Lord” in 1Corinthians 14:37.
Bottom line is this: “All scripture” is profitable for the things that make a person of God complete and equipped for every good work (2Timothy 3:16). So, how should the Bible be interpreted and applied to life with EVERY verse? Well, how did the apostles do so?
1Tim 5:17 – Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says,
Deu 25:4 -“You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and,
Deu 24;14,15 -“The laborer deserves his wages.”
A question: at the time God published the law to not withhold food from a working ox, did that have anything to do with paying elders? Of course not. So why does Paul cite that Scripture in regard to this problem that needed to be corrected in the early assemblies?
First, know that this was a problem in the early assemblies because it was a departure from institutional academia. The home assemblies were less formal and teaching elders were not seen as paid professionals, and indeed they were not. But the problem is that the ministry of the word is a full time job, and these elders were burning it at both ends because they weren’t being paid by the laity. Hence, the ministry of the word suffered.
The early assemblies were non-institutionalized synagogues that met in people’s homes. There was a disdain for the paid clergy, so paying lay elders was a sticky wicket. And frankly, this is an obstacle that the home fellowship movement will have to overcome in our day as well. In cases where a professional clergyman has started a home fellowship this seems not to be a problem, but unfortunately such fellowships often obtain a building which defeats the purpose of the model.
But in returning to our original point, what was the application of that text originally? Answer: the proper treatment of animals. A working animal should not be deprived of food to cut cost—that’s animal cruelty, and greed. What does the Bible say about cruelty to animals? Plenty.
However, Paul cites this same verse to make a point and application in our day. It’s not a direct or specific application because we don’t use oxen anymore—we use rototillers. But the general principle is that if you shouldn’t deprive a working ox of needed provisions, you certainly shouldn’t deprive a working elder of provisions. It may be possible that some of these elders were nevertheless putting ministry first and going without food!
Now, let’s look at the following chart to get a visual idea of this interpretive concept.
The pixels demonstrate Bible verses. The words represent different categories of subjects that the verses speak to in some way. The three columns represent applications in the past, present continuous, and future. This is how the Bible works. Let’s look at another example; the New Covenant. This covenant was made to Israel.
Jere 31:31 -“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
Jer 31:38 -“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when the city shall be rebuilt for the Lord from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 And the measuring line shall go out farther, straight to the hill Gareb, and shall then turn to Goah. 40 The whole valley of the dead bodies and the ashes, and all the fields as far as the brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be sacred to the Lord. It shall not be plucked up or overthrown anymore forever.”
This covenant is obviously to Israel and future. The promise of it was to give them hope when it was published. The Messiah executed the covenant when He came to die for the sins of Israel (Acts 5:31, 13:23, 28:20), and it will be fully consummated at the end of time.
This is how we use the Bible. It is God’s full philosophical statement to man concerning reconciliation to God and living as a kingdom citizen. With the aid of the Holy Spirit and elders we do such, and are responsible individually for the study, understanding, and application to our lives with God’s word and the Chief Shepherd as our only authority.
Luke 24:27, and 44: Every Verse In The Bible Is Not About Christ
A supposed “proof text” used by Sonship / GS proponents is Luke 24:27 and 24:44: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” And, “He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms’” (verse 44).
Supposedly, these verses demonstrate that all of Scripture is about Christ. Let me be clear; if someone wants to say that every verse in the Bible is about what Christ says / commands / teaches / demonstrates, I agree wholeheartedly, but that’s not what GS proponents are saying. They are saying, with an ever-so slight twist and a wink, that all of Scripture is about Christ as a “person.” Instead of focusing on what Christ…
View original post 531 more words
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment