Gurnall on those who change their "convictions" according to the fashion of the day

Gurnall has been talking about the belt of truth and the need to work hard to get ourselves well-grounded in the truth. Then he says this:

...This might well chastise the strange fickleness and unsettledness of judgment which many labour with in this unconstant age.

Truths in many professors’ minds are not as stars fixed in the heavens, but like meteors, that dance in the air; they are not as characters engraven in marble, but writ in the dust, which every wind and idle breath of seducers deface; many entertain opinions, as some entertain suitors, not that they mean to marry them, but cast them oft as soon as new ones come.

Never was there a more giddy age than ours. What is said of fashion-mongers, that some men, should they see their pictures in that habit which they wore a few years past, would hardly know themselves in their present garb, it is most true in regard of their opinions; should many that have been great professors take a view of their religious principles a dozen years ago, and compare them with their present, they would be found not the same men. They have so chopped and changed, that they seem to have forsaken their old faith.

Not that the old which they renounce was false, or the new which they espouse is true; but because they were either ignorant of the truth they first professed, or were insincere in the profession of it; and it is no wonder that the one should upon easy terms part with that, which he first took upon as weak grounds as now he leaves it; or that the other, who did not love or improve the truth he professed, should be given up of God to change it for an error.

If the heathen, who did not glorify God with the light of nature they had, were righteously given up to a reprobate, injudicious mind to do that which was inconvenient, and morally absurd; then they who dishonour God with the revealed light of Scripture truth much more deserve that they should be given up to that which is spiritually wicked, even to believe lies and errors for truth. A heavy curse, did we rightly judge of it, to wander and wilder in a maze of error, and yet think they are walking in the way of truth.

[William Gurnall and John Campbell, The Christian in Complete Armour (London: Thomas Tegg, 1845), 212-213. Broken into paragraphs]

Gurnall on the way we should feel about glib, popular false teachers

Years ago I was very bitterly angry over a prominent politician who seemed invincible, who could get away with literally anything, and could do it with a sneer and a wink and a swagger. A pastor friend said "Dan, pity him. He has this, and this is all he has. Then he spends eternity in Hell under the wrath of God."

That put it in perspective.

As does Gurnall here at length, talking about evil men who are used by Satan to oppose the truths of God:

Do you see any driving furiously against the truths or servants of Christ; O pity them as the most miserable wretches in the world; fear not their power, admire not their parts; they are men possessed of and acted by the devil, they are his drudges and slaughter-slaves, as a martyr called them. Augustine, in his epistle to Lycinius, one of excellent parts, but wicked, who once was his scholar, speaks thus pathetically to him: O how I could weep and mourn over thee, to see such a sparkling wit prostituted to the devil’s service! if thou hadst found a golden chalice, thou wouldst have given it to the church; but God hath given thee a golden head, parts and wit, and in this, propinas leipsum diabolo, thou drinkest thyself to the devil. When you see men of power or parts using them against God that gave them, weep over them; better they had lived and died, the one slaves, the other fools, than do the devil such service with them.

[William Gurnall and John Campbell, The Christian in Complete Armour (London: Thomas Tegg, 1845), 89.]

A cult by any other name stinks as foul

First, over at Pyro I used Franklin Graham's lame rationale for removing Mormonism as a cult from their web page as an opportunity to launch twin salvos. First, I targeted his organizations playing of "the Calling card." Second, I did a riff on thoughts expressed in verses such as Titus 1:9, revealing the nature of God's actual "call" to Christian leaders.

Then, Jesse (not "James" but) Johnson over at Cripplegate singled out the issue of what a cult actually is, and then the sub-question of whether Mormonism fits the definition.

I think Jesse agreed with everything I said (which wasn't really about the meaning of the word "cult"), and used it as a launching pad for his related discussion.

That said, I am going to commend the article to you and say that I fundamentally agree with everything Jesse says in it, and with the difficulties he raises. Then for my part, I'll use his article as a launching-pad for a proposal to address the issues he raises. I'll do it here because Frank has hijacked Pyro this week for a terrific series on Passion 2013, and I have some hot items already on-tap for Pyro. And this blog has been too idle. So:

What if we were to abandon the use of the word "cult" as too non-specific and too-problematic? Leave it to the OT scholars, with their special little use for their special little world.

What if, instead, we were to use three basic categories? To wit:

Category One: 

False World Religions

Basically, this would be every world religion other than Biblical Christianity. There is no Gospel, per se, in these religions whatsoever — except insofar as you want to stretch that term to its snapping-point as a catch-all for false religions' diagnoses of and prescriptions for the human dilemma. So this is the category for Hinduism, Buddhism, Confuscianism, and the like.

Category Two: 

Damning Perversions of Christianity

These are religions that pervert the Gospel and other central Biblical truths to the extent that any adherent who embraces the official position is unsaved, is still under God's wrath, and will go to Hell.

This is where we would easily categorize Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, and Islam, for starters. Full preterism would go here as well, denying the cardinal doctrine of the bodily return of Christ, and so mangling hermeneutics as to render the Bible meaningless.

Category Three: 

Aberrant Christian Teachings

These would be movements that are right on the Gospel and the core doctrines, but vary to a harmful degree on other important teachings. I would categorize leaky-Canonism here, partial preterism, and other teachings.

Discussion

Now, this is just a proposal for discussion.

What I like about it is that it resists postmodernistic temptations to find neutral definitions. It is not motivated by a burning desire to remove the offense of the Cross, and to be well-liked. It puts the Cross and God's Word front and center, where they should be. Dainty accomodationist elitists may not like it for that very reason.

But against it is the fact that it still doesn't answer all possible questions.

Where, for instance, would Seventh Day Adventism fit? I'd argue that some Seventh Day Adventists fit under the second category, while others fit under the third. And certainly the third category would require a lot of argumentation and discussion. Blindered covenant-theology hardcores like monergism.com would put dispensationalism under the third, all the while eyeing the second with a fond sigh. Dispensationalists in turn would put those hardcores under the third. And some reconstructionists would put them both under there.

However, given that no humanly devised taxonomy would be without problems, is this a preferable way forward, an improvement over the less-nuanced "cult"?

Eerily prescient word from Spurgeon on the effects of false doctrine on its crafters

I am preparing to open Psalm 115 tonight at CBC and, in reading on verse 8, found a wonderful word from Spurgeon.

The psalmist is writing about those who make and worship idols. My literal translation:

Like them shall their makers become

— everyone who trusts in them!

Here's Spurgeon:

Those who make such things for worship are as stupid, senseless, and irrational as the figures they construct. So far as any spiritual life, thought, and judgment are concerned, they are rather the images of men than rational beings. The censure is by no means too severe. Who has not found the words leaping to his lips when he has seen the idols of the Romanists? “So is every one that trusteth in them.” Those who have sunk so low as to be capable of confiding in idols have reached the extreme of folly, and are worthy of as much contempt as their detestable deities. Luther’s hard speeches were well deserved by the Papists; they must be mere dolts to worship the rotten relics which are the objects of their veneration.

The god of modern thought exceedingly resembles the deities described in this Psalm. Pantheism is wondrously akin to Polytheism, and yet differs very little from Atheism. The god manufactured by our great thinkers is a mere abstraction: he has no eternal purposes, he does not interpose on the behalf of his people, he cares but very little as to how much man sins, for he has given to the initiated “a larger hope” by which the most incorrigible are to be restored. He is what the last set of critics chooses to make him, he has said what they choose to say, and he will do what they please to prescribe. Let this creed and its devotees alone, and they will work out their own refutation, for as now their god is fashioned like themselves, they will by degrees fashion themselves like their god; and when the principles of justice, law, and order shall have all been effectually sapped we may possibly witness in some form of socialism, similar to that which is so sadly spreading in Germany, a repetition of the evils which have in former ages befallen nations which have refused the living God, and set up gods of their own.

[Spurgeon, C. H. (2009). The treasury of David, Volume 5: Psalms 111-119 (54–55). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.]

Harold Camping and Family Radio: please, please, just shut up

Harold Camping — who is not a false prophet — was wrong (again) about the date of Christ's return. More fundamentally, Camping was wrong to set a date for Christ's return. Still more fundamentally, Camping was wrong to pose, in any way, as a Bible teacher. (Read an account of his sad and shameful story, starting here.)

Harold Camping has been wrong about very much for very many years, as others have documented. He was wrong about how to interpret the Bible, and wrong to reject at least an attempt at correction. But when his local church tried to step in to deal with some of his harmful teaching, he was wrong not to heed it. He was wrong to teach that the church age had ended. He was wrong to set a first date. He was wrong to set a second date. He was wrong to set a third date. He was wrong not to take any responsibility for what he'd said and done. He was wrong to refuse to take responsibility for what people had done and how they'd ruined (or ended) their lives on the basis of his false teaching.

At each and every point, Harold Camping was wrong not to take and accept responsibility, repent, and make restitution as able.

But what of Family Radio? Are they free from responsibility? Now they're saying in effect "Oopsie, well, that was disappointing, but please keep giving us money." Is that a mischaracterization? You tell me. First:

"I know that many of us are deeply disappointed that Christ did not come. And I said something like this back in May," the host said. "But please try to keep in mind that all of us who are believers, all of us who are Christians, are to live in such a way that we are to pray with the apostle John: 'Come quickly Lord Jesus.' "

Then:

"I trust that you too will pray for us often that we can minister in many ways. That God will provide wisdom to those of leadership and that we continue to minister to you, and to teach God's word daily. Please pray for us and pray about continuing to support this totally listener-sponsored Christian radio network. We have a great need for daily operating funds. Without your generous support at this time we might be forced to face some very important decisions. I trust those of you who enjoy some of our programming daily will be able to share generously in the months ahead."

"Deeply disappointed that Christ did not come," and pray "that we continue to minister to  you, and to teach God's word daily."

And please give us money.

So, "disappointed that Christ did not come" — not "horrified that for years and years we at Family Radio provided an international platform to a dangerous and obvious false teacher who, contrary to Scripture, predicted the date of Christ's return repeatedly, shut up the Gospel, told his followers to leave their local churches, and pronounced as heretics millennia of Christians who affirmed that even Jesus had said He could not predict the date during the days of His flesh."

And pray "that we continue to minister to you, and to teach God's word" — not "that we each of us repent for having brought shame and disgrace on the name of God, and ruination to the lives of many, and that we have wisdom as we seek to produce fruits in keeping with repentance, attach ourselves to local churches, and look for sound Christian leadership to take up the ruins of Family Radio's international apparatus."

If you look around right now, you don't see a lot of Christian comment about Camping. Maybe they're worn out, maybe it's already been said, or maybe they're saving it for Monday.

But you do see a lot of non-Christian comment, mocking Camping, but even more mocking Christianity. Because of Camping.

Christians should not give a dime to Family Radio. Should not have been giving a dime for years.

Family Radio once had wonderful music, wonderful programs, wonderful preachers and teachers — and this unqualified oddball named Camping. Over the years, Camping displaced the rest, and continued his wretched trajectory.

I just can't imagine a scenario under which Family Radio continues as-is with sound Christian support.

If it be responded that "Gee, they couldn't do anything, because Camping owned everything" — it's hard to see that as an argument for supporting Family Radio. In fact, it's an eloquent argument that support should have stopped like the throwing of a light switch years and years ago: there was no machinery for shutting up a dangerous false teacher.

Harold Camping has glorified God, but it has been all unwitting. Too much is more than enough. Pray God he shuts up now. Preferably in broken, redemptive repentance. But if not — just shut up (Titus 1:10-14).

Walvoord-Camping debate

Decades ago I heard that Harold Camping and John Walvoord, then president of Dallas Theological Seminary, had conducted an on-air debate. Only recently, I found where it could be downloaded and heard online. The debate lasts nearly six hours, and I just finished listening last night.

The debate is interesting and instructive. The moderator, a gracious man, seems stylistically to be on a radio show from the 40s (the crackling sound quality heightens this effect as he speaks); his is an oddly florid tone. But Camping and Walvoord are both straightforward and to the point.

I could do a fairly accurate job of summarizing the six hours like this: for the most part...

• Walvoord keeps reading Scripture and saying "I think it means what it says"
• Camping keeps working his decoder-ring hermeneutics to make Scripture not mean what it says

And that's pretty much it.

For instance, here's a big clue: Listen for Camping repeatedly cautioning that we must read a passage "very carefully," or admonishing that we must "let the Bible interpret itself" rather than being devoted to a particularly school "or consensus." Sounds good? How can you argue against either?

Yet every time, these words signals that Camping is about to explain how Scripture doesn't mean what it says. It means he is about to twist Scripture. He is about to bring together two things that have no bearing on each other, and make a bus bench in Ohio mean that a hamburger in California is really a cup of tea in England.

Figures; Camping also says that the whole Bible is in parables, and he says that it is is very difficult to understand. Perhaps his version of Hebrews 1:1 reads that God "spoke in incomprehensible code to the fathers by the prophets"?

Also interesting: a caller asks about not knowing the day or the hour, and Walvoord answers. Camping simply declines to answer, which is an exception. It looms large in light of his recent deadly error.

Now, this may sound as if I'm writing the next bit for effect, but it is literally true: around the third and start of the fourth hour, I was thinking very appreciatively about what gentlemen both Camping and Walvoord were, and I was anticipating praising both for their behavior — and then the fourth hour started. Camping became completely unhinged. He launched an absurd attack on premillennialism, listing off a dozen dire accusations, including that premillennialism distorts the Gospel, denies Christ's kingship, denies Christ's lordship, denies the Bible's authority to explain itself, and a veritable pile of verbal manure.

Camping did not just crack in recent years. He'd already jumped the shark at this point.

Walvoord remained a gentleman in his response, more so than I would have. He said something like this: "My, that is a very impressive list of accusations. The only problem is that every one of them is false." No kidding.

Ominous note.  There was a very poignant moment at about five hours and thirteen minutes. In the course of his answer, John Walvoord warned against the slippery slope that is spiritualization. He observed that many heresies and much liberalism involved the spiritualization of the Bible. And then he said this: "Once you start spiritualizing, there is no telling where you are going to stop."

He said this in front of Harold Camping who, decades later, after assuring people that the Bible guaranteed that Jesus would return to rapture His own on May 21, 2011, then said, "Oh yeah, about that — oops, sorry, it was actually a spiritual event."

A second poignant note is that in his attempt at a response, Camping actually — I kid you not — alluded to the Biblical admonition against many people becoming teachers (James 3:1f.)! You can't make this stuff up. If only Camping had heeded his own words.

Or listened to John Walvoord.

Harold Camping to the folks whose lives he's ruined: Oh well, stuff happens

Tell me if my paraphrase is that far off:

"We just had a great recession. There's lots of people who lost their jobs, lots of people who lost their houses ... and somehow they all survived," he said.

"People cope, he added. "We're not in the business of giving any financial advice. We're in the business of telling people maybe there is someone you can talk to, and that's God."

If that doesn't tell each and every last one of his followers everything they need to know about this unhinged, utterly irresponsible deceiver... I can't imagine what would.

Meanwhile — as I've often observed — don't expect Camping to put any of his money where his mouth is:

[Camping] also said that he wouldn't give away all his possessions ahead of Oct 21.

"I still have to live in a house, I still have to drive a car," he said. "What would be the value of that? If it is Judgment Day why would I give it away?"

Mercy.

I confess that I'm surprised that this isn't getting more circulation. Excellent execution by Joe Cassada, and prophetic content (composed before Camping's double-down). Look again at those poor folks standing behind him.

Harold Camping, the true Gospel, and hedged bets

My first point will be very obvious — so stay with me a tad longer, please.

Harold Camping says he and all Campingites (only) will be raptured on Saturday the 21st, and judgement day will come. (Does that make him pre-trib? Brr-r-r-r.)

In response, some of his followers have made radical changes in their lives. Some (like Robert Fitzpatrick, as well as numerous others) will be ruined if Camping is wrong yet again.

The obvious question I have never seen Camping forced to answer is: why hasn't Camping himself put his money where his mouth is?

If he's wrong yet again, he'll be humiliated. But Camping was humiliated before, and more than once — and he just went right on misleading and being misled. So what will this failure cost him?

To my mind, this fact is pretty eloquent. Were he truly convinced, he could show the world by going his followers one better and deeding off every last cent and penny and bit of real estate and business, effective May 22.

But he has not.

Now the Gospelly application.

I preach what I believe is the Biblical Gospel of the urgent need of every last man, woman and child to turn to Jesus Christ in repentant faith, to rest in Him alone for full and complete salvation, and to bury all notions of contributing a penny, a shilling, or a Euro to their own salvation. Jesus is all-sufficient Savior, Jesus plus nothing. That is what I preach, and that is what I believe.

Now, if you found me saying that just in case, I occasionally dropped by Roman Catholic churches to do confession and penance and salvific good works and stock up on some saving wafers; and just in case I bowed to Mecca ever so often and did a hajj or two, and just in case I lubed my karma every so often... what would you conclude about the genuineness, sincerity, integrity and singleness of my professed faith?

Sharp gal or fella that you are, you'd conclude that I was hedging my bets. You'd conclude that I was stocking up a Plan B, a Plan C, and a few other plans... just in case this whole Jesus-business didn't work out for me.

And you'd be right!

Because the truth is, I have no Plan B. If Jesus is not all that the Bible says He is, and if some other religion is right, I'm sunk. I have no backups. Jesus is it. All my eggs are in that basket.

See the tie-in?

Sure you do.

Harold Camping is not a false prophet

The tale of Harold Camping is that of a man who did not take sufficient heed to Romans 12:3 and James 3:1, propped up by people who haven't gotten the point of 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and Hebrews 10:19-25; 13:7 and 17.

Or, to turn our gaze downward to the secular wisdom of Harry Callahan, "A man's got to know his limitations."

Camping clearly doesn't.

You can read some of Camping's sad tale in the posts linked here, or see some of it in this piece:

See any Gospel in any of that? I don't.

One would think that Camping's put it all on the line in this, his latest shame. One would hope that he would be completely discredited after this coming Saturday.

But people are not machines, dispassionately processing data. After all, there are still Jehovah's Witnesses after their many false prophecies; there are still Roman Catholics after the Reformation. There will still be Campingites after Saturday. For "evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived" (2 Timothy 3:13), and "the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths" (2 Timothy 4:3-4). Ironically, those who refuse to yoke themselves to the fellowship and leadership of a local church will still subject themselves to a fool who makes fools of them (Proverbs 18:1; 2 Corinthians 11:20). Would that it weren't true, but it is.

So yeah, if Camping's followers had a fortieth of the wisdom God calls them to in books like Proverbs, they would demand that Camping prove his commitment by deeding all his assets to Phil Johnson or some sane person, effective May 22.

But then again, if they had a fortieth of that wisdom, they would have nothing to do with Harold Camping in the first place.

One more note: I know what people mean when they call Camping a "false prophet." He is not a false prophet, he is a false teacher. It may seem like an academic distinction, but it is an important one. Teaching falsities concerning prophecy does not make one a false prophet. Camping is not claiming to have direct personal revelation apart from Scripture, as far as I know. That is not what he does. Camping is not claiming to produce Scripture. What Camping does is to twist Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). There is a difference.

This, of course, is not a demotion. Being a false teacher is plenty bad enough. As Peter said, "false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Peter 2:1). It is a matter of focus: were Camping a false prophet, we would need to train our guns on the notion of direct revelation and the sufficiency of Scripture.

As it is, we're faced with a matter of raging, irresponsible, unaccountable incompetence.

Benny Hinn — Sith Lord of the ____?

Several readers (starting with Angus Nicolson) sent me this one:

Now, let me attempt a few serious, Biblely thoughts.

1. The imaginary Sith Lord had actual power; Hinn's is purely make-believe, purely psychological (at best), and purely thanks to the willing acquiescence of his acolytes.
2. Hinn sashays across the stage in mock displays and poses of over-compensatory masculinity and power. And what movement has made it so that people like him have even a chance at credibility among professed Christians? Can he be separated from that movement? How?
3. Were Hinn a Biblical Christian preacher, the power that he had anything to do with would have nothing to do with such theatrics and displays, but instead with a message (Romans 1:16), a message that is the precise opposite of the Word-faith false teachers' preaching (1 Corinthians 1:23).
4. What Hinn does is a Jedi mind-trick... well, a Sith mind-trick. What a Christian ambassador is no trick (2 Corinthians 2:17; 4:1-6).

Some Charismatics come up with their own "healthcare reform"

Broken bones, cancer... even dyslexia! "Pastor Marie" and her "divine-healing technicians" will take it all on with "aggressive prayer techniques.

Plus, the Gospel is optional.

NOTE: divine-healing, worked by technicians employing techniques. This is God-as-Tool, God-as-Force. Plus, a profound misunderstanding of prayer. What God says is first (1 Corinthians 2:2; 15:3) is made optional. (Challenge: find the Gospel on this page.) In fact, they assure any and all, "We are ...not trying to teach, change anybody's doctrines, enlist them in any church or movement, or promote any unusual, controversial doctrines."

No controversial doctrines? Well, that certainly excludes the Gospel (1 Corinthians 1:18-25).

The "healing room" linked above is in New Zealand. My compatriots may think, "Ah, those nutty Kiwis." Not so fast, friend. Like so many baleful movements, this has roots in the US. Now, reportedly, there are "5 Healing Rooms in New Zealand and 649 Healing Rooms located in 31 nations."

Their own web page contains this: "Remember: Healing is a sign to the unbeliever! Hebrews 2:4." How's that working out?  Are mighty, undeniable, apostolic-caliber miracles leaving unbelievers without rational evasions?

Not quite. But they do have one local observer marveling at the high healing-rate of placebos.

Defining Christians and Republicans (part two)

(concluded from part one)

Why say you is, when you ain't?

Why, then, would anyone want to call himself a "Christian" when he isn't one, when he doesn't embrace the core convictions that define what it means to be a Christian? Many reasons are possible. Here are four:

Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing phenomenon. Particularly in the case of leaders, clergy, or missionaries, if they want to fleece the flock, they won't get in if they appear in their true colors. Sheep One will say, "Dude! Wolf!" — and the sheep will go bleating off. So a cagey leader throws on a few cottony tufts, learns to say "Baa," and stuffs his silverware and A-1 into his pockets.

Social respectability. When a writer from a newspaper interviewed me, as a new pastor in a new town, I mentioned that I had not been raised as a Christian. My dear, late mother was very offended. To her (born 1916), in saying this I implied that I had not had a moral, civilized upbringing. I meant no such thing, of course; I simply meant I had not been raised in the Biblical, Christian faith.

But Mom represented an America in which to be an American was to be a Christian, which is to say a decent, moral, nominally-religious, vaguely "God"-fearing person. "Unchristian" had no doctrinal referent; it simply meant crude, rude, uncharitable, ill-bred.

So I think particularly in the case of politicians, there's enough of a civic memory of this time that it looks better to be a "Christian" than, say, a Hindu or an atheist. It gets you ten points in the Moral-O-Meter, and provides a nice "cover." (But only if you're not a fanatical about it. You can be a Jack Danforth "Christian," a Jimmy Carter "Christian,"a Bill Clinton "Christian,"a Barack Obama "Christian"— certainly not a Sarah Palin Christian.)

Many like to say they're Christians because they don't really understand the Gospel, but do like perceived benefits. Their notion doesn't include truths and implications such as Luke 9:23, Romans 6 and Hebrews 12. But they like their (mangled) understanding of gauzy themes such as forgiveness, acceptance, eternal hope. Their perversion of it is that they can live like Hell and hope for Heaven, and own a "Get Out Of Guilt Or Accountability" card, if they just say they're Christians. (See under Clinton, Bill; or, nauseatingly, the Gutless Grace subset of dispensationalists — who have much to answer for.)

Deeper down, though, lies suppressed God-consciousness. Paul says quite bluntly, that all men naturally "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18). They know God, but choose not to honor Him as God (v. 21). So at bottom, they know they should be Christians; they want the comfort that comes from being a Christian. They like (as I said) the notions of being forgiven, of having hope, of thinking that that whole death-thingie has been taken care of, and All That. Plus, there's usually no immediate price to pay, in our culture, for saying you're a Christian. So, just say it, and all these wonderful prizes and parting-gifts are yours to keep.

So... can you say who is a Christian and who isn't?

Yes, and no.

That isn't nearly as wiggly as it sounds at first glance, so hang in with me.

When the GOP calls itself a "big tent," I always think, "But even the biggest tent still has walls." So where are the walls on a political party? I honestly don't know. I know where I think they should be — but in a party that equally has been home to Ronald Reagan and William Weld, Tom Coburn and Arlen Specter, I just don't know where they are.

At root, though, that is in large measure because the political party has no defining document, no transcendent and objective authority. This is not the case in Christianity. We have both: the Bible, and the triune God who inerrantly inspired its authorship. (NOTE: what follows is considered and condensed, not intended for skimming.)

The "yes" part

You'd think a religion called "Christianity" should have something to do with Christ, wouldn't you? And so, in a sane world, it would. Christ said: "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46 NKJ). Two critical truths at least are highlighted in this dominical bombshell: (1) confession of Jesus' Lordship is foundational; and (2) such a confession must be followed by acceptance of and obedience to His words.

Confession of His Lordship. Jesus Himself put this confession as foundational to the church. Confession that Jesus is Lord, Christ, God incarnate is the foundation-rock on which the church must be built (Matthew 16:16-19; cf. Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 3:11). This is the confession that the Holy Spirit inspires (1 Corinthians 12:3b). It is both goal and result of His death on the Cross, and bodily resurrection (Romans 14:9).

Obviously Jesus is Lord in the sense that He is the absolute authority, both supreme teacher and supreme master. Jesus clearly has this in mind in Luke 6:46. But "Lord" is also a common title for Deity throughout the Old Testament — that is, for God. And indeed the Christian confesses Jesus as both his Lord and his God (John 20:28).

This actually all forms a sort of endless (but constructive) do-loop. Anywhere you start, you get to the rest of it. That is, if Jesus is God, then He is Lord; if He is Lord, then He is God. How? Jesus affirmed that no less than the Father Himself demanded that the Son receive honor equal to the honor paid the Father (John 5:23). If He is Lord, then we are to believe what He says; if we believe what He says, then we must believe that He is God.

In either regard, to accept the foundational conviction that Jesus is Lord and God necessarily pays off into...

...acceptance of and obedience to His words. As Lord, Jesus expects me to take His yoke upon myself and learn of Him (Matthew 11:28-30), and to do what He tells me (Luke 6:46). It is not a peer-relationship; the Christian life is not a negotiation. So it follows that, if Jesus is my Lord and my God, I will learn to love what He loves and hate what He hates; to cherish what He values, and spurn what He despises. My convictions and values, and my choices and actions, will be progressively brought into conformity to His.

That is why the NT requires, imposes and provides tests. We see the apostles extending "a judgment of Christian charity," which is to say that one's profession of faith is accepted, unless other considerations make that profession impossible to accept. Note: both halves of that statement should receive due weight. The predisposition is to accept a professed brother as such; but equally, disqualifiers do, in fact, disqualify.

Jesus Himself set the stage for this, by depicting many as falsely expecting to be welcomed to Heaven, when instead they'll be banished to Hell (Matthew 7:21-23).

So, similarly, Paul says he doesn't care who preaches a different Gospel, that person is justly damned and doomed (Galatians 1:8-9). No honest reader could doubt that Paul's Gospel had definite and distinct form, shape, edges. He lays it out as crucial and foundational, in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Paul paints the Gospel as requiring the affirmation and embrace of certain events and their meanings as assigned by Scripture, including the penal, substitutionary death of Christ, His burial, and His bodily resurrection. In that section as well, Paul stresses the need to cling to this Gospel precisely as given; salvation is to be found nowhere else.

Likewise the apostle John gives a cycle of three tests of eternal life (cf. 1 John 5:13). They include correct doctrine (cf. 4:1-4; 5:1, etc.), obedience to the written Word of God (2:3-6; 5:2-3, etc.), and love for the brothers (3:11-18; 4:7-12, etc.). He goes over these three themes, these three tests, again and again, from different angles.

So it isn't surprising that, in contrast to modern "Anything-goes/Whatever" evanjellybeans, we frequently find the Bible referring to false brothers (2 Corinthians 11:26; Galatians 2:4), false prophets and false teachers (2 Peter 2:1), warning against deceivers (Colossians 2:4, 8, 16-22; Jude 4), and both commanding and commending the exercise of close discernment (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22; Revelation 2:2). Christians say they're Christians; but saying you're a Christian doesn't make you a Christian.

So yes: it is possible to trace out the parameters of Christian profession and practice. And it is possible that someone's words and/or life indicate that he hasn't the right to claim to be a Christian.

The "no" part

Many of these tests are meant for me to use on myself, primarily — not (primarily) on others. I am to test myself (2 Corinthians 13:5), and apply John's threefold tests to see if I have eternal life (1 John 5:13). They are not primarily given that I might go around with a big red C and a big red P, stamping Christian or Phony on anyone I meet.

"Primarily," I say. However, HSAT, I am urged to apply discernment and judgment, as we've seen (cf. Matthew 7:6, etc.). Christian leaders in particular are responsible to identify, deal with, and warn against false teachers and false brothers (cf. Titus 1:10-13; 3:10-11, etc.). The church is to echo this judgment (cf. Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15).

But I can barely know my own sick, deceptive heart (Jeremiah 17:9), let alone another's (1 Corinthians 2:11). So I must be humble and cautious, must stick with what I can see and hear, must not overreach, and must leave the ultimate decision to God.

Plus we must factor in truths such as Romans 7:14-25, where even the apostle Paul himself said that what he did (and failed to do) was not always right. He did what he shouldn't; he didn't do what he should. His life, unlike Jesus', was not seamlessly perfect and "there" (cf. also Philippians 3:12-13). So even the Christianest Christian we'll ever know will have lapses, failings, weaknesses — sins.

So humility and grace are definitely called for.

However, HSAT, I not only can, but must say that certain words and deeds and concepts and beliefs are not Biblical, not Christian, not pleasing to God — when I have the revealed mind of God on those matters. And I can extrapolate, and warn, rebuke, reprove, exhort. And I can (and must) warn that a pattern, a path, if not repented of, will lead to Hell.

Though a Christian may sin, he struggles and fights against his sin (Galatians 5:17). He regularly puts to death the deeds of his body (Romans 8:13). He does not continue in sin (1 John 3:3-4, 8-10). That distinguishes a Christian: he isn't floating downstream towards the waterfall. He fights the current.

And mark this: there is no sentence, word, nor syllable of Scripture meant to give comfort to anyone willfully continuing in unrepented sin.

So: if someone's confession of "Christ" is heterodox and out of step with Scripture; if his value-system bears no mark of the yoke of discipleship in the school of Christ; if his closest associates despise the Lord and His word; and if he stubbornly resists all attempts to point him to Christ, and to the word of God — then we would be faithless towards God, and loveless towards that man or woman, to imagine or hold out any basis to believe him or her to be a Christian.

At the very least, we can and must certainly say something like,

"What you are saying/doing is offensive to God, and condemned by God. I can't see your heart, but I can see what comes out of your heart. Jesus says that the mouth speaks from what fills the heart (Luke 6:45), and our actions come from our hearts (cf. Proverbs 4:23). These are not the actions nor words of a heart that believes and loves God, and that worries me terribly for you. I implore you, repent, bow the knee to Christ as Lord from your heart — or you have no reason to hope that you have any part in Him or His kingdom."

It's what Jesus would do (Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Revelation 3:19).

It's what we should do.

Defining Christians and Republicans (part one)

Defining itself isn't a popular activity today. It violates the very soul of postmodernism to find centers and edges, and set boundaries; to say "Here's what A is, and here are the borders at which we move from A to non-A." We don't like being so specific. Hence Emerg***, which defines itself as being anti-definitional.

Often it's sheer intellectual cowardice. I noticed and parodied this in seminary, back in the early 80s. Students sprinkled their questions and statements with the wiggle-phrase in a sense. That was your Get Out Of Specificity card. "So... in a sense, isn't Bultmann affirming inspiration?"

Challenged, a student could always retort, "Yeah, but I said in a sense!"

Use that phrase broadly enough, and it's hard to argue that anything is really wrong. Use it broadly enough, and, in a sense, the Eiffel Tower is in Mammoth Lakes, California — because, after all, isn't it one planet?

So now we come to political parties. The mantra for the GOP for decades has been Big Tent. That's shorthand for, "We don't care what you believe or fight for, as long as you call yourself a Republican." So, you can be pro-infanticide or pro-life, pro-big-government or pro-small-government, pro-tax-hikes or pro-tax-cuts, pro-"gay"-"marriage" or anti-. In other words, you can be Duncan Hunter, or you can be Olympia Snowe. Just be a Republican. It's a Big Tent. RINO still starts with an "R."

Well, arch-conservative that I am, I have to grant that there is a point to this. How do you define "Republican," specifically? By the party platform? In that case, the GOP would be larger than current "third"-parties, but not by much. So GOP voters have to decide which values are core values to them in the interests of which they'll accept less-than-perfect.

For instance, candidate Bush had for him that he was pretty solidly pro-life, and (we were told) could beat Algore. But he had that lame and slanderous "compassionate conservatism," which we suspected (rightly) was a code-phrase for bi-i-i-i-ig government. W did turn out to be a good pro-life president, but lost the White House for the GOP due in part to his overspending.

So we can argue whether W was a "good" Republican... but it'd be hard to define him as not a Republican. Because — what are the borders? What is the objective definition? What is the authority?

These are all legitimate questions... in politics. Arnold Schwarzeneggar can say he's a Republican, and so can John Kyl; Tom McClintock, and John Warner. All you have to do is say you're one, register as one, and you are one. Who can challenge the claim? For good or ill, that's the way it is.

So now here's the problem: people have come to speak of claiming to be a Christian in the same terms. If someone says he's a Christian, well then, he is. Who can challenge his claim? In fact, it's bad to challenge that particular claim.

How does this topic compare to politics? Are there no boundaries to "Christianity"? Is it impossible to define Christian faith, to say "Here, here and here are where you leave Christianity and go into something else"? Is there no authoritative source that defines being a Christian?

Of course there is an authoritative source for defining Christian faith: the Bible. And that book does lay down a number of lines, borders, boundaries. They're both conceptual and practical.

But I want to pause for a moment and just reflect on the resistance you get to the very endeavor. It's thought outrageous to try to "define" what it is to be a Christian. Because next thing you know, you're going to actually have to say that some popular person who claims to be a Christian, isn't really a Christian.

But why is that in principle so unthinkable? If I claim to be a casaba melon, you may feel bad for me for saying it, but you won't feel bad for pointing out that I'm really not. Similarly if I claim to be a brick, a Communist, a quahog, or one of the Beatles. I'm just not. I can say I am, but saying doesn't make it so.

Heck, I can teach a parakeet to say "I'm a Christian." But he won't be one, for all that.

All sorts of things in life have borders, edges, termini. Why not being a Christian?

It is, after all, a voluntary association. Nobody has to be a Christian. And particularly, if you don't yourself subscribe to the distinctives of being a Christian, why would you want to say you were one? Before my conversion, I certainly didn't want to be mistaken for a Jesus Freak. Why would I? I despised what they believed, and was happy to distance myself from them.

Lord willing we'll start there, next time, and then move into some definition.

Interesting: Robert Schuller ousts his son from the pulpit

Hm. The guy who preaches in a big glass house is throwing rocks.

Background: as I shared over at Pyro, I spent my formative teenish years in a cult called Science of Mind, or Religious Science. I would sometimes listen to Robert Schuller, and kind of like him. He was mostly in line with us, except he said the name "Jesus" more than we would.

After my conversion, I thought I'd watch him again, and expected to get more out of him. Instead, he repulsed me. Christ's Lordship was nowhere to be found, the full Gospel message was absent; he was humoring the lost to Hell. More than ever, he sounded almost identical to the cult from which the Lord had just saved me.

Schuller has said many terrible things, judged from the perspective of the Gospel. His abominable book Self-Esteem: the New Reformation carries many of them. Unlike Christ, Schuller puts man at the center of the universe, with God there to serve, affirm, and accommodate. The Biblical teachings of God's holiness and judgment, of Christ's Lordship, of sin, redemption, and salvation through penal, subtitutionary atonement, have been conspicuously absent or denied. Repentance from sin, as Biblically defined and depicted, is not a Schuller theme.

Now I read that the elder Schuller has removed his son from the pulpit, citing different visions and directions that could damage the ministry. Well, that piqued my curiosity. What difference? I haven't been following the doings at Crystal Cathedral at all. Did the younger Schuller preach even less Biblicaloid notions than Dad could stand? Or, perhaps... the other direction?

I searched mostly in vain. But if the Wikipedia article on Robert A. Schuller is accurate, it may give us a clue. Check this:

...where his father's preaching tends to be heavier on psychological reference and lighter on scriptural reference, Robert A. Schuller's messages rely considerably on scriptural reference, hermeneutics, and apologetics, making the role of "positivism" secondary. This emphasis on scripture as a primary teaching source makes his preaching style considerably different from his father's.

Critics of his father will find Robert A. Schuller's teaching and style more in line with mainstream evangelical thought. Some argue that that he does not preach adequately on the topic of sin and man's fallen nature, while others counter-argue that he does so adequately without overemphasizing them (a common critique from evangelicals and fundamentalists).

It is also argued that, as with many televangelists, including his father, Schuller's message is not throughout truly Christian but tends to be rather secular. Others counterargue that the heavy use of scriptural reference, hermeneutics, and apologetics used by Schuller negate this argument.

So, maybe... too much Gospel?

Golly. Think what would happen if anyone tried to nail up 95 Theses there!

Or even just the first one:

When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent",
He called for the entire life of believers to be one of
repentance.

Afterthoughts on yesterday's post: on moral reasoning, and word-studies

Today, a two-item smorgasbord for your edification.

In Bad love, bad end - and the Cross, we looked at Solomon's apostasy, through the grim narrative of 1 Kings 11. Recall the first two verses, which will spark two further observations:

Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, 2 from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the people of Israel, "You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods." Solomon clung to these in love.

First, love is not self-justifying. We're told twice that Solomon had love for these women. The same Hebrew word is used in both verses. Isn't love a good thing? In this case, clearly not.

Why not? Because Yahweh had forbidden these unions. Things are not moral nor immoral in themselves, as if by some inherent quality — like one action has lots of "midi-chloreans," the other doesn't. No, acts and choices are moral or immoral as judged by God. After all, there are no such things as brute nor neutral facts. There are only created facts, facts created, defined, and categorized by God the Creator.

So I can imagine Solomon "reasoning" exactly as I've heard sinning, apostatizing "Christians" "reason." Solomon could have said,

"Is not love a good thing? Has not Yahweh Himself commanded that we love our neighbor? Are these not lost women who need the light and word of Yahweh? Is it not to the greater glory of Yahweh that we expand our reach, that we reach out in love to these benighted souls? Think of the new opportunities I will have to bear witness! And who better than I, the servant of Yahweh, who has seen visions of Yahweh and heard His voice? Surely it pleases God for me to hold my arms out wide, to love broadly in His name! Hallelujah! Isn't Yahweh wonderful?"

Plausible, isn't it? And isn't this precisely the sort of "reasoning" we hear in rationalizing various sins — heresies, homosexuality, women pastors, rebellion against authority, refusal to involve oneself in a local assembly, and perversions of the Gospel?

Just one problem: all is dashed to shards by the command of Yahweh.

This love was not beautiful and glorious. It was ugly and destructive. Under no circumstances could it have been otherwise for Solomon. It stood condemned a-borning.

I think you can see many modern applications.

And so, I pass to you this principle, not for the last time:

Never try to use a concept
to cancel a commandment.

Second, leave Greek to people who know Greek. How many times have you heard people — even preachers! — say, "Now, agapē means God's sacrificial, self-giving, unselfish love of commitment to the good of others." Whenever I hear that statement... well, I wince. I cringe.

Now, it may be true that the love to which God calls us is just that: selfless commitment to others' good. That's fine. But don't say that that is what agapē means, as if this were a special word, as if all those ideas were inherently wrapped up in that term. Because they aren't!

For instance, in the Greek translation of this passage, verse two says εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐκολλήθη Σαλωμων τοῦ ἀγαπῆσαι. That is, "Solomon was joined to them to love them." The translator(s) used the verb agapaō. Can you plug in the notion, "joined to them in God's kind of sacrificial, selfless, self-giving commitment to their good"?

No. His love for them was sinful, and therefore selfish.

So the meaning we find in agapē is not inherent in the word itself. It comes from the ways the Lord and the apostles use, demonstrate, and describe it.

Best not to comment on Greek, unless you know Greek. And knowing Greek involves much more than using concordances to do "word-studies."

Harold Camping: the dispensationalist's best friend?

It's somewhat gratifying to see James White going off on Harold Camping. The longsuffering White put himself through the brain-scraping misery of listening to some of Camping's hamfisted and ruthless mangling of Scripture, almost setting off his car's air bag as he pounded the steering-wheel in frustration. (Been there, done that! )

As I mused on the interminably-droning, ever-maddening and always-embarrassing Camping, this tangential thought came to mind:

"Date-setters!" This is a common gibe of some my anti-dispensationalists Calvinistic brethren. Because some dispensationalists have been date-setters, we're all guilty of the crime.

Historically and factually this is a shell without an egg -- or what egg there is in fact bespatters faces in all prophetic camps. Still, one hears it often enough, as if it's a damning finger pointed at dispensationalists alone.

It strikes me, though, that one response to any amillennialist leveling this charge might be, "Tell you what, bro. I'll carry guilt for Dr. JoeBob Dispie-datesetter, if you will take the rap for amill/Christ-is-coming-in-1994/the-church-age-is-over-so-flee-your-church-NOW Harold Camping. Deal?"

I'm thinking we'd see a big "NO SALE" come up on that cash register.

Which is good! Maybe then we can move towards sweeping aside date-setting and some of the other red herrings that bog down this discussion, and actually discuss principles of exegesis, specifics, and whether or not the work of reformation was really completed for all time by the end of the seventeenth century.

Wouldn't that be a win/win for everyone?