Tag Archive for bible at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Tag Archive for 'bible'

Paganism in Mainstream Christianity: Divination of Feelings

Published by Colin August 18, 2008 in General and Religion. 14 Comments

Until I read Decision Making and the Will of God, I would have never considered a significant aspect of my faith to be rooted in paganism. Yet, upon understanding the nature of God’s will and how it applies to my life, I can see how grave an error I was making, and that my walk was significantly neutered.

Divination is a major problem in Christianity among fundamentalist, bible-believing Christians. It is the practice of using normal and explainable objects, phenomena, circumstances and occurrences to understand and interpret the will of the gods (or in Christianity’s case - God).

Take, for example, this “method” for determining “God’s will in your life:”

…listen to that still small voice inside of you. The burden of the call upon your life will outweigh your ambitions which you have established. If the Lord wants you to do a specific work for Him, He will give you a burden for that work. Your heart will keep drawing you to that specific task or work. As the day draws closer for you to accomplish and know God’s will for your life, your burden will become heavier to accomplish it. If you run away from God’s will, you will always go back because the burden will not go away. The burden also has love attached. And, of course, when we pray for His will to be made known in our lives, He will tell us. As Psalm 143:10 says, “Teach me to do your will, for you are my God; may your good Spirit lead me on level ground.”

In other words, we are to use our feelings and impression to divine the will of God. But scripture warns us against this:

The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9 NKJ)

With a pagan world-view, it is much easier to see this error. If someone said that they believed the trees were speaking to them to not cut them down - they just felt a burden for the trees so strongly - we would accurately determine that such a person was insane. But if Christians substitute “God” (and that adds a lot of weight) then they can say something similar, such as, “I just feel led to be a pastor - I think God is telling me this is His will for my life.”

This problem has been minimized in individuals who actually read their bibles, and can see that there are clear biblical guidelines to determine these things. Again, using the example, if their “calling” to be a pastor is realized after meeting qualifications for that position in the Word, then the error is harmless (though it is still wrong). But an immature Christian, who might have less knowledge and wisdom regarding the Word, might very well miss the fact that he does not biblically qualified for his “calling” and just run on what his “burden of the call” is saying.

I personally, do not believe that God “calls” Christian in this way. I view things much more plainly - God has provided men with a very clear set of principles for living in the bible which must be taken literally and at face value. He has also given men the freedom to make godly choices within those parameters, including how to chose whether a ministry role is correct.

If I would like to go to Kenya to share the gospel, I need not wait until I have a “burden” overwhelming me, gradually getting stronger and stronger to go. Rather, I need to check my desires against what the bible commands, and if it is correct, to go with it. It is never wrong for a mature Christian to preach the gospel. God is not ever going to disprove of his commands being obeyed. In fact, I would argue that the “sacrifice” of waiting on one’s feelings of a calling, is a much more likely offence to God. Instead, we should be quick to obey.

Christians should beware the kind of cavalier mysticism that is currently being embraced as determining God’s will.

Libertarianism, Christianity and Foreign Policy Q&A - Part III

Published by Colin July 17, 2008 in General. 19 Comments

Over the past year, especially because of the effect of Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy, many honest questions (and many baseless accusations) have been flying around about libertarianism, foreign policy and Christianity. I wanted to take the time to answer a few of these questions from my own perspective.

The past two instalments explained why libertarian foreign policy is neither right wing or left wing. But that isn’t good enough - is it biblically compatible?

Is libertarian foreign policy biblical? / I’m all for leaving places like Iraq, but we broke it so we bought it. It would be unChristian of us not to be using our military to save the world from evil and promote democracy and freedom!

As has been stated several times by multiple members of this blog, the bible has virtually nothing to say about political philosophy. This is not a big “oopsie” by God - he clearly was very deliberate about what he wanted in there.

However, the bible is chalk-full of moral philosophy and higher principles. As for me, I believe this is because God doesn’t really want Christians thinking politically. What I mean by that is, that God wants us to be consistent, principled, moral people - like Christ - not wishy-washy consequentialists like Saul or Aaron. He doesn’t want us ignorant about the means we use to achieve our ends.

Libertarian foreign policy is defensive-only. It does not invade, aggress, occupy, challenge, bully, provoke, obtain vengeance or pursue lust for resources. Libertarian foreign policy does allow individuals, families and (if you think they are legitimate) states to protect their property and lives.

This is obviously very compatible with biblical morality, where we are given almost the exact same commands. Although libertarian foreign policy may not be radical enough! The bible also argues that we should be so adverse to violence that we allow ourselves to suffer, and to turn the other cheek. While this is an important argument, it is probably best to have it another day as it is quite a long rabbit trail.

Many Christians justify prolonged nation-building wars and occupations (such as Iraq) by clichés and popular proverbs such as:

We have to continue the surge, and let me explain why, Chris. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. I learned I don’t pick something off the shelf I can’t afford to buy.

Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It’s our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away. Because something is a stake.

It is true that if you break someone’s property, you need to pay for it. However, it hardly follows that if you destroy someone’s infrastructure, kill tens of thousands of people, blow up their cultural and historical relics and induce a civil war by these actions you must continue to do so. The Christian thing to do would be to repent, that is to change your ways, and stop killing, wounding and destroying.

This is the kind of compromise that Christians have made to try and serve both country and God - but these two are often mutually exclusive:

…for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God (James 1:20 NKJV).

The moral imperatives of the bible are not removed from Christians when they put on a uniform. If I went over to another country on my own, decided I wanted something, and killed the people who owned it - would I not be a murderer? Just because I have a flag behind me, and a uniform on does not change this. In the same way, if I defended by house from a robber, I would be justified - as would a group of people from an invading foreign army. Similarly, the bible doesn’t change just because a Christian is acting on behalf of a government:

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him (Acts 10:34-35 NKJV).

Eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honour, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honour, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God (Romans 2:7-11 NKJV).

A Christian should view foreigners and strangers with hospitality and compassion. Obviously if one of them tries to injure, kill or steal from you - you can defend yourself. But only then. Christianity is not a call to global paranoia - where every tanned-skinned person from the middle east is out to blow us up. Even if they are - as Christians, it is not our job to join a crusade against those who have not directly harmed us. We are not going to change these people by warring with them, but by evangelizing them. Again, the wise James:

Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (James 4:1-4 NKJV).

A Christian view of foreigners and conflict is radically opposed to a secular view - especially to current foreign policy. This is the main reason why libertarian foreign policy and Christianity are compatible - libertarianism proclaims the freedom of men to practice what they will by voluntary consent. It allows and even encourages a Christian view of human relations.

Why I Am Not An Anarchist

Published by Kenneth Martens June 25, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 37 Comments

This essay responds to the idea that if small government is good, then no government is better.

Two Kinds of Libertarians
If a small government is good, no government at all must be better, right? Some libertarians agree, some don’t. That point of disagreement defines the two basic forms of libertarianism.

Anarchist libertarians believe true liberty can only be achieved if there is no government at all. Any form of government is oppressive.
Minarchist libertarians believe that a government is necessary for liberty. The ideal government is not oppressive.

Or to put it more succinctly:

Anarchy = no government
Minarchy = minimal government

Governments Abuse Power
The main problem with governments is that they can use their power to oppress the public and violate the rights of the people. At first glance that makes anarchism appealing. As one anarchist put it, how can minarchists trust “the minimal, libertarian state to restrain itself, and to refrain from using its own powers” to coerce and oppress the public? (The Minarchist’s Dilemma) There’s nothing to stop the government from using its power for evil. The only way to prevent that is to eliminate the government completely.

Ayn Rand offers a succinct explanation of why anarchy cannot and does not work.

[A] society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

“The Nature of Government” (PDF document)

I’m a Minarchist
I’m a minarchist, not an anarchist. There are practical reasons for my belief. E.g., I don’t think anarchism is workable in a fallen world filled with sinful people. It devolves into might-makes-right. Even Ayn Rand, a hostile critic of religion, recognizes that fact. But for now I want to focus on biblical reasons to support a minarchy. According to Romans 13, God establishes earthly governments and expects Christians to submit to them in obedience to God. Submitting is not optional for Christians.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God (Romans 13:1).

God’s Purpose for Government
OK then, submitting to the government is biblical. Does the Bible say that men must be governed, though? Is it acceptable to submit to the authorities that exist while also advocating their abolition? I believe not. The reason is related to the purpose of government. Let’s look at Romans again, to see the purpose of government.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience (Romans 13:3-5) [Emphasis added].

The Bible is Not About Political Philosophy
The God-ordained purpose of government is to “bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” God doesn’t tell us to obey the government on a whim; we must obey the government because it is God’s instrument of justice on Earth. The precise form of government isn’t detailed in the Scriptures, but the qualities of that government are listed: a government acceptable to God is one that punishes evildoers and holds no terror for those who do right. There is no biblical support for the idea that God’s purposes (i.e., punishing evildoers) can be achieved without a government.

The Bible isn’t a treatise on political philosophy. It doesn’t discuss the merits of republics or kingdoms or dictatorships; it doesn’t list the virtues of democracies. All the Bible tells us is that governments are established by God for the purpose of punishing wrongdoers. As a Christian, I can only support governments that achieve those biblical objectives. As a citizen and a rational, thinking human being, I believe a minarchy is the best kind of government to fully achieve God’s stated purposes for government.

To summarize:

I am not an anarchist. I believe God has established earthly governments for a purpose.
I am a minarchist because I believe a minarchy best fits the purposes of government laid out in Romans 13.

Are Anarchists Heretics?
This doesn’t mean that anarchy is heresy. I believe you can read the Bible and come away with an understanding that anarchy is compatible with God’s character and with biblical values. For example, you might look to the period of judges and see that God preferred Israel as a nation without a national government. God permitted Israel to have a king, but he warned them of the dire consequences. I don’t believe this implies that anarchy is God’s preferred system of government, but I can see how someone can come to that conclusion.

So no, anarchy is not heresy. I believe minarchy is a more reasonable understanding of the Bible, but good Bible-believing Christians can be anarchists too.

Links: McCain’s Gaffe, Oil Strategy and God is Green?

Published by Colin May 9, 2008 in Current Events. 4 Comments

We recently talked about some counterfeit gospels. Maybe we should have put “green-ism” or “environmentalism” in there as well. From Jew:

God is Green. Really? The apostles must have forgotten to record Jesus’ teachings on environmentalism, because I don’t see it in the Bible. Oh well. What can we expect from a website that says “What makes you feel love and forgiveness? If you can find these, you have found God.”

Fixing The Oil Problem
Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming has outlined a plan to temporarily relieve gas prices. Well, it’s not so much a “plan” as a command to the government to stop taking oil from others who need it so it can sit in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Barrasso’s bill, S. 2927, instructs the federal government to stop putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when the average price of gasoline is over $2.50 per gallon, and the price of diesel fuel exceeds $2.75 per gallon.

“Everyday the government is pulling tens of thousands of barrels of crude oil off the market that could otherwise be used by truckers, airlines, and our neighbors,” Barrasso added.

In other words, it’s that same old story that always follows government intervention: unintended consequences. The very problem that the SPR was created to fix (oil embargoes from the middle east causing high prices/shortages), it has now caused: high prices and shortages.

Barrasso is just making economic sense of a stupid policy. What do we expect when the US government itself is demanding massive amounts of oil - especially to just store in unused tanks “just in case.”

McCain Admits What We’ve All Known: Blood For Oil
Speaking of oil, John McCain got grilled last week after admitting in his speeches something that even Obama and Clinton would shy away from saying:

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

Once again, we have unintended consequences playing out. We go into Iraq to secure natural resources we ~~need~~ want (which happen to belong to someone else) and find that our intervention has created so much instability and chaos that the price of a barrel of oil has gone up over 400% of what it was pre-invasion. Go figure.

Some Important Questions On The NT Canon

Published by Bryan April 15, 2008 in Religion and Theology. 3 Comments

When one sits back and really thinks about the NT canon, several important questions should come to mind that are not often addressed. Too often, one jumps to questions such as; what was the criteria for including a book, why was book X not included, and why is the canon closed, before actually considering the concept of canon. That is, one starts their investigation of the canon before considering if there should be a textual canon or not.

To question if there should be a canon or not may seem strange, since there has been some kind of NT canon for much of the history of the church, and perhaps it is a silly question since nearly every Christian alive today would agree that there should be a textual canon. But to start an investigation of the NT canon with this question will force us to examine what we believe the place of the canon is in the Christian life, and to look deeper at why it was formed, even if we all agree on the answer already. Much like in math where you are required to show your work on a test to prove you have thought the concept through and are not simply copying what you have memorized, I think this question will force a person to think through beliefs that they may otherwise take for granted.

I am not sure my answer to the question of why we have a textual canon is correct or not. I think it would be difficult to definitively give an answer to the question, and I think more then one answer may be correct. What I will do in what follows is then only lay out my thoughts on the question of the necessity of a textual canon and invite the discussion of canon to make this question one of it’s starting points.

Who Created the Cannon: God or the Church?
Unlike a great majority of Protestants, I believe that the church created the textual canon. The canon of scripture is above all things a book of the church, the book of the church. The authority that scripture has in the life of the believer comes from God, but not directly. God set up the church as His instrument on the earth, and it was through this instrument that the textual canon was decided. This is in opposition to the view that the church merely recognized the books we have in the textual canon as scripture. I believe this view is neither historically nor theologically defensible.

If the church only recognized what was obvious, then why was there the contradicting lists, the debate, and the need to set a textual canon? Would it not have been so obvious to the church that one would not need to set a list? No, there was discussion and disagreement, true there was also much agreement that certain books needed to be included, but it was not simply because a book had some innate quality that made it scripture, but because it was a true and trustworthy account of what happened that agreed with the teachings of the church.

The textual canon did not come down from heaven like the Ten Commandments did, but it was the authority that Christ gave to the church that allowed it to come into existence. The commands to watch over and feed the sheep/flock (John 21 Acts 20:28) gives the church a general authority. The creating of a textual canon, something to hand down among the sheep to keep them on the straight path after the first few generations begin to die out, can be seen as one way (among many) the church has attempted to fulfill this authority. There really is little other command or prediction to produce such a book.

Defining “Inspiration”
The response to this line of reasoning would be to affirm that although there was not a prediction of scripture, or a command for the church to create a canon, the fact that it is inspired by God (pointing to 2 Timothy 3:16) places it in a category not unlike a gift to the church, but definitely not decided upon by the church. The argument ignores the historical context of the creation of the canon, but also relies on a very specific understanding of what the word “inspired” means.
Continue reading ‘Some Important Questions On The NT Canon’

Bibilical Bodily Healing VII: Faith Defined

Published by Chris A March 20, 2008 in Religion. 9 Comments

Since Jesus made so much mention of faith with respect to healing, it is necessary that we gain an understanding about what faith is according to the scriptures. Faith is a firm belief or persuasion about God supported by words and/or deeds. Faith results from having obtained the knowledge of God. Absent knowledge, faith cannot be present. This is not knowledge in a purely academic sense, but is knowledge that comes from God via his word. Through God’s word his character and faithfulness is revealed, and thus his credibility is revealed; this is the basis of faith.

Faith is the counterpart of grace. In order for there to be faith, there must be grace. Access into the grace of God is granted by the exercise of faith, and grace is multiplied to us through the knowledge of God.

How Faith is Made Available
The tenth chapter of Romans gives us a picture of what some have termed “saving faith”. This faith is based on the knowledge of God’s will to make righteous all those who receive Christ by faith.

8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

In verse 8 Paul calls the Gospel the word of faith. Why? Because it is able to produce faith sufficient for righteousness. However, notice that for this faith to be effective there must be a corresponding confession of faith.

13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

The answer to Paul’s rhetorical questions is: they cannot. It is impossible to call upon a Savior that you have not believed in, and it is impossible something you have not heard.

17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

The Promises of God
Not only does “saving faith” come by hearing, but all faith comes by hearing. Such was the case with Abraham. He received a promise from God, and on the basis of that promise alone, he believed what seemed to be both impossible and ridiculous to most people. Imagine calling yourself Abraham, which means “father of many nations”, when you are an old man with an old wife who has never bore any children. In Abraham, so many of the qualities of true faith are revealed.

16Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb: 20He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform (Romans 4:16-21).

One of the most overlooked qualities of faith is found in verse 19. Notice that it says Abraham “considered not his own body…neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb.” True faith is willing to accept God’s word above all that is seen in the temporal realm. In the Christian sense, seeing is not believing.

For most Christians this is not the case. Adverse circumstances that contradict the promises of God are often touted as “reality”, and thus they stagger at the promise of God because of their failure to esteem God’s word above all else. If you are fully persuaded that God promised you something, nothing else should matter; it should be settled in your mind that he is faithful to keep his promise, and it has to come to pass – period.

Take a look at what Peter said concerning the promises of God in 2 Peter 1:3, 4.

3According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.”

Everything that pertains to life and godliness has been provided (past tense) to Christians through Christ, but in order to partake of that provision Christians must take an active stance towards acquiring what is promised by faith. There is indeed nothing passive about faith. Those who are in faith think, speak, and act in accordance to what is promised.

Many err in that they assume that whatever God promises automatically materializes. Nothing could be further from the truth. God promised Israel a land flowing with milk and honey, but did all of them enter into that land? No. Why? Because of unbelief (Hebrews 3:19). Therefore it requires faith to receive of what God has provided for his children.

Faith is Not Generic
As stated earlier, faith is based on knowledge from God. Naturally all faith is not the same just as all knowledge is not the same. A person can have strong faith in one area while having weak faith in another area, simply because they may lack knowledge in the area where faith is weak. The remedy for this problem is to acquire the knowledge that can produce the desired belief.

Another possibility is that by failing to give attention to all aspects of what is known, people become forgetful and get out of faith. They may acknowledge something to be true without displaying the corresponding actions that prove their faith is living.

Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip (Hebrews 2:1).

In cases where people have heard the word of God in a particular area, but have not maintained a vibrant faith in that area, the solution is to revisit the knowledge that produced the faith in the first place.

This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour (2 Peter 3:1, 2).

This is where consistent renewal of the mind comes into play. When knowledge is initially revealed, this is just the beginning of faith. In order for faith to persist it must be continually fed on the word of God. Unless beliefs are strengthened, they will naturally weaken.

The Anti-Faith
Faith has an imposter. In many respects it does a pretty good job of impersonating faith, but when it comes to producing actual results, it falls short. The enemy is simple mental agreement. How can one be differentiated from the other? It is simple: by the corresponding words and actions that are produced. Here is a great lesson on faith from James 2.

13For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. 14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

When it comes to faith, words are important. But mere words that fail to translate into any demonstrable action are an empty mockery of faith. To get a clearer picture of how actions follow real faith, the reader is urged to visit the eleventh chapter of Hebrews.

A Biblical Case Against Drug Prohibition and Anti-Prostitution Laws

Published by Colin February 13, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 14 Comments

Author’s Note: This article arose from a discussion following last Friday’s set of links. It was buried in the comments of that piece and is being brought out separately for consideration as part of its own case. For clarity and consistency, there have been some changes and additions to the original post.

Because there is no specific (or implied) biblical mandates for how we are to address the secular legality of drugs and prostitution (some would stop me here and cite certain commandments, but I will deal with those later). Indeed, there is very little political philosophy in the bible at all - we must use a different approach. One legitimate way to determine biblicality then, is to draw logical conclusions from the fundamental nature of God revealed in scripture. There may also be related or implied passages that can then be applied with the knowledge of God’s character. To start, let’s explore the fundamental nature of God, as it relates to these issues.

God Unilaterally Grants, Respects and Supports Free-will through Allowing Choice
God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree, but he left the tree in the garden (Genesis 2:9). He left the choice available to them (and they chose poorly). God gave his law to the people and allowed them to chose if they would follow him (Joshua 24:14-15) - he did not make them robots which unconditionally loved him. Jesus died for all mankind and God desires that all men be saved (2 Peter 3:9), but he doesn’t force them into heaven. He does not force them to repent and believe. He educates, he explains the consequences, he unabashedly reveals his desire that men would turn from sin (and drugs and prostitution are sins, morally evil in the sight of God) but yet he does not whisk the drugs and lust away as he well could.

God holds absolute respect for the order he gave the world, and the freedom he gave man. He demonstrates his love by declaring, in frank terms, the consequences for evil that man will bring upon himself if he continues to chose poorly. God’s respect of freewill is based on education, love and choice not on fear and control (2 Timothy 1:7).

Each individual man is responsible for his own sins. Fathers aren’t punished for their son’s sins. God will not destroy the righteous with the wicked. A sin that anyone commits, from lies, murder, drug-use, lust, fornication, etc… is soley accountable to the man who did it. No one else is punished (Ezekiel 18:20).

Real Change Only Comes Through Conversion
The only way a man can make morally good choices is through conversion, otherwise he is darkness (Ephesians 5:8). It is not compliance with God’s law, in and of itself, which converts a man. God’s law is an educational tool, not a list of requirements. Obedience to the law is totally unable to produce actual inward change (conversion). Conversion takes place by education about the law (Psalm 19:7).

The law reveals that man is sinful and requires a supernatural change (Romans 3:20). Through understanding the purpose of the law, he is empowered to seek Gods power to convert his soul and make wise, morally good choices. But God still does not remove the choices, reminding the man whenever he choses evil, that he must depend on God for goodness, not on his own willpower. Were God to remove choice after conversion, man would consider God’s work a one-time-only solution, and not a consistent change in lifestyle for the rest of his life. The converted man now despises sin and is convicted when he sins - the unconverted man has no ability to gauge sin, and has only the inward inclination to continue in sin, without a real desire to change. Sin is not effectively addressed without conversion. Christians have no other solution or alternative to see man actually turn from sin.

Prohibitions on drugs and prostitution are a tremendous detriment to conversion, which is the called work of the church. By forcing the right choice (by removing wrong choices), we disable a man to chose correctly. It is required of a man to humble himself and chose to follow God - this is the responsibility associated with free-will (Micah 6:8). In order to turn from sin, there must be sin to turn from - otherwise it’s a false choice. God is smart enough not to do this, are Christians smart enough to obey God?

Christians Must Emulate God
As Christians (”Christ-like”, “little Christs”) it is our job to emulate God (Ephesians 5:1) not to do things our way, and violate his order. That means we must never (because God does not ever) violate free-will. He has given us no permission to do so and will not because he himself does not violate his own order.

We see that God will act on behalf of innocents to protect them from violations of their free-will by others. And, not surprisingly in perfect consistency, man is given jurisdiction to protect against violations of the above (Gen 9:6), not to violate God’s order and infringe these things. There was, at least, some Christian foundation to our country, as these principles were enshrined in the declaration of Independence. Namely, that

…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

How Should the Christian Deal With All Sin?
To determine what the Christian should do, we must determine what God does. God will punish sin in the day of judgment. His “punishment” though, is interesting because it is a punishment of ultimate permission. That is, God submits his desire that all would be saved to the principle of free-will, and allows man an eternity of total absence from God and all things pertaining to his nature (love, joy, goodness, hope, light, etc…). God’s punishment is not a negative punishment, but a positive one. It affirms man’s freewill rather than deny it (Galatians 6:7).

Continue reading ‘A Biblical Case Against Drug Prohibition and Anti-Prostitution Laws’

Inerrancy: The Useless Doctrine

Published by Jasen Tracy December 17, 2007 in Religion. 23 Comments

Inerrancy, as believed by most Evangelicals, means that the bible, in the original manuscripts, is free from error and completely truthful in all that it addresses. The Chicago Statement has a detailed explanation of the doctrine. It is my contention that this doctrine is of little or no practical use.

We do not have the original manuscripts of the bible. It is true that we can reconstruct 98 to 99 percent of it with a very high degree of confidence and that few issues of any importance are contained in the areas most in dispute. Nevertheless, this leaves us in the position that, even if inerrancy in the original manuscripts was accepted, in which we do not have an inerrant bible today.

Another major problem is the issue of canon, or just what should be considered to be a part of the bible. Famously, Protestants and Roman Catholics have a different canon. The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, the Ethiopian Church, and the various Oriental Churches, also have slightly different canons.

This is important because a major benefit of having an inerrant bible is to have a 100% accurate highest authority. But of course, the bible did not fall to us from the sky a complete, single entity. Any “highest” authority must make a circular argument for itself, that is, it must say that it is the highest authority. The bible fails a crucial element of this task in that it contains no list of what should be included in itself. That is, the bible does not say which works should be in the bible. So, should Tobit be considered inerrant? Heck, what about Jude? And if Jude, why not the Book of Enoch? Where is the inerrant source that decides?

There are other issues, but I think the two above are enough to show why the doctrine of inerrancy has little practical use.

The doctrine forces people to defend a position that is not provable, as well as forcing focus on a verse-by-verse defense of apparently mistaken or inconsistent passages and textually uncertainties. Instead the focus should be on just how well preserved the biblical texts are and it’s amazing contents

All and all, I’d say we need a better way to express our view of the bible.

How Literally Should the Bible be Taken?

Published by Colin December 4, 2007 in Religion. 14 Comments

Though this is hardly a political post, an important religious question was generated in a recent Republican Debate. The question, submitted by a Youtube user, was straightforward:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF-nMaYq3QE

The question: do you believe every word of the Bible?

Getting the essential bias out of the way, I do. I believe every single word of it. I take the Bible as a literal document unless it seems dramatically clear that we are talking about metaphor or symbolism. Jonah in the fish - yup, I believe that. The creation story - yes, I think God literally did the job as it says.

At the same time, can someone believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and take it less (even much less) literally than I do? What if someone believes that Jonah’s story is somewhat true, but has been peppered with symbolism and mythology in order to make a critical teaching point? What if the creation story is an anecdote that is less about the specifics of creation, and more about God’s love for mankind and man’s inherent drive to rebel?

Most conservative Christians would say no. But ironically, most conservative Christians understand and accept that the book of Revelation and other prophetic passages may elicit different interpretations based on how literal it should be taken. People squarely in the pre, post or mid trib eschatology generally tolerate each other as, though a little misguided in those things, still Bible-believing born-again Christians. Almost no one in a pre-trib oriented church would call a post-trib guest a heretic. But if the guest did not believe in a literal interpretation of much of the Old Testament - I think there would be a problem.

This brings me back to my original though - can one say they believe the Bible, even if belief is not in a principally literal interpretation? Is Rudy Giuliani’s response, for example, valid:

I think there are parts of the Bible that are interpretive. I think there are parts of the Bible that are allegorical. I think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be interpreted in a modern context.

So, yes, I believe it. I think it’s the great book ever written. I read it frequently. I read it very frequently when I’ve gone through the bigger crises in my life, and I find great wisdom in it, and it does define to a very large extent my faith. But I don’t believe every single thing in the literal sense of Jonah being in the belly of the whale, or, you know, there are some things in it that I think were put there as allegorical.

Is that truth? Is that acceptable? Is that Christian? I am not attempting to criticize Giuliani here, but to actually ask if his response is particularly un-Christian.

Belief in the Bible seems predicated on faith - that even though all of it does not obey the natural order, it should be taken on faith. In some sense then, to believe the Bible, one must abandon or go beyond pure reason in order to interpret it. Is an interpretation like Giuliani’s, which essentially removes faith from the equation and takes the Bible only as far as reason would allow, still a fundamentally and distinctly “Christian” view?

The Inspired Word of God?

Published by Hungry Sasquatch September 12, 2007 in Religion. 74 Comments

Editor’s note: In the spirit of pursuing truth and engaging different views, Zeal For Truth will publish guest commentaries such as today’s article written by Josh Herchenroeder. He received a degree in Bible from Abilene Christian University, and then spent three years auditing grad school.

I’m currently reading Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, a fascinating study of hidden incentives, unasked questions, and unexpected realizations. This particular quote stood out to me:

It was John Kenneth Galbraith, the hyperliterate economic sage, who coined the phrase ‘conventional wisdom.’ He did not consider it a compliment. ‘We associate truth with convenience, with what mostly accords with self-interest and personal well-being or promises best to avoid awkward effort or unwelcome dislocation of life…We adhere, as though to a raft, to those ideas which represent our understanding.’

I’d like to shift the focus of this principle from an economic field to the realm of Christianity. Faith in the unseen is at the core of Christian doctrine; by its very nature, much of Christianity cannot be substantiated. However, this has not stopped us from developing our own conventional wisdom, and the church’s response to those who challenge the norm has been unpleasant, to say the least. Questioners are socially ostracized. We used to brand them as heretics and excommunicate them…or burn them at the stake. We develop a comfort zone of beliefs which we don’t want anyone messing with, and then wrap it up all nice and neat, stick a bow on it, and call it faith. I call it conventional wisdom, and like Galbraith, I don’t think highly of it.

The Bible
One of the most obvious manifestations of this phenomenon is our insistence that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Is it really? Who says? I know my church history. I know about the great church councils and the canonization of the 27 books which comprise the New Testament. I know all the self-authenticating Bible verses, such as 2nd Timothy 3:16 (“All scripture is God-breathed…”). Undoubtedly, we have a huge number of witnesses spanning two millennia who help shape our conventional wisdom; unfortunately, while the magnitude of testimony must weigh heavily, it doesn’t conclude anything.

The Bible claims, on many occasions, to be the Word of God. Well, so does the Qur’an, and I find it to be inconsistent, self-contradicting, and extremely non-progressive. I would think God can do better than that. Or take the Book of Mormon, which claims to be the final (as in, more authoritative) revelation of Jesus. I find it overly fantastic and completely incongruous with subsequent scientific and archaeological discoveries. Should I not apply the same critical analysis to my own scriptures as to those of other faith traditions? And when I do, what happens when I discover self-contradictions? What do I do with prophetic messages that clash? What do I do with rules that demean women? How do I respond when God acts in a way that is in direct conflict with the testimony of Jesus? As I see it, we have three choices: 1) Change our view of God, or 2) Change our view of the Bible, or 3) Not think about it and use the “God’s ways are higher than our ways and we can’t understand it so we should just believe” intellectual out-clause.

Conventional Wisdom
Christian conventional wisdom tends to take the third option. It’s safe. For one thing, it’s what the community is supposed to believe, so we don’t risk rocking the boat. Besides, if we don’t ask questions, God will surely be pleased with our faith and so he won’t throw us in hell. The other alternatives are scary, so we stick with what we know, doing everything in our power to avoid uncomfortable disequilibrium. This is human nature. I don’t want to downplay the cost of questioning; it is enormous. If we are truly Christians, then our spiritual beliefs form the foundation on which we build our lives, and if those are wrong, then what does that say about everything we’ve worked to accomplish? If we are wrong, then the apostle Paul is right, and we are to be pitied above all persons.

My Choice
I chose to change my view of the Bible. I now view it as the most fascinating collection of ancient theology ever assembled. It is writers like me trying to make sense of their own lives in conjunction with the God they believe in. It is myriad voices blending together to proclaim that God is up to something in this world, and it’s worth our effort to be on board. So although I’m not convinced Abraham was a historical figure, I still embrace his story as my story. And though I don’t believe the exodus happened as described, I celebrate my deliverance from bondage along with the ancient Hebrews. And while I don’t believe Revelation to be a literal end-time vision, I celebrate God’s eventual triumph over evil with all the white-clad saints.

Moving Forward
I challenge Christians everywhere to let God out of the book. Over the centuries, humankind has made exponential progress in areas such as science, medicine, government, economics, philosophy, agriculture, and psychology. Is it so blasphemous to think moral understanding didn’t peak over nineteen hundred years ago? I think not. The council of early Christians in Jerusalem decided a vast majority of Torah—the Law of God—was irrelevant to gentile converts, a decision which must have been excruciatingly difficult to come to. Let us have the courage to do the same, when necessary. I absolutely believe the Bible should be the first thing we turn to for answers to moral dilemmas; it is our story and our tradition, after all. But is it God’s end-all, be-all Word? Not unless it’s a sin to trim your beard.

Zeal For Truth