- The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction?
- Are Muslims Seeing Jesus?
- “Son of God” Translation Controversy api
- God’s Plan through the Ages
- Supersessionism Rising: Dispensationalism…? Part 2
- Supersessionism Rising: Dispensationalism…? Part 1
- The Greatest Tragedy of the Rapture Prediction
- ABI Ministry Update
- “The Muslim Brotherhood and the Gospel of Christ”
- The Crisis in Egypt
- Saddleback’s Health and Fitness Seminar: An Eyewitness Account
- Rick Warren’s Controversial New Initiative
- ABI 2010 Year-End Report
- Ministry Trip to S. Korea / Philippines
- Where Should We Meet? api
- Burning Korans (the right way)
- Glenn Beck’s “Black-Robed Regiment”
- ABI Quick Survey: Mark Galli’s CT article
- Christianity Today: God – the “Divine Drama Queen”
- Partnership Opportunities: ABI International
Homosexuality and the Bible – Part I
This is the first in a series of articles on the topic of “Homosexuality and the Bible.” However, the series will not necessarily be presented in consecutive blogs.
A Faltering Consensus
The consensus among conservative evangelicals is that the Bible provides the final and authoritative word on all aspects of life. Historically, there has also been broad consistency in how the Bible has been understood and biblical principles have been applied to a variety of moral issues, including homosexuality. However, this consensus seems to be slowly dissolving in the face of seismic shifts in the views of society toward homosexuality and those who engage in homosexual behavior. As society as a whole closely tracks with the downward spiral into the spiritual and moral abyss of homosexual behavior, very explicitly described by Paul in Romans chapter one, the church is following remarkably close behind. Behaviors and lifestyles that would have been broadly condemned as sinful by virtually the entire evangelical community just a generation ago are being increasingly viewed as acceptable and normal.
This naturally raises the question as to how this is even possible when the Bible seems to so consistently and unambiguously condemn such practices, and goes so far as to clearly warn of eternal consequences for those who would choose a homosexual lifestyle. Part of the answer may be related to some of the complexities that have not often been acknowledged or considered (or at least openly addressed in my experience) by many conservative evangelicals. When the hard questions aren’t asked or dealt with sufficiently, God’s people can find themselves ill-equipped to respond biblically when challenged—or they can find their faith shaken when they first become aware of some of the more difficult issues.
Note: Although some may find parts of this article to be controversial, my purpose is to show that an awareness of some of the more difficult biological issues surrounding gender and sexuality do not require us to abandon the historical, conservative evangelical position concerning homosexuality.
A Complex Issue
Perhaps the first complication involves the definition of homosexuality itself. Historically, homosexuality has been viewed as a choice and defined in terms of being a learned behavior rather than being an inherent aspect of someone’s nature . In other words, by definition, in this view, a homosexual is someone who engages in homosexual behavior. It is what someone does, not who someone is.
In this historically-prevalent view, homosexuality is considered to be unnatural, learned and morally wrong. This is consistent with the sense of justice which says that God would only condemn and judge evil behavior—things that we might choose to do, rather than those things over which we have no control – such as our gender, for example. On the other hand, those who may experience feelings of same-sex attraction, but choose to not act upon these urges are not generally considered to be homosexual and of course they are not guilty of sin if these feelings do not go beyond the realm of temptation. In essence, this view presumes that everyone is naturally a heterosexual at birth and that homosexuality is a life-style choice, often thought to stem from homosexual experiences while growing up, either through sexual abuse by older children or adults, or because of curiosity and experimentation.
However, a search of the internet for the phrase, “scientific studies on homosexuality” shows that opinion remains divided on the answer to the question, “Are homosexuals made or are they born?” Some studies seem to indicate that genetics may play a role in sexual orientation and that homosexuality has a biological basis, while other studies suggest it does not or are inconclusive.
For example, when asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, gay gene researcher, Dean Hamer, replied, “Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors…not negate the psychosocial factors” (Anastasia, 1995, p. 43). In addition, brain researcher Simon LeVay has acknowledged that multiple factors may contribute to a homosexual orientation (LeVay, 1996). (NART website)
And there are apparently additional issues that I had never even thought about until doing some research for this series. These do concern matters of physiology and biology, and should at least be taken into account as we seek to develop informed convictions in this matter. Though rare, some people are actually born with what is termed “ambiguous genitalia” which include characteristics of both male and female sexual organs – or internal sex organs of one sex, with external sex organs of the opposite sex. In this situation, at the chromosomal level most are still either males (XY chromosomes) or female (XX chromosomes), with no particular “sexual identity issues”. But in terms of social interaction and personal relationships, such physiological ambiguity can understandably present some very difficult emotional challenges, let alone spiritual ones.
In some very rare cases there are abnormalities such that there is a male / female mix at the chromosomal level. In less rare cases, the “intersexed” person is either a male or female at the chromosomal level, but primarily have the external genitalia of the opposite sex. In the latter case, even though, again, there may not be a conflict between their chromosomal sexual identity and their psychological sexual identity, there is a conflict between their chromosomal sexual identity and their physical appearance.
Such physiological factors seem to raise some important practical questions:
Biblically, with whom may a person with these congenital defects enter a marriage relationship and engage in sexual relations?
Are such people alone free to choose a partner of either sex?
Or must they marry someone who is of the opposite sex at the chromosomal level, even though they are essentially the same sex at the external physical level?
Or are they required to live a life of celibacy to remain morally pure?
Admittedly, very few of us will never encounter such a person and some may feel it is misguided to bring such rare occurrences into the discussion. However, especially for those of us in ministry, we have a responsibility try to find biblical answers to life’s questions that sometimes turn out to be more complex than we may have supposed. We must be able to give godly counsel to fellow-believers concerning their life-decisions in this area. Perhaps because of my background in science and engineering, as I have pondered this and many other issues in light of the Scriptures, I am frequently reminded of the care required to avoid repeating some of the blunders of the past—as happened with Galileo, for example.
And beyond these cases of physically inter-sexed individuals, there seem to be other situations that also require biblical wisdom and spiritual maturity to handle appropriately. In my experience, there seem to be “degrees” of masculinity and femininity such that these rather subjective areas are not defined by rigid boundaries marked off by our identity as either a male or female (even assuming no physiological abnormalities). Even when chromosomes are not an issue, hormones and other factors seem to be. Some men seem to have more effeminate characteristics and mannerisms, while some women seem to be “less feminine” in any number of ways. And there seems to be an unbroken continuum between the two, such that these characteristics may be more or less pronounced in any given person apart from any personal intent or desire to appear or act in a way that is gender-ambiguous.
When both biological and environmental factors are taken into consideration, it is not difficult to understand how and why some may experience genuine internal conflict and have to deal with truly unwanted sexual urges and temptations. And this is undoubtedly not limited to the issue of homosexuality, but to sexuality in general.
Furthermore, it seems that all of us have different areas of weakness and tendencies toward particular types of sin to varying degrees. Some struggle with anger, while others struggle with honesty. Some struggle with worry, while others struggle with fear. Some struggle with laziness, while others struggle with lust. And while it is not too difficult for us to sympathize with those with whom we share common struggles, it can be difficult for us to understand how others can genuinely struggle with things that are not a particular problem for us. But the fact is that any struggle in any area can lead to moral failure if we fail to withstand the temptations that inevitably come.
Certainly there are those who simply choose to fulfill their sexual desire in sinful ways that are condemned by the Bible. There is a troubling and growing trend within the more conservative evangelical community that has existed for a long time within the broader liberal church—that of changing attitudes toward homosexuality. This behavior and lifestyle is being accepted on various grounds, including the argument that the Bible does not label as sinful committed same-sex relationships. In the next article in this series I will be looking at the relevant biblical texts to discuss whether or not such a position is biblically defensible.
On the other hand, we need to recognize that difficult genuinely physiological gender-related situations do exist, even though we may them awkward, distasteful or even repulsive. We all know of a few men who don’t exactly fit the mold of what is commonly considered to be “manly.” We all know a few women who are less feminine than others. Yet, during the twenty-five years I have been a believer, I don’t recall some of these particular issues ever being addressed or even mentioned in any context.
I think we have an obligation to both respond biblically to clearly sinful behavior, as well as to provide godly instruction and biblical counsel when fellow-believers experience problems that cannot be merely condemned as matters of choice alone. The sufficiency of Scripture allows us to confidently tackle the tough issues of life with neither fear nor apology. In a future article, I will delve into the matter of ministry to those who have particular struggles in this area.
Holy Ghost Hokey Pokey
This video is from a service at MorningStar Ministries (founded by Rick Joyner) in Fort Mill, South Carolina. A Google search on “Holy Ghost Hokey Pokey” quickly shows that although recently posted, it has received a lot of attention across the internet. It marks just one of the latest in a long string of “manifestations of the Holy Spirit” – which are clearly neither biblical, nor the work of the Holy Spirit, whatever the real explanation.
(Note: I am working on a higher quality video that I hope to post in the near future.)
MorningStar is a fairly well-known Charismatic ministry, particularly known for its emphasis on “miraculous healings.”
From the MorningStar website, in their statement of faith, we find the following concerning the present work of the Holy Spirit through spiritual gifts:
On the Present Ministry of the Holy Spirit
We believe that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8) and that His ministry in and through the church by the Holy Spirit has not changed from the beginning. We accept, acknowledge, encourage and seek all of the biblical gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit as present and vital for the church to accomplish her full purpose today.
Hebrew 13:8 is commonly cited as a proof-text that the miraculous sign gifts are still in operation today. However, this is both a misunderstanding of the verse and, I would suggest, is a disingenuous use of the verse because all Christians recognize that this can only refer to his unchanging character and not to the ministry of Christ.
Jesus’ character was the same both before and after the incarnation, yet his earthly ministry was completely different than his ministry in the Old Testament before he became a human through the Virgin Birth. His ministry in and through the average believer was significantly different before and after his crucifixion and after the day of Pentecost. His ministry after the day of Pentecost, in the present age, is significantly different than what his ministry will be during the Millennium after his return and when he will be ruling and reigning from the Throne of David in Jerusalem. Therefore, even if God were continuing to give the miraculous sign gifts today, Hebrews 13:8 does nothing to support this view.
Those who haven’t heard – in the Amazon
As an introduction to the second survey in this series, I presented a hypothetical situation of an Indian village and a young girl named Ayanna. However, this blog is about a present, real-life situation deep in the Amazon jungle.
Yesterday, my dad forwarded an email update from a missionary that very directly touches on the question, “What about those who haven’t heard?” And because of its timeliness and relevance to the issue, I have decided to post it (below) before addressing this question in light of Romans 10 in the next few days.
Michael Guerink , is a missionary in the Amazon river basin with ABWE. He and his family are giving everything to reach “a large concentration of completely uncontacted Indian tribes and others who have been minimally contacted” in an area that is “entirely off-limits to outsiders.”
The ABI surveys showed that roughly 25% of the respondents were not persuaded that those who haven’t heard the gospel are certainly lost. If they are correct, this means that there is really no need for the Guerinks or any of the other missionaries to be there, except for humanitarian purposes (which is certainly no small thing itself). In fact, if someone can be saved apart from explicitly trusting in Christ, then these missionaries are doing far more harm than good.
Almost everyone sincerely embraces the religious beliefs of their parents – and by far, most people are relatively good when judged by the norms of their society. However, we also know from the Bible and from experience, that a very small percentage of those who do hear the gospel accept it as true – and even fewer actually receive Christ as Savior. The vast majority of those who hear the gospel, reject it – and virtually everyone except the most liberal among us would suggest that someone can consciously reject Christ and still be saved. So, in very practical terms, if the possibility of salvation exists apart from Christ, then given the percentages, it would be far better to make every effort to make sure that these unreached peoples never hear the gospel.
______________
Michael Guerink’s February Email Update
So, yesterday (Sunday) I stumbled about our hosts’ house at oh dark thirty again, thankfully unmolested by water creatures (see funny story at the end), to read in Proverbs 31:
Raise your voice in favor of those who cannot defend themselves;
Be the defender of all the helpless.
Lift up your voice and judge with justice;
Defend the rights of the poor and the needy.
(my translation from Portuguese)
It just so happened that I was on my way to a meeting to do exactly that. One of the river valleys here in the Amazon is home to a large concentration of completely uncontacted Indian tribes and others who have been minimally contacted, and that river is entirely off limits to outsiders; even anthropologists and researchers have a very hard time getting in there.
The problem is that hundreds of Indians from that river are dying from malaria and hepatitis. Tribes are being absolutely decimated. Five tribes sent representatives out to the border and on Sunday several mission organizations met with them to hear first-hand about the problem (hardly anyone knows about these many deaths – it is kept very quiet). Unfortunately, for whatever reason, (let me word this carefully) government organizations have not succeeded in getting them the health care they need to prevent these deaths.
The tribes know that we mission organizations are ready and willing to go in and help them, and they want to know why we’re not allowed. What was accomplished Sunday was an official invitation from the tribes to us as missionaries and humanitarian aid organizations to enter their territory! This is a huge, very important step! It does not mean the government will now automatically let us in there, but it’s the first thing that needs to happen towards that goal. This is the best news on that front in a long time.
Raul, the Mayoruna tribe chief who called the meeting, was specifically asking that aviation support be restarted in that area. I told him we’re trying as hard as we can as quickly as funds come in to provide the help needed to keep his people from dying. See his picture attached to this email, and pray for him when you look at it. He lives 8-9 days away by canoe, a very difficult journey. An airplane would reduce medical emergency evacuation time to a matter of hours.
Raul said in the meeting that he does not know God but he suspects God has forgotten about the Mayoruna and other tribes in that area, and he’s wondering if God thinks enough about them to care for their health in the same way he cares about white people. Wow!! Doesn’t that just make you want to go in there RIGHT NOW?! Especially when solutions for water purification to prevent hepatitis are easily obtainable (www.waterfortheworld.com) and lists of doctors are waiting for the chance to be flown in there to help with malaria treatment. One thing that’s lacking is an airplane and the funds to run it.
As you know we’re ramping up to meet that need and to do it in a much more economical way than is presently available (our current mission airplane costs about US$250 per hour just in fuel, so $1,000 doesn’t even buy us a round trip in to the Mayoruna!). The first step is the ultralight that we just had to send back to the USA ($$$!!) due to customs problems. It hurt to do it, but I had to tell Raul that it’s realistically still going to be several years before we can get medical flights going in there even if the authorities do give permission soon.
You can help Raul’s Mayoruna tribe, the Matis, Marubo, Korubo and other as yet uncontacted tribes by praying that this crack in the door would widen significantly, that the funding would come in, that bureaucratic red tape and political opposition would be overcome. This struggle REALLY is not against flesh and blood! Pray that our adversary would be defeated as we work to defend the rights of the helpless, as we work to meet their physical health needs which as you can see above is a VERY important first step toward being able to enter with spiritual life and health. (emphasis mine)
OK, here’s the funny story I promised – at least it’s funny later: ever get impaled by a fish in your house?
While I’m galavanting with two of the kids in the Upper Amazon teaching seminary to minimally contacted Indian tribe members who aren’t allowed to have the Word of God taught in their villages (the Iron Curtain fell – maybe it’s the Jungle Wall or something like that) and Katrina is covering the home front downriver in Manaus, Ian and Vivi and I are staying at another missionary family’s house literally about a 30yd swim across the creek from Peru. They have cats. I know some of you just cringed, but really I don’t usually have a problem with the cats – it’s what they hunt and bring in the house that I have to subsequently dispose of that’s usually the dealbreaker.
The eastern horizon here usually starts to turn from black to gray around 6:15am, so I’ve been stumbling around in the dark substantially before that to be able to get some quality time with the LORD before the rest of life can build too much momentum.
A couple days ago as I was blindly walking my normal track from the bedroom to the coffeepot, a stabbing pain shot into my foot! I hobbled over to a light switch feeling something dangling and painfully swinging right from the tender, ticklish part. There’s a kind of fish here in the Amazon that has a big spike sticking out either side of its head and another one straight out the top. And that’s what the cat had dragged in.
As much pain as I was in pulling a fish out of my foot, the fish was still alive, very wriggledy and loudly complaining – yes, some fish here squeal and growl at you. And all the time the cat was looking on with pride, wondering if I was happy with his special present. So starts another day in the Amazon.
Oh, one more thing – very exciting! At this meeting with the tribal chiefs from the restricted area I sat next to a very non-Ticuna looking Colombian lady. It was a huge surprise to hear her ask another lady for water in quite passable Ticuna! I asked in my not-quite-passable Spanish (Portunhol as we call it here) how she learned Ticuna. Turns out she (Danilba) and her husband Jhon and little 4-year-old Sara-Sofia are Colombian New Tribes missionaries to the Ticuna and are in the middle of language training. I thought we were the only ones! Pray for them! They don’t have electricity or potable water. I’d love to get them set up with at least a water purification system run by a solar panel. That’s about a US$2,000 project. It would also provide clean water for their entire community (emphasis mine), Guanabara 3, about an hour canoe-ride downriver from where we will be living to learn Ticuna. It will be so nice to have neighbors going through the same things for love of God and the Ticuna! In about a month we’ll be back in this area; we’ll visit them and let you know how you can help.
Michael
______________
Perhaps some of our readers would be interested in being part of the Guerink’s ministry in meeting the physical and spiritual needs of these unreached people.
And I hope that you will continue to follow this important blog series.
Unholy Trinity
The following is an article by John MacArthur, which recently appeared on his Shepherd’s Fellowship website.
_______________________
(By John MacArthur)
I don’t watch much television, and when I do I generally avoid the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). For many years TBN has been dominated by faith-healers, full-time fund-raisers, and self-proclaimed prophets spewing heresy. I wrote about the false gospel they proclaim and the phony miracles they pretend to do almost two decades ago in Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. See especially chapter 12). I had my fill of charismatic televangelism while researching that book, and I can hardly bear to watch it any more.
Recently, however, while recovering from knee-replacement surgery, I decided to sample some of the current fare on TBN. From a therapeutic point of view it seemed a good choice: something more excruciating than the pain in my leg might distract me from the physical suffering of post-surgical trauma. And I suppose on that basis the strategy was effective.
But it left me outraged and frustrated—and eager to challenge the misperceptions in the minds of millions of unbelievers who see these false teachers masquerading as ministers of Christ on TBN.
I’m outraged at the brazen way so many false teachers twist the message of Scripture in Jesus’ name. And I’m frustrated because I’m certain that if these charlatans were not receiving a large proportion of their financial support from sincere believers (and silent acquiescence from Christian leaders who surely know better), they would have no platform for their shenanigans. They would soon lose their core constituency and fade from the scene.
Instead, religious quacks are actually multiplying at a frightening pace. One thing I discovered to my immense displeasure is that TBN is by no means the only religious network broadcasting poisonous false doctrine around the clock. The channel lineup I receive includes at least seven other channels whose schedules are filled with false teachers and charlatans. There’s The Church Channel, Daystar, GodTV, World Harvest Television (LeSEA), Total Christian Television, and several others. Some of them feature blocs of family television programing and a few fairly sound teachers who provide moments of escape from the prosperity preachers. But all of them give prominence to enormous amounts of heresy and religious claptrap—enough to make them positively dangerous. And TBN is singularly responsible for kicking that door open so wide.
The continued growth and influence of TBN is baffling for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the thick aura of lust, greed, and other kinds of moral impropriety that surrounds the whole enterprise. A long string of scandals involving notable charismatic televangelists between 1988 and 1992 should have been sufficient reason for even the most credulous viewers to scrutinize the entire industry with skepticism. First came the international spectacle of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s moral, marital, and financial collapse. That was followed closely by the revelation of Jimmy Swaggart’s repeated dalliances with prostitutes. Shortly afterward, an episode of ABC’s Primetime Live exposed clear examples of deliberate fraud on the part of three more leading charismatic televangelists. Those incidents were punctuated by a score of lesser scandals over several years’ time. It is clear (or should be)—based on empirical evidence alone—that preachers promising miracles in exchange for money are not to be trusted. And for anyone who simply bothers to compare Jesus’ teaching with the health-and-wealth message, it is clear that the message that currently dominates religious television is “a different gospel; which is really not another” (Galatians 1:6-7), but a damnable lie.
TBN is by far the leading perpetrator of that lie worldwide. Virtually all the network’s main celebrities tell listeners that God will give them healing, wealth, and other material blessings in return for their money. On program after program people are urged to “plant a seed” by sending “the largest bill you have or the biggest check you can write” with the promise that God will miraculously make them rich in return. That same message dominates all of TBN’s major fundraising drives. It’s known as the “seed faith” plan, so-called by Oral Roberts, who set the pattern for most of the charismatic televangelists who have followed the trail he blazed. Paul Crouch, founder, chairman, and commander-in-chief of TBN, is one of the doctrine’s staunchest defenders.
The only people who actually get rich by this scheme, of course, are the televangelists. Their people who send money get little in return but phony promises—and as a result, many of them turn away from the truth completely.
If the scheme seems reminiscent of Tetzel, that’s because it is precisely the same doctrine. (Tetzel was a medieval monk whose high-pressure selling of indulgences—phony promises of forgiveness—outraged Martin Luther and touched off the Protestant Reformation.)
Like Tetzel, TBN preys on the poor and plies them with false promises. Yet what is happening daily on TBN is many times worse than the abuses that Luther decried because it is more widespread and more flagrant. The medium is more high-tech and the amounts bilked out of viewers’ pockets are astronomically higher. (By most estimates, TBN is worth more than a billion dollars and rakes in $200 million annually. Those are direct contributions to the network, not counting millions more in donations sent directly to TBN broadcasters.) Like Tetzel on steroids, the Crouches and virtually all the key broadcasters on TBN live in garish opulence, while constantly begging their needy viewers for more money. Elderly, poor, and working-class viewers constitute TBN’s primary demographic. And TBN’s fundraisers all know that. The most desperate people—”unemployed,” “even though I’m in between jobs,” “trying to make it; trying to survive,” “broke”—are baited with false promises to give what they do not even have. Jan Crouch addresses viewers as “you little people,” and suggests that they send their grocery money to TBN “to assure God’s blessing.”
Thus TBN devours the poor while making the charlatans rich. God cursed false prophets in the Old Testament for that very thing (Jeremiah 6:13-15). It’s also one of the main reasons the Pharisees incurred Jesus’ condemnation (Luke 20:46-47). It’s hard to think of any sin more evil. It not only hurts people materially; it deludes them with groundless hope, deceives them with a false gospel, and thereby places their souls in eternal peril. And yet those who do it pretend they are doing the work of God.
That’s not all. Almost no false prophecy, erroneous doctrine, rank superstition, or silly claim is too outlandish to receive airtime on TBN. Jan Crouch tearfully gives a fanciful account of how her pet chicken was miraculously raised from the dead. Benny Hinn trumps that claim with a bizarre prophecy that if TBN viewers will put their dead loved ones’ caskets in front of television set and touch the dead person’s hand to the screen, people will “be raised from the dead . . . by the thousands.”
Ironically, one doesn’t even need to be an orthodox Trinitarian in order to broadcast on the Trinity network. Bishop T. D. Jakes, well known for his rejection of the Nicene creed in favor of oneness Pentecostalism, is a staple on TBN. Benny Hinn has repeatedly attempted to revise the doctrine of the Trinity in novel ways, notoriously teaching at one point that there are nine persons in the godhead.
And yet evangelical church leaders typically show a kind of benign tolerance toward the whole enterprise. Most would never endorse it, of course. They may joke about the gaudiness of the big hair and tawdry set decorations on TBN. Ask them, and they will most likely acknowledge that the prosperity gospel is no gospel at all. Press the issue, and you will probably get them to admit that it is a dangerous form of false doctrine, totally unbiblical, and essentially anti-Christian.
Why, then, is there no large-scale effort among Bible-believing evangelicals to expose, denounce, refute, and silence these false teachers? After all, that is what Scripture commands church leaders to do when we encounter purveyors of soul-destroying substitutes for the true gospel:
The overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain (Titus 1:7-11).
Those who remain silent in the face of such grotesque lies may in fact be partly responsible for turning people away from the truth. Consider the testimony of William Lobdell, religion reporter for the Los Angeles Times, who once considered himself a devout evangelical Christian, but after doing a series of investigative reports on the moral and doctrinal cesspool at TBN; then “finding that his investigative stories about faith healer Benny Hinn and televangelists Jan and Paul Crouch appear to make no difference on the reach of these ministries or the lives of their followers, he [gave] up on the beat and on religion generally.”
All those who truly love Christ and care about the truth have a solemn duty to defend the truth by exposing and opposing these lies that masquerade as truth. If we fail in that duty because of indifference, apathy, or a craving for the approval of men, we are no less guilty than those who actively spread the lies.
“Dispensationalism must be wrong” – Part II
A visitor posted the following comment on the first blog post concerning popular arguments against dispensationalism.
For those of you who are eschatologically expert, I invite you to comment specifically on a Google article entitled “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty,” a photographic version of which is on the “Powered by Christ Ministries” site. Since some have given the impression that that article is full of errors, I would very much like to be informed as to which particular item in it is in fact erroneous. Thanks in advance. Karl
Dave MacPherson
The document to which he refers (Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty) was written by Dave MacPherson, who vehemently opposes “pre-tribulational premillennialism” (the Rapture precedes both the 7-year tribulation and the millennial reign of Christ). It is part of a 30-year campaign by Mr. MacPherson to attempt to prove that dispensationalism must be wrong.
An internet search concerning the pretribulational rapture will likely include results leading to articles and books that MacPherson has written over the last 30 years against this pretribulationalism, which he considers is false teaching and a dangerous hoax.
So, returning to the topic of a previous blog, “Dispensationalism must be wrong-Part I” below is an edited version of my response to Karl’s comment and the Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty document:
________ The following section is part of an edited version of my reply to Karl.
Karl,
I have read this article several times over the last year as it is frequently cited across the internet. And I have looked at Dave MacPherson’s work on several occasions and been to several websites that have his material.
I have not done extensive research on Darby’s life myself, so I cannot comment on those specifics. However, I did hear a very well-researched paper on Darby at the annual Pre-Trib Study Group Conference in Dallas, in 2005, which dispelled many myths, misconceptions and results of poor and biased research. I think I still have the paper somewhere on my computer that I will look for.
________ The following section was not in my reply to Karl.
Dr. Thomas Ice
I have not yet found the article to which I referred above, however I have found several pertinent articles written by Thomas Ice (Executive Director of the Pre-trib Research Center).
One is a direct response to MacPherson’s article – click here.
Below are links to other articles by Dr. Ice.
Brief History of Early Premillennialism
Alleged Irvingite Influence on Darby and the Rapture
A Short History Of Dispensationalism
A Brief History of The Rapture
________ The following returns to an edited version of my reply to Karl.
I would like to comment on the charge of dishonesty that forms the basis for the article, with the charge focusing largely on the issue of plagiarism.
Perhaps the main factor in this issue directly relates to the character and integrity of the person who is charged with plagiarism. This is a serious accusation and essentially crosses the line into judgment against the person’s heart – his intent and motives.
Although some may dismiss personal character references as unimportant in a rebuttal such as this, I believe in this case they are both important and quite relevant. (We must remember that character references are frequently used in many formal, even legal situations, including a court of law).
I have know some of the men mentioned in the article, have met others and am familiar with their work in general. Concerning the others (the ones who are still living), I’m fairly certain there is only “one-degree of separation” between us – meaning I know men who both know them fairly well and are associated with them in some way. The reason this is important is because I know the character and integrity of these men or those who know them (who wouldn’t be associated with them if there were these kinds of issues). I am quite confident that there aren’t character or integrity issues that would result in plagiarism (and plagiarism simply won’t occur unless these problems exist). Rather, I would stake my own reputation on the fact that these men are godly, sincere and live lives committed to serving the Lord and others.
Yet, the implication throughout this article by MacPherson (and his work in general) is that these men are inherently dishonest as reflected in their treatment of dispensationalism in general and the rapture in particular. My wife has a saying she uses frequently, “The way you do anything is the way you do everything.” I have found this to consistently hold true – and the simple fact is that these men are not dishonest.
As I mentioned above, for someone to make this accusation who does not personally know them is to cross the line into judging the hearts and motives. Beyond that, there are other credible explanations for the supposed evidence against them besides intentional plagiarism and deception.
As someone who has taught many courses over a period of twenty years in the areas of Bible exposition and theology, I know that I have personally used what I have learned over the years from the teaching, preaching and writing of others – including some of the men in question. During the 25 years I have been a believer, including studying in a Bible institute and seminary, I have learned, synthesized and internalized so much of this material I couldn’t begin to remember where I got it all from. And I’m sure this isn’t unique to me – it is simply the nature of the process of teaching and learning. Once the material is internalized, it becomes one’s own – particularly when we synthesize and combine it with our own thoughts. When this happens, we might use something that is essentially a quote from a given teacher or a compiled quote from several teachers, with neither memory of the source nor any intent to plagiarize another’s work.
Another factor, is that most of these men know one another personally and have discussed these matters extensively, learning from one another. Sometimes there are student-teacher relationships – where students take extensive notes in class. Then if the teacher publishes and later the student publishes, there are inevitably going to be quotations that may or may not be cited – or even remembered as quotations. And of course, once a teacher hits upon a memorable way of stating something, he will repeat it often and many people will hear it. The result can be fairly extensive propagation of certain phrases – but this doesn’t mean there has been plagiarism.
Just this evening I read an illustration that was exactly an illustration I had used for years – even though I thought for sure it was original with me. Maybe we both copied it from someone else – maybe we both simply had the same thought. But in the end, it just doesn’t matter if there was no intent to deceive. And in the case of a very specific topic like the rapture, it is almost certain that there will be overlap of ideas and repeated use of certain ways of saying things.
In one case, MacPherson accuses Charles Ryrie of plagiarizing Hal Lindsey. But of the two, Dr. Ryrie is the more well-known theologian and the more prolific writer – and he is four-years older than Lindsey. Does MacPherson know for certain that Lindsay didn’t actually use something he had heard from Dr. Ryrie – even though he published first – and then Ryrie later published his own original thoughts? These kinds of questions must be answered before someone accuses someone else of something so significant as plagiarism. This isn’t simply a matter of a young college student trying to quickly put together a paper the night before it is due and lifts some material he finds on the internet. However, because I haven’t done the work myself, yet, I admit that I can’t say whether or not that MacPherson done the necessary research on this, but I do know from reading his material that his style is very polemic and (I admit subjectively) has the feel of being a personal negative bias against pretribulational theology.
Yet, unless someone has had the personal conversations with these men, there are completely legitimate potential explanations that are far less insidious explanations of apparent plagiarism. The men in question represent a very dynamic process that has been the development of dispensational theology. It is quite normal that there would be “cross-pollination” of thought when dealing with exactly the same topics, biblical passages and collateral work as those who have gone before. And furthermore, many of them simply indicate that a student / teacher process was underway and theology was being passed from generation to generation.
Discussions need to occur with those who are charged, before they are charged, to try to genuinely discover why there are similar passages in some books. If such personal investigation occurred it must be documented and should be presented along with the accusation.
But no matter what investigation might reveal, the ultimate issue regarding the veracity of dispensationalism is whether it stands the test of actual exegesis to demonstrate that there are problematic conclusions being drawn. From what I have found, MacPherson has primarily attempted to discredit Pretribulationalism by trying to construct an historical theology against it rather than a biblical theology. At the end of the day, historical theology proves nothing. At most it can only say what happened, not whether or not it was right or wrong apart.
In short, I find this article to be little more than a diversion tactic that will capture the attention and imagination of those, who for whatever reason are predisposed against Pre-trib Dispensationalism – or who know very little about the subject. For those of us who both know the biblical theology and understand the process of development of this theology, this article is yet another interesting, but ultimately ineffectual attempt to discredit the theology of the pre-trib rapture.
Beyond this, which is sufficient by itself to challenge the article, I’m sure there are those out there who do have the experience and research expertise and resources to adequately respond to each point on a case-by-case basis.
To say the least, despite the sense by some that this is somehow the death-knell for pre-trib dispensationalism – I believe it falls far short of anything approaching that. And furthermore, it does so with language and accusations and style that actually raises questions concerning the character of the author himself as he does cross the line of judging another brother. This is very serious indeed.
Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity
Pondering the Incarnation: Was Christ really tempted?
Over the years Karen and I have engaged in a lot of ministry through the internet by interacting in a number of forums. It has been an amazing opportunity to share the gospel and other biblical truth about a wide range of topics. Over the last couple of days I have been involved in some discussions over at Grace Centered Christian Forums (note: this is not an endorsement of this website because I haven’t yet fully investigated their theological positions).
One of the questions that was posted a couple of hours ago was related to the temptation that Christ experienced. It was a common question that almost everyone considers at some point: “Was Christ really tempted? And could he have sinned?”
As you might expect this has generated a number of responses in a short period of time. Some have represented the view that although Christ did not sin, he could have sinned. Those who hold this position, often also believe that it is possible for someone to lose their salvation and the two issues are connected according to this theology: that we can choose, just as Christ chose – and just as Jesus chose not to sin, although he could have, we can do the same. If we don’t, then we will be lost, unless we continually repent or choose not to sin (which many say is possible).
However, I believe the Scriptural response is: “Yes, Jesus was truly tempted and no, he could not have sinned.”
Then, the inevitable counter-response is: “But if Jesus could not have sinned, then he must not have been genuinely tempted.”
Being the Christmas season, I think it is a good time to consider what I would suggest is one of the most important aspects of the Incarnation – the nature of Christ in relation to temptation and sin.
The following is what I posted on the Grace Centered Christian Forum (although I have proof-read and edited this a bit from my forum post):
_________________________
Biblical Fact #1: Jesus was/is human (Matthew 8:20;John 8:40; Philippians 2:5-8; 1 Timothy 2:5)
Biblical Fact #2: Jesus was truly tempted – the Scripture plainly says that he was tempted (Hebrews 2:17; 4:15)
Biblical Fact #3: Jesus was/is God (Isaiah 9:6; John 10:30; 20:26-29; Philippians 2:5-8; Revelation 1:8-11)
Biblical Fact #4: God cannot sin by virtue of his perfect holiness (Leviticus 11:44; Joshua 24:19; 1 Peter 1:15; 1 John 1:15; Revelation 4:8)
Biblical conclusion: Jesus being the God-man, was truly tempted, but did not and could not sin.
How this could be true is as much a mystery as the Incarnation itself (how can God become a man?). To deny one or the other seems to be a futile (and arguably unnecessary) attempt to resolve the logical tension felt by humans (finite beings), but which involves a reality that can only be fully comprehended by God (an infinite being). I believe it is beyond our capacity to fully grasp. This doesn’t mean it is illogical. Rather, I think it simply involves “supra-human logic.”
Perhaps a simple (although not fully adequate) analogy would be the futility of trying to explain quantum physics or the special theory of relativity to a three year-old child.
Over the years I have used the following illustration (being an engineer at heart 
to help students try to somehow grasp the mutual truths of Jesus’ temptation and his inability to sin. It involves a piece of paper, a hydraulic ram, and a pressure gauge (or your fist and a concrete wall).
Let’s illustrate human nature as being like a piece of paper.
Let’s illustrate temptation as being like a ramrod capable of unlimited pounds of pressure per square inch.
Then place a pressure gauge on the end of the ramrod.
Now, hold the paper up (with nothing behind it) and run the ramrod up against it.
Question: How much pressure will the gauge register – no matter the force of the ramrod?
Answer: Very little – because the paper easily gives way and the pressure felt by the paper is almost nothing.
The point: The giving-way by the paper illustrates how easily we naturally fall into sin with very little pressure /temptation because of our sin nature.
Now, glue a piece of cardboard to the paper.
The cardboard illustrates our new nature as believers, coupled with our old weak nature.
Now, run the ramrod against the paper / cardboard combination.
Question: How much pressure will the gauge register now?
Answer: More. And the stiffer the cardboard (illustrating the more mature the Christian) – the more pressure that is registered by the gauge and therefore “felt” by the paper (illustrating the the human nature).
The point: The one who is most mature in Christ doesn’t feel the pressure of temptation less, but feels it more. This helps to illustrate why more mature Christians are more sensitive to the slightest pressure / temptation to sin than is the new / immature believer.
Now: Glue the paper to a massive block of tungsten steel that extends infinitely in all directions.
The block of steel illustrates the immovable, sinless nature of God.
Now, run the ramrod (remember the one capable of infinite force) against the paper.
Question: How much pressure will the gauge register now?
Answer: An infinite amount of pressure.
(If you want, you can approximate this test by trying to hit a piece of paper held in the air with your fist as hard as you can. Then tape the paper to a concrete wall and swing at it as hard as you can. Your now-broken hand experienced exactly the force felt by the paper. Honestly – it might be better to get one of your students to do this one.)
The point: By virtue of a human nature being coupled with the divine nature, Christ fully experienced the temptation to sin infinitely more than any human being. It was actually Christ’s inability to sin that made it possible for him to be fully tempted in every point as we are. No mere human has ever experienced the full force of temptation to sin.
It is not, as as been said, that “temptation implies the possibility of sin.” That would essentially be the same as saying that an invincible army cannot be attacked. (1)
And then Christ died for the sins of all (Romans 5:6; 1Corinthians 15:3; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2) who have given in to the full range of temptation – and he offers the free gift of salvation from sin to all who will believe, to all who will simply receive him by faith (John 1:12-13; 3:16; Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8-9).
What a wonderful Savior!
Have a very merry Christmas, and a grace-filled, joyous New Year!
Dave James
(1) Charles Ryrie in Basic Theology (p. 304) quoting the opposing views Hodge and Shedd.
Manhattan Declaration: A Response – Part I
(An article combining this post and the previous one on the Manhattan Declaration is available in downloadable and printable PDF, 2-column article format: Click here to download)
National Press Conference
.
A week ago today, the Manhattan Declaration was released by Chuck Colson and almost 150 other signers at the National Press Conference. Since then there have been countless blogs and articles written about the 4700-word document and the response has been quite mixed.
Predictably, it has been denounced by liberals of all stripes who support the LGBT agenda and who advocate “a woman’s right to choose.” But neither has it been received well by those who would consider themselves to be evangelicals, but who also challenge the historical view that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior.
In contrast, a significant number of Christians have enthusiastically embraced the Manhattan Declaration. with the number of signers via the internet now at 184,780 and counting. They have joined the original signatories in voicing their concern that as America continues its turn to the left, led by the present administration, they are prepared to take a stand to protect life, marriage and religious liberty.
Yet, another view has been expressed by some Christians who have not signed the Manhattan Declaration. In this view, the Manhattan Declaration is itself a cause for concern, being seen as a misguided ecumenical cooperative effort that conservative evangelicals would do well to avoid. John MacArthur has written a cogent blog from this perspective.
To make matters more confusing for the average evangelical believer, it must be noted that there are good, solid, conservative theologians on both sides of the issue. This would tend to indicate that whatever our personal opinion might be, the “correct” response is probably not as obvious nor as certain as we might hope or desire. So, after a week of reading, talking, thinking and praying, I’m going to take my own stab at evaluating the Manhattan Declaration and developing a framework of principles for responding to this document, as well as the overall situation that precipitated it.
First, I would say that overall the Manhattan Declaration is a carefully crafted, well-worded document. It was obviously written out of both passion and conviction. It would be difficult to fault the drafters in their intentions or desire to make a difference in the “culture wars.”
Manhattan Declaration
Second, I think all who truly believe in the authority of Scripture should agree with the framers of the Manhattan Declaration concerning the three specific issues it addresses, namely, life, marriage and religious liberty. It affirms that life begins at conception and should be allowed to continue until natural death (Exodus 20:13; Job 1:21; Psalm 139:12, 16; Jeremiah 1:14). It affirms that marriage was instituted by God to be solely between a man and a woman and that sexual relations are to be only within that relationship (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:5,6; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). And it affirms the principle of religious liberty which seems to be legitimately rooted in the truth of Matthew 22:21 (“Render unto Caesar…and to God…”) and Acts 5:29 (“We ought to obey God rather than men.”)
And third, I believe that as American citizens we have a legal right and a moral responsibility to participate in the democratic process in upholding and preserving the rights we have as guaranteed by the Constitution, as well as the ideals upon which this country was founded.
It could be argued that the Moral Majority, founded by Jerry Falwell in 1979, provides an historic backdrop and precedent for the Manhattan Declaration. The Moral Majority became the politically active extension of the Christian Right, which was riding the wave of the resurging political conservatism that swept Ronald Reagan into office in 1980. The Moral Majority sought to gain an influence in governmental policies and legislation, such that they would reflect or at least not contradict Christian morality – and thereby broadly shape, influence and guide the direction of American society as a whole.
A demographic map of the United States shows that geographically the entire country continues to be overwhelmingly conservative – both politically and socially. And this conservatism is certainly not limited to evangelical Christians. Therefore, it was considered expedient and prudent to be as broadly inclusive as possible to maximize the potential political influence of the movement. This meant that the Moral Majority consisted of not only conservative evangelicals, but virtually all types of conservative Protestants, Catholics, Jews and even Mormons who joined forces for the purpose of advocating common moral values with a unified voice.
Probably the most common argument in favor of evangelicals joining together with those from Catholic and Orthodox traditions in signing the Manhattan Declaration follows that used to defend the Moral Majority in the face of similar criticism. In this view, it is argued that because we share a common moral heritage with other theological traditions within Christendom, we can and should join together as allies in the culture wars against the common enemy of those morals. Therefore, the Manhattan Declaration is hailed as an opportunity for those who name the name of Christ to fulfill a long-neglected obligation to engage and even confront a society and an administration that is increasingly liberal, secular and humanist – and even anti-Christian in its bias. Looking at it this way, it is understandable why, as I noted earlier, many concerned Americans have already signed the document and I would assume that many have been conservative evangelicals.
However, I have not yet signed it myself because I have some questions and concerns about both the nature and the value of the Manhattan Declaration. At the risk of being dismissed, ridiculed or criticized as being too picky, too narrow-minded, divisive or just overly critical, I am going to present what I believe are some significant reasons why a born-again believer should consider not endorsing or signing the Manhattan Declaration.
The Manhattan Declaration begins with these words:
Christians are heirs of a 2,000year tradition of proclaiming God’s word
This is a statement of exclusivity, identifying the framers of the document as “Christians” as opposed to adherents of any of the other world religions. It is also intended to reflect Christian values and morals. As such, it must necessarily be viewed as an inherently Christian document. Consider the following quotes from the Manhattan Declaration:
we claim the heritage of those Christians Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths
Therefore, the writers of the Manhattan Declaration present it as a document by Christians on behalf of Christians. And as a Christian document, it discusses the issues of life and marriage within a framework of Christian morality. It derives its authority to speak about these moral issues from the Bible. The Manhattan Declaration reflects a very specific worldview which is informed by very specific theology. Therefore, not only is it a Christian document, it is first and foremost an inherently theological document – or at least theologically-driven. This point is extremely important to the discussion because for some, the defense of cooperation with Catholic and Orthodox writers and signers depends largely upon the validity of the argument that the Manhattan Declaration isn’t a theological document. If true, then it could be argued that theological differences are irrelevant to the task at hand and cooperation is not an example of unbiblical ecumenism. But, again, it is a Christian document and is therefore a theological document by nature. And being a theological document, not only does theology under-gird the moral argument set forth in the Manhattan Declaration, theology also forms the basis for what the writers consider to be their essential unity as a group. This is clearly reflected in the first paragraph under the Declaration section:
We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image.
It is important to not miss the significance of this statement. When one discusses Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism for example, these are treated as world religions. And, of course, Christianity can be spoken of as a world religion, as well. But there is an important and fundamental distinction that must be remembered: A Christian in the biblical sense of the term does not merely mean someone who is an adherent of Christianity as a world religion. For someone to become a true Muslim, a person must simply make a decision to follow the teachings of Islam and live accordingly. However, the same is not true for biblical Christianity. For someone to become a true Christian, they must explicitly place their faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ and thereby be born-again of the Spirit of God. Someone does not become a Christian by merely adopting Christian traditions or by beginning to live a Christian lifestyle – or even by faithfully following the teachings of Christ. In 1994, Chuck Colson was involved with drafting the first Evangelicals and Catholics Together document. That document blurs and actually eliminates the distinction between Christians in the world-religion sense and Christians in the biblical sense, such that it seems clear that Mr. Colson considers the two as not only intersecting, but as synonymous as indicated by the next three quotes from the first ECT document:
As we near the Third Millennium, there are approximately 1.7 billion Christians in the world. About a billion of these are Catholics and more than 300 million are Evangelical Protestants.
We are Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who have been led through prayer, study, and discussion to common convictions about Christian faith and mission.
All who accept Christ as Lord and Savior are brothers and sisters in Christ. Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ.
Some may argue, however, that the two documents are fundamentally different in scope and purpose and therefore should not be compared or evaluated in this way. Yet, the essential philosophical /theological similarities between the two documents cannot be ignored because they reflect the broader philosophy out of which they were formulated:
Manhattan Declaration: We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. First ECT document: We are Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who have been led through prayer, study, and discussion to common convictions about Christian faith and mission. This statement cannot speak officially for our communities. It does intend to speak responsibly from our communities and to our communities.
Manhattan Declaration: We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty. First ECT document: There is a necessary connection between the visible unity of Christians and the mission of the one Christ. We together pray for the fulfillment of the prayer of Our Lord: “May they all be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, so also may they be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.” (John 17) We together, Evangelicals and Catholics, confess our sins against the unity that Christ intends for all his disciples. The one Christ and one mission includes many other Christians, notably the Eastern Orthodox and those Protestants not commonly identified as Evangelical. All Christians are encompassed in the prayer, “May they all be one.”
It seems appropriate to suggest that some important linkage does exist between the Manhattan Declaration and the ECT document and that this linkage is intentional and by design. This shouldn’t be surprising given Mr. Colson’s key role in the formation of both documents. Given that the purpose of the ECT document is inherently ecumenical, it seems reasonable to more carefully explore the potential ecumenical issues raised directly by the Manhattan Declaration. Likewise it seems reasonable to at least examine whether or not those issues might be sufficient to give legitimate reasons for withholding support and participation in the Manhattan Declaration. I will conclude my response to the Manhattan Declaration, in a couple of days and try to make a case for why Christians should or should not be involved with this initiative or others like it. It doesn’t seem that there is a one-size-fits-all answer, but I can discuss general principles related to the role of Christians in government and political activism. Can and should Christians engage and confront the culture and government in their social context – and what kind of ecumenical alliances can be formed to accomplish this? Ecumenical alliances and civil disobedience. Just what should we think and do? And what, if any, is the potential historical significance of the Manhattan Declaration?
Dispensationalism must be wrong – Part One
A number of arguments are regularly used to try to discredit dispensationalism and conclude that it is flawed and must be wrong as a theological system. Interestingly, two frequent arguments against dispensationalism are based on the history of dispensationalism, having nothing to do with theology or exegesis. One argument attempts to discredit dispensationalism with the charge that it is a “young” theological system. The other attempts to discredit dispensationalism with the charge that its development is suspect. However, neither is actually a legitimate argument against dispensational theology and both are relatively easy to refute.
The Relative Youth of Dispensationalism
Those who oppose dispensational theology at least partly on the grounds that it is “young” tend hold to amillennialism in general and more specifically to covenant theology (which is arguably a subset of reformed theology.) That being the case, this charge in particular doesn’t seem like one they would want to use.
The modern development of dispensationalism is generally traced to the work of John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) in the early nineteenth century – around 200 years ago.
Although covenant theology can be viewed as having its roots in the writings of Calvin (1509-1564) – and to some extent even in those of Augustine (354-430), Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) has been credited with providing the classical statement on covenant theology. Therefore, its beginning is approximately 400 years ago – making it about 200 years prior to Darby.
This being the case, wouldn’t it have been equally valid for John Nelson Darby to challenge covenant theology based on the fact that it was still so young as compared to the 1800 year history of the church?
Then go back to 1700. At that time, covenant theology was less than 100 years old. Does that mean that it was even less valid then than it was in Darby’s day? And does something become more valid simply due to the passage of time?
To be fair, the challenge against dispensationalism is usually framed more in terms of it being a new type of theology – a suspect theological innovation. In other words, the question(s) can be summarized as: “If dispensationalism is correct, does that mean biblical scholars and theologians had it all wrong for 1800 years – and how could that be true?”
However, this is a two-edged sword that would cut equally against reformed theology. The critical theological issues that sparked and defined the Protestant Reformation were delineated especially in the work of John Calvin and Martin Luther (1483-1546). Although we would vigorously maintain that these fundamental truths of biblical Christianity were simply recovered from centuries of obscurity in the organized church, not all would agree.
A Roman Catholic monk and theologian, Luther posted his 95 Theses in 1517. In 1545, largely in response to “heresies” of the Reformation, the Catholic Church convened the Council of Trent. This council continued for almost twenty years, while the Counter-Reformation that it spawned lasted almost 100 years.
The point is that the majority of Christianity, including virtually all of the pastors, scholars and theologians firmly believed that the innovative theology of the Reformation was nothing more than a new heresy. This “new” theological system was less than fifty years old when it was roundly condemned and its adherents were mercilessly persecuted – some to the point of martydom.
However, as we know, doctrines such as “salvation by faith alone” and “the authority of the Scriptures alone” were not new. They were recovered through a return to biblical exegesis. The validity of dispensational theology should only be judged on the same basis. Is it really a new theology – or simply a recovered or rediscovered theology? I would suggest it is the latter and furthermore that it was held and taught by Jesus and the apostles.
At the very least, it is a serious mistake on several counts to try to use the “it’s young” argument to say or support the idea that dispensationalism must be wrong.
In the next post, we will look at the argument against dispensationalism on the basis of its development.
Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics
I am writing from Baptist Bible College and Seminary in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania, in the middle of the second annual Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics.
One of the first charges leveled against dispensationlists and dispensationalism is that this system of theology lacks all academic credibility and depth. It is further often charged that dispensationalism and particularly its eschatological aspects, such as the Rapture, the Tribulation and the Millennium are not found in the Bible and cannot be supported by responsible exegesis.
If there is anything that one can learn from being here at this conference, it is that these charges as simple, flat dismissals of dispensationalism are quite misguided and often based primarily upon caricatures and straw-man argumentation and even ad homimem arguments. The presentations and followup discussions have demonstrated a level of scholarship, along with a commitment to Christ and His Word, that is truly unassailable. One might come to different conclusions concerning certain passages, as do Covenant theologians, Promise theologians and Progressive Dispensationalists, but it certainly cannot be on the basis of academic weakness, lack of biblical integrity or problems of personal character and commitment.
My purpose in writing this is not to get into the very technical exegetical discussions of this conference, but rather to be an encouragement to those who do hold to a dispensational view of Scripture and God’s program in history, yet who also find themselves under pressure and even under fire from others who do not share these views. I can assure you that this view of Scripture is thoroughly faithful to the Word of God and a very consistent way of handling all of the relevant biblical passages. And I would go further to say that dispensationalism is the result of the most consistent handling of the whole counsel of God.
In the coming weeks and months, we will be posting blogs and articles here on the ABI website, that will deal with many of these issues in what we hope will be a very understandable and very practical way.
A number of ministries have sprung up over the last few years to deal with the issues facing believers in the church today – especially those issues related to a departure from long held to historical, conservative evangelical views. However, one of the unique characteristics of The Alliance for Biblical Integrity is that we seek to address these issues from a distinctly dispensational theological perspective, which we believe is the result of a consistent application of a literal, grammatical, historical interpretation of Scripture. We believe that this approach will most effectively provide information and biblical tools to help believers both evaluate and respond to the many voices and pressures of the day that are coming from those who do not truly share our own commitment to Christ and the Word of God in general.
(To be fair, I do recognize there are other believers of integrity who disagree with dispensationalism who also share a commitment to a biblical hermeneutic – though I would disagree with aspects of their hermeneutic and particularly its application. So, my conclusions should not be construed as a personal attack on those brothers and sisters in any away.)
More later…
Dave James
ABI Ministry Coordinator
Worldviews: Born-Again and Unbiblical? – Part I
Several days ago, I posted a blog with questions / topics proposed by an ABI Facegroup member. This post deals with one of those topics – “worldview.”
_________________________________
It would be natural to expect that Christians would have most of their values, morals, ethics – their overall philosophy of life – to be informed and shaped by principles found in the Bible. However, apparently such an assumption would be inaccurate based on the the results of a survey published by the Barna Group on March 6, 2009.
The survey reports that only 9% of all Americans hold a biblical worldview – which is perhaps higher than one would expect (depending on the definition of “biblical worldview”). However, the alarming (if not completely surprising) statistic is that less than 20% of self-identified born-again Christians hold a biblical worldview.
What is meant by “worldview?”
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (online) defines it with the German word “weltanshauung” – and weltanshauung is then defined in this dictionary as:
a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint
Another online dictionary gives the definition in two senses:
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
The Barna report, cited above, notes the following concerning “biblical worldview” as used in the survey:
For the purposes of the survey, a “biblical worldview” was defined as believing that absolute moral truth exists; the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches; Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic; a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works; Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; and God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today. In the research, anyone who held all of those beliefs was said to have a biblical worldview.
From a biblical perspective, this isn’t a particularly demanding set of criteria and reflects a basic philosophy of life that anyone should theoretically embrace if they choose to be identified as “Christian” in any meaningful way. And because this definition of “biblical worldview” is so basic, the fact that many who identified themselves as born-again Christians rejected any of the above criteria is significant.
Obviously (and thankfully), one does not have to be a theologian to enter into a personal saving relationship with Jesus Christ. However, there is a problem if we consider ourselves to be born-again, yet do not have a biblical worldview.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul’s discussion of the wisdom of God versus human wisdom, is essentially one of competing worldviews. In this context he writes:
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corintians 2:14, NKJV)
In other words, for some, spiritual truth is beyond their grasp – which would obviously make it impossible to have a thoroughly biblical worldview.
Prior to this, Paul writes:
For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. (1 Corinthians 2:11-12, NKJV)
Paul seems to directly connect the possession of a biblical worldview with possessing the Spirit of God. And only those who are born again are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Therefore this passage raises a couple of important questions that all must consider, including professing Christians:
1) If we do not have a biblical worldview does this have any potential implications concerning our spiritual condition?
And the corollary:
2) If we consider ourselves to be born-again Christians do we actually have a biblical worldview?
In considering these questions, we should probably also recognize that a genuine test for a biblical worldview should be rather more comprehensive and stringent than that used by Barna. On the one hand, this raises the bar in evaluating one’s personal worldview. On the other hand this potentially reduces even further the percentage of those who could be considered to hold a biblical worldview.
How could someone consider himself to be a born-again Christian and yet not have a biblical worldview? And are there philosophical and / or theological trends within American Christianity that allow or even create such a situation?
We will consider these and other questions in the next post on the subject of “Biblical Worldviews.”
Dave James
Ministry Coordinator