- The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction?
- Are Muslims Seeing Jesus?
- “Son of God” Translation Controversy
- 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 information
- ABI 2010 Year-End Report
- Ministry Trip to S. Korea / Philippines
- Where Should We Meet?
- 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
information
informationWhat about those who haven’t heard? (Part II)
This is a follow-up to the first ABI Quick Survey in this current series on an important theological and practical issue.
It is well-known that the way survey questions are framed can have a significant influence on the way people respond. One factor can be when questions are posed in such a way that they seem more real or personal to the respondent – and aren’t just theoretical / hypothetical. This can be particularly true with questions related to difficult theological issues.
I hope you will take a moment to read the following scenario and then continue to the second survey in this series.
Note: If you haven’t responded to the first survey, please go to that one-question survey first and then return here. (Available through the ABI Bulletin Board on the home page.)
—————————–
I have traveled to India twice to teach in a seminary south of Bangalore. The seminary is located in a very rural area, which is home to what I suspect are some of the poorest, third-world villages in the world.
I have been to one of these nearby villages and briefly in the home of a Hindu family. As is true of most of India, this area is almost 100% Hindu. So, in the main room of this tiny house with a dirt floor there are pictures or small statues of Hindu gods, prayer beads and an altar where candles are lit each day.
Let’s suppose that one day, a baby girl is born to this honest, hard-working, faithful Hindu family. They name her “Ayanna,” which means “Innocent.” As she grows into a beautiful young lady, she stands out among her friends and has a reputation in her village for being especially kind, compassionate, honest and devout.
She looks at the world around her and knows in her heart that there must be a God who is immense and powerful. She has never had any exposure to Christianity, but she has been taught the importance of treating others as she would wish to be treated. She has never heard the name of Jesus – and never will, but she sincerely believes all that she has learned from her parents and the elders in the village. She prays each day and tries to the best of her ability to please whomever this unknown God might be. With so many in her village dying at a young age, she often wonders what might happen when she dies.
As I mentioned, the seminary is out in the country – and I have been on the road between the seminary and Ayanna’s village several times. It is narrow, hilly and winding, with drivers going far too fast and taking far too many chances – as seems to be typical in India.
One day, as 17 year-old Ayanna is walking down this road, the driver of a large truck doesn’t see her as he comes over a hill. In her final moments of life, she has a moment to wonder about what will happen to her after she dies.
——————————
Please continue to the survey. (Available through the ABI Bulletin Board on the home page.)
Again, please make sure you have taken the first survey before proceeding to the second one.
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.
| 1 CommentCouncil 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
Important Questions from a Reader
Today, I received an email from an ABI Facebook Group member with some questions and issues that this person would like for us to consider as topics to be addressed on the ABI website and/or blog. I have also encountered these myself in a variety of contexts including ministry situations, articles and books, blogs and forums, conversations and just during personal reflection. I have summarized the main issues below and plan to write on many or most of them in over the next few weeks (or have guest writers contribute, as well.)
So, stay tuned.
(As always, please feel free to comment on the blogs – and also send me your own questions, as well.)
———————————–
Reformed theology: We are seeing this become an increasingly divisive issue within and between churches. Some churches now no longer want to have gospel invitations and didn’t like it that invitations were included in some of the teaching material they had been using. They had concluded that a person could not understand and properly respond to a gospel message the first time they hear it. This also seems to be related to the “Lordship salvation” / “easy believism” debate. (My comments: These also sometimes have implications for other issues that are worth discussing such as dispensational versus Covenant theology, Calvinism versus Arminianism, predestination versus free-will, eternal security versus conditional security, among others.)
The Emergent Church: I get asked about this a lot by many people, including pastors. But I’m also asked this by a lot of lay people and regardless of their role in the church – I would love to be able to refer people to a good, concise article that explains things clearly. On the other hand, I am amazed at how many others don’t even know that this and other major issues are having a profound impact on the church as a whole today.
Worldview: What does “worldview” mean in general – and what does it mean to have a biblical worldview? I have been in at least one rather tense conversation with someone who was struggling to understand that not every believer necessarily has a biblical worldview. Along this line of thought, I was recently involved in one discussion in which the actual “Christian-ness” of a parent’s worldview came into question by on of their teen children – because they appeared to be sort out the idea that there are possibly various degrees of Christianity.
Doctrine: A major issue I frequently encounter is the question, “why does doctrine matter?” For many, the bottom line is that “God is love” and we should all work together on that basis alone. We are seeing a wide variety of beliefs, many contradictory – which cause problems for both those who try to minimize the differences as well as those that are struggling to define core beliefs that essential separation issues. As one example, a few years ago when asked about what his church held to doctrinally the pastor responded, “Well – we are really on the cutting edge of theology here . . . ” We had a lot of discussion about just what that meant – and it just wasn’t very clear. The edge of theology (that lacks clear biblical basis) is not where we want to be nor where we would want our children being trained!
The “homechurch/family integrated church” movement: This thinking is promoted heavily by Vision Forum among others. (Also, the long-term effect / effectiveness of small-groups needs to be examined for results – long-term and short-term.)
Old Earth/Young Earth Creationism: This a big topic causing a lot of discussion a homeschool forum, with some suggestion that perhaps Young Earth Creationism is actually a tool of Satan to divide the church.
Biblically rearing children: Many methods and philosophies are being promoted concerning appropriate education of one’s children. This extends from more moderate mainstream views on responsible schooling – with often more heat than light generated in some discussions. Some are happy to put their children in school because the parents feel it is a comfort to put her children in school knowing that there were people in the government whose job it was to know what was best for her children and to take that burden from her. Others fall to the other extreme – perhaps something in the vein of the “quiverful movement,” Bill Gothard teaching and philosophy and even whether or not youth groups are biblical.
Depending on the context, some of these have turned into real emotional “hot-button” issues.
——————————————
Thank you for taking time to ask about these. We will try to address them in a fair and balanced way. Some might require multiple posts and I may call upon guest writers with greater expertise to write on some of them. Whatever the case, I encourage others to write to me as well – and we will try to address your hottest topics. info@biblicalintegrity.org
Dave James
Ministry Coordinator
The Shack: “But it’s just fiction…”
(This article is available in downloadable and printable PDF, 2-column article format: Click here to download)
Even though I just posted a review of The Shack on the ABI website by Glenn Kreider, I wanted to take a few moments to further discuss an issue that I have both read and heard in a sort of defense of the book – the “fact” that The Shack is fiction.
Although The Shack was self-published by a then-unknown author, it ended up on Amazon.com, reached “critical mass” through word-of-mouth – and the rest is history.
To put things into perspective concerning the incredible popularity of this book, consider the following statistics for all book sales in 2008 (from Publisher’s Weekly):
#1 - A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle: 5,298,355 copies sold
#2 – The Shack by Wm. Paul Young: 4,432,439 copies sold
Sales of The Shack remain strong this year, with the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association continuing to list the book at #1 this month (up from #3 last month) (I assume this is August over July).
I just checked on Amazon.com and there are currently 3630 reviews of the book. A few months ago, I read through many of the reviews and by far the majority were not just positive – but ranged from “glowing” to “gushing.” The following quote by Scott on January 30, 2008 probably captures the sense of the “best of the best” reviews:
This is probably the most profound and best book I have ever read in my entire life. It has brought me totally back to God. I have never felt better. I totally identified with Mack and the Great Sadness which has been in my life also.
However, despite incredibly strong sales and broad popularity, it has not been received well by many theologians. There has been extensive and sometimes scathing criticism of the theology in the book. And yet for all the negative critiques and many warnings that The Shack has poor theology and is even heretical, there are many more who defend the book on the basis of its effect on them personally. Many attempt to deflect any and all criticism of the book on the basis of it merely being fiction. But this begs the question: Just what was it about The Shack that affected them so deeply at both an emotional and spiritual level? The answer will always be something along the lines of: “It is the presentation of God in a new, insightful, convicting and comforting way.”
What, then, would be the short version of that answer? It is the theology – it is the teaching about God.
So, then how should we classify this novel?
Is it theological fiction?
Or is it fictional theology?
If it is fictional theology, then it is theology that has no biblical basis. That would make it heresy by definition. So, one can’t claim that it is fictional theology and still defend it as a basis for personal spiritual growth, comfort and encouragement.
But what about theological fiction?
If it is theological fiction, then wouldn’t it have something of a parallel in the genre of historical fiction? How does historical fiction work? In general, it uses (and must use) true historical events as a framework for the book. For example, no historical novel could ever put the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1950. If it did, then such a book would be relegated to “fictional history” – and no one would take it seriously from an historical perspective.
However, many people do take The Shack very seriously. And those who do take it seriously now view God differently than they did before. In other words, their theology has changed. But their new theology is not found in the Bible. And not only is this new theology not biblical, it actually contradicts the theology of the Bible. Therefore, any emotional or spiritual impact that The Shack might have is based on something other than the truth – which in other words, is a lie. Quite obviously, believers cannot base their spiritual growth on a lie. If they try to do so, something might happen, but it can’t be called “spiritual growth.”
Beyond this, Glenn Kreider points out in his review that Mr. Young actually admits that the essence of the book is rooted in his own personal experience. He claims to have had conversations with God. In The Shack we don’t simply find monologues by the main character, Mack – but rather dialogues between Mack and God. In some way, this is what Mr. Young is claiming happened to him.
And not only that, but Mr. Young’s purpose for writing the book was to provide some sort of documentation of these conversations with God to his children. In other words, from his perspective he is writing about real events. Real events are the framework – making it theological fiction. This means that Mr. Young’s intention is not to simply write fiction – but to convey what he believes to be real events and very true theology – with fiction only serving as a vehicle. The Shack is essentially a documentary.
Some have suggested that The Shack is the Pilgrim’s Progress of this generation. But make no mistake, John Bunyon’s very clear intent was to convey theology – and he simply used fiction (in this case an allegory) as a vehicle.
In the same way, The Shack is first and foremost a theology book. It is a theology book just as much as is Ryrie’s Basic Theology or those written by Chafer or Grudem or Berkhoff or Geisler.
I continue to hear stories of The Shack being used as a basis for Sunday School lessons and Bible studies. It continues to be recommended among friends, in blogs and in book reviews. But do we really want to be responsible for teaching or recommending something that contains false teaching about God to others? Do we want to attribute our own personal spiritual growth to heretical views of God?
If you haven’t done so, I encourage you to take some time to read the review on the ABI website – and do a search for other articles that discuss the many heretical views set forth in The Shack.
It’s not just fiction.
Dave James
Ministry Coordinator
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity
Does “I am the way…” Teach Universalism?
This appears to be the essence of Brian McLaren’s claims concerning John 14:6 in one of the chapters of his upcoming book A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith (to be released in February 2010).
On his blog, Mr. McLaren writes the following in response to a comment received from a reader concerning John 14:6:
I reworked that material into an important chapter in my upcoming book, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith. The passage is often used to answer the question, “How do we relate to people of other religions?” But a careful reading of the verse (“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”) in its immediate and broader context shows that its most likely meaning is almost the opposite of the way it’s commonly used. Who is Jesus speaking to? What specific question is he answering? What does “come to the Father” mean? What do way, truth, and life mean? What’s the dramatic setting for the statement? (If people think the answers to those questions are either immaterial or self-evident, I don’t think they’ve really struggled with the text, nor have they taken seriously what is for John an extremely important statement – namely, John 6:63 in relation to 6:55 (John 6:55) … Jesus speaks on a “spirit” level and people hear/read him on a “flesh” level. This theme goes way back to 3:6 (John 3:6).) What a fascinating gospel we have in John! Working on a close and comprehensive reading of John for that chapter in the book constantly moved me to wonder, amazement, and worship.
McLaren notes that the “most likely meaning” of John 14:6 “is almost the opposite of the way it’s commonly used.” He is apparently referring to the way this passage has been generally understood within conservative evangelicalism, which is that Jesus is stating that salvation is found exclusively in and through him. And in the broader context of New Testament teaching concerning salvation, it would be understood that Jesus is affirming that salvation comes only to those who have explicit knowledge of him and who have explicitly placed their faith in him. In other words, conservative Bible students have historically understood Jesus to be teaching that salvation is found exclusively in him personally and not that there is universal salvation for all through his work on the cross in a general way.
However, McLaren suggests that a study of the verse, “in its immediate and broader context,” reveals that Jesus is teaching universal salvation. So, let’s consider the contextual issues and the questions he says we should be asking.
When: It is at the end of the passover meal that Jesus has just shared with his disciples on the night he was betrayed. And now, Jesus has just sent Judas away, saying, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” (John 13:27)
Who: Jesus speaks to the remaining eleven disciples.
What: He speaks of the glorification of the Father and the Son (John 13:31-32), his departure (John 13:33), the significance of their love for one another (John 13:34-35), and Peter’s denial (13:36-38).
After he tells Peter of his impending denial, Jesus then returns to the issue of Peter’s concern about his soon-departure. Jesus tells them that their hearts should not be troubled because he is not only going to prepare a place for them, but that he will also return to take them back to be with him (John 14:1-4).
Jesus concludes by saying, “You know the way to the place where I am going.”
Thomas then responds, “Lord, we do not know where you are going…” and then poses the question, “…how can we know the way?” It is to this question that McLaren directs our attention as the immediate context of Jesus’ statement: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
And then, very importantly, Jesus says, “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; and from now on you know him and have seen him.” This is important, because, among other things, it gives insight into the exclusivity of the “I am the way” statement. Note that Jesus did not say, “If you had known the Father, you would have known me.”
Jesus was speaking to those who already had a personal relationship with him. And it is because of this relationship and through this relationship that his disciples were able to know the Father (have a relationship with him). Jesus said that it was only through the Son that they could have this relationship to the Father.
McLaren then directs our attention back to John chapter 3 – to the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus – so that we can be sure to understand the “broader context.” Good advice.
Nicodemus would have been the equivalent of what we would consider a seminary-trained, conservative, theologian – a scholar who not only thoroughly knew the Hebrew Scriptures, but someone who worked hard to live consistent with what he knew to be the demands of those Scriptures. And it is armed with this knowledge that Nicodemus addresses Jesus: “We know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” (John 3:2)
Nicodemus was right. But neither his knowledge nor his apparent acceptance of this truth was enough to establish a relationship with the Father or secure him a place in the kingdom of God – which is precisely why Jesus then told him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3: 3) And, of course, later in the conversation Jesus said, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
From this conversation and the one in John 14, it is clear that being born again and possessing eternal life are directly and inseparably connected to having a personal relationship with Jesus, which one enters into by faith. In John 14, Jesus spoke of preparing a place and the way (or pathway) to that place. This place was the Father’s house, his kingdom.
In summary: Jesus unequivocally states that there is only one way to the Father and into the Father’s kingdom. Jesus unequivocally states that he is personally that one way. The disciples knew the way and were on that way only because of their personal relationship to Jesus. Salvation is not applied universally to all on the general basis of Christ’s work on the cross and definitely not because of some general belief in God as taught in any given religious system.
As always, the context does provide the correct understanding of John 14:6.
The Beginnings of ABI – Part IV
I have mentioned the email to Jimmy DeYoung asking about whether there was a need for an organization similar to the Pre-Trib Study Group to help hold the line on historic, conservative evangelicalism. This is where we pick up the conclusion of the story about the beginnings of ABI.
_________________________
A couple of days after sending Jimmy the email, I received a phone call from his office in Chattanooga. Steve asked if I would be available to do a radio interview with Jimmy concerning the results of the Pew Study that I have noted in previous posts.
About a week after the interview, Jimmy called to further discuss the idea of launching such a ministry. He, too, seeing the need in his many travels as a conference speaker. He mentioned that he knew two other men that might be interested.
One of the men was Rob Congdon. Rob is a regular guest on Jimmy DeYoung’s weekly radio program. He is is the director of Congdon Ministries International and the Internet Bible Institute and a conference speaker and author, who is a recognized authority on the European Union, especially in relation to potential fulfillment of end-times prophecies. For many years, he was a missionary with Friends of Israel in Great Britain and during that time he was involved in starting a similar ministry called Hermeneus Fellowship.
The second person was Paul Barreca. Paul is the pastor of Faith Bible Church in Vineland, New Jersey. Jimmy had heard that Paul had recently preached a message entitled “Why I Am No Longer An Evangelical” (available on the ABI website). Based on this message, Jimmy saw that Paul also shared the same concerns that we had for the current state of the evangelical church.
Jimmy then suggested that perhaps we should all meet together, to get to know one another, and discuss whether launching a new ministry might be something we should consider. We scheduled a set of meetings to be in Asheville, North Carolina for early July, 2008.
We spent Monday evening just getting to know one another, since I had never met Rob or Paul and Paul did not know Rob or me. That evening, we found that we had all been seeing the same developments and trends within evangelicalism and that we all shared the same concerns. The next morning, we began discussing our theological views and found that we were all in agreement in even the smallest details. We also shared the conviction that the primary issue was the diminishing view of the authority of the Bible and a deficient hermeneutic (a system of princples of interpretation).
By early afternoon our discussion had turned to the question of starting a ministry. We agreed that there was a need for something like what we were discussing and that we were not aware of a ministry that had the particular set of distinctives that would soon come to define the new ministry. We decided that we would meet again in four weeks, giving us time to think and pray about about the final decision to start a ministry and also the role that each of us might have should we decide to proceed.
As part of the process, we also discussed a potential name for the ministry and within about 10 minutes we agreed on “The Alliance for Biblical Integrity.” An interesting sidenote: As soon as we decided on the name, Jimmy called his webmaster to see if the website name “www.biblicalintegrity.org” was available. And amazingly, out of all the millions of domain names already in use, no one had taken this name and within five minutes, we had reserved the domain for our use.
During the four weeks between meetings, Karen and I spent a lot of time in discussion, thought and prayer. Prior to our first set of meetings, I had written to Al Konya (WOL Hungary country director) letting him know about what we were doing because it potentially had implications concerning our ministry in Hungary. At the time, I never envisioned leaving the ministry of Word of Life and thought that even if we were involved in a new ministry, that it would be something we would do while staying with WOL. After the first meetings, I called Al again and told him that I didn’t know whether or not anything would come of this and he replied, “I think something will.” His reply sort of took me aback as I wasn’t expecting it. Then as we were driving back to Asheville in August, Karen and I were naturally discussing what this all might mean for our future. We agreed that this might very well be the next phase in our ministry lives. During the second set of meetings, we all concluded that we should proceed and begin establishing The Alliance for Biblical Integrity.
After we returned to Hungary at the end of the month, I met with Al to further discuss what was going on in our hearts and the passion that was developing for this new ministry. It soon became clear that ABI was something with which we would need to be involved full-time if we really hoped to have a significant impact. A few weeks later, I told Al of our decision to leave Word of Life and he replied, “I knew this would be your decision.”
In some ways it was a very difficult decision given that just a couple of months earlier we had never envisioned ever leaving WOL. In other ways, it was a very eary decision because we were so confident of the Lord’s guidance and because of the passion He had given us for this type of ministry. Looking back, He had been preparing us for this new phase of ministry for 25 years – and particulary for the 16 years we had been in Hungary – which is rather amazing in itself.
Our confidence in our decision was repeatedly confirmed over the coming months as we shared our decision with family, friends, trusted advisers and the leadership of Word of Life. We consistently received nothing but encouragement – not only regarding us personally being involved with the launch of such a ministry, but with regard to the great need for such a ministry, as well.
There are innumerable other things that have happened over the past year, almost on a weekly basis, that the Lord has used to encourage us and confirm to us that we have made the right decision. We have continually experienced His peace and countless blessings – and the truth is that we have not doubted our decision for even a moment.
I am incredibly thankful for our time with Word of Life. And although we are no longer on staff, we still feel part of the Word of Life family, especially the family in Hungary. Our relationship with Word of Life – as an organization and with individuals in WOL – remains as strong as ever. I will still be working closely with WOL, teaching at some of the Bible institutes – and hopefully helping in many other ways. I thank God for the many fine leaders in Word of Life and for the many dear friends we have with the staff and students who have been a part of our lives.
Dave James
Ministry Coordinator