Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Book Review: Heretics / Orthodoxy

November 11, 2009 by debese

In case the few, yet distinguished, readers of this blog haven’t noticed, over the past month or so I have been working my way through Gilbert K. Chesterton’s book(s) “Heretics / Orthodoxy.”  This book was originally 2 books, one aptly named “Heretics” and the other “Orthodoxy” but has been combined into one edition.

I say that I “worked” through this volume precisely because at times I did have to toil to wrap my brain around early 20th century vocabulary and/or cultural references.  I have stated previously that I felt that Chesterton was the Dr. Albert Mohler of his day, very acutely aware of the popular philosophies that were circulating and influencing the times.  And like Dr. Mohler, Chesterton has a way of cutting to the heart and/or foundation of each philosophy and uncover the fatal flaws and mistakes made by their proponents.   Chesterton was up against philosophies of Nietzsche, Marx, Kipling, and Shaw to name a few.

In the first part of the book Chesterton takes on specific philosophies, deconstructs them and points out their fallacies and absurdities.  Each chapter is filled with intricate, sometimes paradoxical arguments as He points out that Kipling in loving the world and its civilizations became imprisoned to a superficial knowledge of it.  Chesterton demolishes Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells and the Nietzsche philosophy of the super-human.  He lays bare the pessimistic and non-mysterious thoughts with statements like

“The man who said, ‘Blessed he that expecteth nothing, for he shall not be disappointed,’ put the eulogy quite inadequately and even falsely.  The truth ‘Blessed is he that expecteth nothing, for he shall be gloriously surprised.’”

A common thread that appears throughout the “Heretics” chapters is that Chesterton shows the reader that the philosophies of the day are little more than an idealism (and often a pessimistic idealism at that) that is not based on any sense of reality.  This idealism leaves no room for mystery, takes the wonder out of life and creation and confuses morality.  But what I truly found amazing was that the idealism of the early 1900’s is quite similar to the idealism of the early 2000’s.  The world is so busy knowing everything that it truly knows nothing.  The world is so idealistically bent toward inclusive intellectualism that it removes itself from any real moral foundation.  I think that the scary difference between the early 1900s and the present is Chesterton was fighting this faulty philosophy primarily with admitted atheists and agnostics while we are battling this faulty philosophy with people who claim to be Christians.

The second part of the book, Orthodoxy, was written as a response to his critics who claimed that he attacked others philosophies without defining his own philosophy.  This is basically a philosophical auto-biography of how Chesterton went from being an agnostic to believing in Christianity.  In the opening chapter he defines himself as:

“the man who with the utmost daring discovered what had been discovered before…I freely confess all the idiotic ambitions of the end of the nineteenth century.  I did, like all other solemn little boys, try to be in advance of the age.  Like them I tried to be some ten minutes in advance of the truth.  And I found that I was eighteen hundred years behind it.  I did strain my voice with a painfully juvenile exaggeration in uttering my truths…but I have discovered not that they weren’t truths, but simply that they were not mine.  When I fancied that I stood alone I was really in the ridiculous position of being backed up by all Christendom.”

The following chapters offer a keen insight into the thought process that God used to bring Chesterton to Christ.  Of these chapters the one entitled “The Suicide of Thought” really stood out.  In this chapter Chesterton demonstrates the good and the inherent danger of the strict intellectual and/or skeptic that questions divine authority.

“The peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself….It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith.  Reason is itself a matter of faith.  It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.  If you are merely a skeptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, “Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction?  Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic?”  “The young skeptic says, ‘I have a right to think for myself.’ But the old skeptic, the complete skeptic, says, ‘I have no right to think for myself.  I have no right to think at all.’”  And so Chesterton realizes that there must be some truth that is beyond human thought and comprehension.  There must be a foundation, a standard by which mankind can reason, a standard that is fixed and yet in some ways mysterious.  An intellectual and/or skeptic thinks himself brilliant for asking questions, yet Chesterton responds “We have found all the questions that can be found.  It is time we gave up looking for questions and began looking for answers.”

If you only have time in your life to read one chapter of this book…read “The Suicide of Thought.”

 

Due to its philosophical nature this book is great for world-view issues, but is not meant to be a book on apologetics.  The reader will need to have a dictionary nearby and wouldn’t hurt to have a set of encyclopedias to look up vague cultural references.  However the reward for reading this book is great.  It stretches the mind and forces one to put his philosophical beliefs through the ringer.  There are hundreds of quotes that I would love to include but I will close with this quote – a quote that summarizes the heart of the Christian experience, and the ultimate end of Chesterton’s journey to orthodoxy: “Joy, which was the small publicity of the pagan, is the gigantic secret of the Christian.”

Posted in Book Reviews, Philosophical Thoughts | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Heretics / Orthodoxy (4)…

November 4, 2009 by debese

As Chesterton builds his defense of Christianity he broaches so many subjects that it’s hard to pick out just a few to mention.  The following is an excerpt that beautifully demonstrates the  parodox of the martyr and the suicide as he reacts to the modernist notion that one ought not pity the man who takes his own life.  Have you ever considered why one is a good thing and one is absolutely horrible?

Continue Reading »

Posted in Gilbert K. Chesterton, Philosophical Thoughts, Quotes | Tagged , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Heretics / Orthodoxy (3)…

October 27, 2009 by debese

The science of “celebrity”

I’ve been thouroghly enjoying my adventure through G. W. Chesterton’s Heretics and Orthodoxy.  I say “adventure” because being an early 20th century author he employs language and cultural references that are not always readily understandable, so some work is involved in grasping what he is saying.  I continue to find it amazing that despite the so-called death of the so-called moderns, and now even the possible death of post-modernity, that we are still dealing with the same root issues that Chesterton was dealing with 100 years ago.  I’m guessing that to a degree most of these issues have been around for most of human history in one form or another.

But here is the quote de jour from the chapter “On Mr. McCabe and a Divine Frivolity” in “Heretics.”  This particular selection deals with the notion that a scientific civilization tends to destroy the power of the ordinary man and prop up the “experts” or celebrities as we might view it today.  I find this selection quite prophetic.

Science means specialism, and specialism means oligarchy.  if you once establish the habit of trusting particular men to produce particular results in physics or astonomy, you leave the door open for the equally natural demand that you should trust particular men to do particular things in government and the coercing of men.  If, you feel it reasonable that one beetle should be the only study of one man, and that one man the only student of that one beetle, it is surely a very harmless consequence to go on to say that politics should be the study of one man, and that one man the only student of politics.  As I have pointed out elsewhere in this book, the expert is more aristocratic than the aristocrat, because the aristocrat is only the man who lives well, while the expert is the man who knows better.  But if we look at the progress of our scientific civilization we see a gradual increase everywhere of the specialist over the popular function.  Once men sang together round a table in chorus; now one man sings alone, for the absurd reason that he can sing better.  If scientific civilization goes on (which is most improbable) only one man will laugh, because he can laugh better than the rest.

We must beware of leaving things to the “experts.”  This is a prime danger of political activism.  In many cases political activism, whatever the cause, props up certain individuals who people believe will solve the problem and therefore we believe that it is their responsability to solve the problem and our responsibility to vote, and get others to vote for them (I believe the current administration beautifully exemplifies this, though it wasn’t absent in the last one either).  As Christians we have been given great personal responsibility!  It is wonderfully true that in one Man, Christ, we have been saved, but we are further instructed to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling” meaning that we don’t sit back and let the “experts” handle our Christian responsibilities…we join the chorus and sing with all our individual might!

Posted in Gilbert K. Chesterton, Philosophical Thoughts, Quotes | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Knowability of God…

October 22, 2009 by debese

Can one truly know God?  Some might argue that because God is infinite and we are finite our perception of God will always be flawed and therefore it would be arrogant to assume anything or claim to know for certain anything about God.  This however is a flawed argument based on just a little truth.  It is true that God is infinite and we are finite, however that does not mean that we cannot truly know things about God…especially if He has chosen to reveal specific things about Himself in His Word.

This type of argument could be employed in other matters of philosophy as well.  The idea that because something is unattainable (like us fully understanding God) that it is undefineable.  G. K. Chesterton points out this fallacious argument in his book “Heretics”.

We may not be able to get to the North Pole.  But because the North Pole is unattainable, it does not follow that it is indefinalbe.  And it is only because the North Pole is not indefinable that we can make a satisfactory map of Brighton and Worthing.

God is “defineable” in the sense that God has given revealed to us His “definition.”  It’s only because of this that we can say with any certainty how we are to live for, worship and enjoy God forever!  I think that in a very real sense had God not chosen to “define” Himself to us we would have a hard time defining ourselves for only in God do we see our true purpose – to glorify God by enjoying Him forever.  One cannot glorify or enjoy what one cannot certainly know, if only in part.

Posted in Desiring God, Doctrinal Issues, Gilbert K. Chesterton, Quotes | Tagged , , , | Leave a Comment »

Heretics / Orthodoxy (2)…

October 14, 2009 by debese

As I continue reading Chesterton’s Heritics / Orthodoxy I am getting the sense that Chesterton was the early 1900’s version of Dr. Albert Mohler.   I mean by this that both men are very acutely aware of what is going on in the culture, how it has gotten to where it is and where it will inevetably lead.    This quote from the chapter “The Suicide of Thought” is very descriptive, and in a way very prophetic of where we are today.  Enjoy (Bold added for emphasis):

…What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place.  Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition.  Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction, where it was never meant to be.  A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert himself.  The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt – the Divine Reason.  Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature.  But the new skeptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time.  The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic.  The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on.  For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder.  But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.

At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong.  Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one.  Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view.  We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table.

We live in a time where men never doubt themselves while insisting that the Bible is anything but God’s inspired and inerrant Word.  To claim that because we cannot know God and therefore cannot make claims to know what Scripture is saying, makes a person stop working…a poisonous humility.  To accept the claim of Scripture, that it is God’s revealed Word, is to drive us to seek to know God through what He has revealed to us.

Posted in Gilbert K. Chesterton, Philosophical Thoughts, Quotes | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Heretics / Orthodoxy (1)…

October 13, 2009 by debese

I have begun reading through Gilbert K. Chesterton’s book “Heretics/Orthodoxy” which as it turns out is already much more insigtful and much less  irritating  than reading the works of heretics who generously ignore orthodoxy.  Of course whenever one uses the word “heretic” of another person immedietely charges of hate and bigot are levied.  This did not stop Chesterton, and should not stop those concerned with Biblical orthodoxy today.  As Chesterton battled heresy and heretics in his day (and in  this book), he made this very important statement:

…I have come to believe in going back to the fundamentals.  Such is the general idea of this book.  I wish to deal with my most distinguised contemporaries, not personally or in a merely literary manner, but in relation to the real body of doctrine which they teach.  I am not concerned with Mr Rudyard Kipling as a vivid artist or a vigorous personality; I am conceerned with him as a Heretic – that is to say, a man whose view of things has the hardihood to differ from mine.  I am not concerned with Mr. Bernard Shaw as one of the most brilliant and one of the most honest men alive; I am concerned with him as a Heretic – that is to say, a man whose philosophy is quite solid, quite coherent, and quite wrong. I revert to the methods of the thirteenth century, inspired by the general hope of getting something done.

I love the statement that I put in bold because it seems today we cannot discuss the philosophy without someone assuming that we are attacking the persons character.  And on the flip side (See the Hate Card post) some refuse to discuss philosophy and jump right into the personal attacks.

All that to say:  I think I’m really going to enjoy this book.

Posted in Gilbert K. Chesterton, Quotes | Tagged , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Hate Card…

October 8, 2009 by debese

Over the summer a fierce, nation-wide “conversation” (aka debate) took place over health-care reform.  Almost immediately the opponents of the Presidents plan were labeled as racist regardless of why they disliked the plan or what logic they used to argue against it.  This argument is called “playing the race card” which good ole Wikipedia defines as: an idiomatic phrase that refers to the act of bringing the issue of race or racism into a debate, perhaps to obfuscate the matter. It is a metaphorical reference to card games in which a trump card may be used to gain an advantage. This of course wasn’t the first time this ploy has been used and most likely won’t be the last.  (Of course it’s never used when arguing against a conservative black man or woman but I digress)  You come to expect such ad hominem tactics in the political arena but Christians have their own type of “race card” that they play when Biblical orthodoxy and even common sense doesn’t back up their arguments.  It’s called the “hate card.”  And I think that there is no other place that this tactic is more prominently displayed than in the Christian homosexual debate, and it goes something like this:  If you believe that homosexual behavior is a sin then you’re a hateful, hypocritical bigot…therefore your arguments are worthless.  A less-common but equally fallacious argument on the other side would be:  You’re a homosexual therefore your arguments are worthless.

This “hate card” argument is an important argument to deal with, but must be dealt with carefully and above all lovingly and graciously.  Just as the “race card” has a legitimate history of arguing against people actually making arguments and spewing forth hate based on the color of a persons skin, so the “hate card”, especially in the homosexual argument, has a history of defending against people actually physically persecuting and spewing forth hateful, vitriolic filth against a person based on a person’s private sexual choices and/or tendencies.   Such racism and hate is to be condemned!

However….just because one person acted in a vile and hateful fashion does not mean that everyone who believes homosexual behavior is a sin is hateful and desires to persecute the glbt community. Just like a person who disagrees with a black president isn’t necessarily a racist.

Unfortunately though any debate I have witnessed involving Christians advocating and/or defending homosexual behavior ends up with the “hate card” being played…and usually very quickly.

Here are some examples from a recent post over at Tony Jones blog, that interestingly enough was not originally about the homosexual behavior debate:

A homosexual advocate writes:

“Love the sinner hate the sin” is a euphemism for: I hate you and I hope God sends you straight to hell. “No, I don’t hate gays.  I love you” is a euphemism for: If I could, I would torture you to death and I hope God sends you to hell.
“Evangelical or fundamentalist or literalistic or conservative Christian’ is a euphemism for: hate-filled person who wishes the Nazis had succeeded, but since they didn’t are giving it their best Bob Jones try.

This is just a partial sampling but extremely illustrative of the “hate card.”  The statements are not meant to be arguments, but meant to destroy the character of the opponent.  A way of twisting anything the opponent might say into hate speech to be disregarded.

So how does one argue against such, ironically hateful, tactics?  The same way genuine believers have been dealing with them for centuries – live genuine, gracious, loving lives.  The problem for those that demonize their opponents is that when other people discover that the person they are demonizing isn’t like they’ve been told he is, they lose their credibility.

As I wrap this up, there are two important points that must be made.  The first actually comes from the above commenter at Tony Jones blog.  Here is the end of the same comment that included the above statements:

I can’t think of any other minority groups in the 21st century America which are treated as sub-humans as are gays and the transgender.

I believe that there is much truth in that statement.  For while the “love the sinner, hate the sin” argument may be valid there have been those who have used it…and then proceeded to hate the sinner as well.

Secondly, when involved in the “homosexual behavior isn’t necessarily sin” debate I ask this question to the advocates of homosexual behavior (which to my knowledge has still gone unanswered):  “Can you love a God who hates (as sin) all homosexual behavior?”

But another question should be asked to those on the other side of the debate:  Can you love a God who forgives the sin of homosexual behavior and grants new, completely satisfying life in Him to all who repent and believe?  And perhaps a follow up question:  Do you recognize that your sins are just as reprehensible to a Holy and Righteous God?

Over the summer a fierce, nation-wide “conversation” (aka debate) took place over health-care reform.  Almost immediately the opponents of the Presidents plan were labeled as racist regardless of why they disliked the plan or what logic they used to argue against it.  This argument is called “playing the race card” which good ole Wikipedia defines as: an idiomatic phrase that refers to the act of bringing the issue of race or racism into a debate, perhaps to obfuscate the matter. It is a metaphorical reference to card games in which a trump card may be used to gain an advantage. This of course wasn’t the first time this ploy has been used and most likely won’t be the last.  (Of course it’s never used when arguing against a conservative black man or woman but I digress)  You come to expect such ad hominem tactics in the political arena but Christians have their own type of “race card” that they play when Biblical orthodoxy and even common sense doesn’t back up their arguments.  It’s called the “hate card.”  And I think that there is no other place that this tactic is more prominently displayed than in the Christian homosexual debate, and it goes something like this:  If you believe that homosexual behavior is a sin then you’re a hateful, hypocritical bigot…therefore your arguments are worthless.  A less-common but equally fallacious argument on the other side would be:  You’re a homosexual therefore your arguments are worthless.

This “hate card” argument is an important argument to deal with, but must be dealt with carefully and above all lovingly and graciously.  Just as the “race card” has a legitimate history of arguing against people actually making arguments and spewing forth hate based on the color of a persons skin, so the “hate card”, especially in the homosexual argument, has a history of defending against people actually physically persecuting and spewing forth hateful, vitriolic filth against a person based on a person’s private sexual choices and/or tendencies.   Such racism and hate is to be condemned!

However….just because one person acted in a vile and hateful fashion does not mean that everyone who believes homosexual behavior is a sin is hateful and desires to persecute the glbt community. Just like a person who disagrees with a black president isn’t necessarily a racist.

Unfortunately though any debate I have witnessed involving Christians advocating and/or defending homosexual behavior ends up with the “hate card” being played…and usually very quickly.

Here are some examples from a recent post over at Tony Jones blog, that interestingly enough was not originally about the homosexual behavior debate:

A homosexual advocate writes:

“Love the sinner hate the sin” is a euphemism for: I hate you and I hope God sends you straight to hell.

“No, I don’t hate gays.  I love you” is a euphemism for: If I could, I would torture you to death and I hope God sends you to hell.

“Evangelical or fundamentalist or literalistic or conservative Christian’ is a euphemism for: hate-filled person who wishes the Nazis had succeeded, but since they didn’t are giving it their best Bob Jones try.

This is just a partial sampling but extremely illustrative of the “hate card.”  The statements are not meant to be arguments, but meant to destroy the character of the opponent.  A way of twisting anything the opponent might say into hate speech to be disregarded.

So how does one argue against such, ironically hateful, tactics?  The same way genuine believers have been dealing with them for centuries – live genuine, gracious, loving lives.  The problem for those that demonize their opponents is that when other people discover that the person they are demonizing isn’t like they’ve been told he is, they lose their credibility.

As I wrap this up, there are two important points that must be made.  The first actually comes from the above commenter at Tony Jones blog.  Here is the end of the same comment that included the above statements:

I can’t think of any other minority groups in the 21st century America which are treated as sub-humans as are gays and the transgender.

There is much truth in that statement.  For while the “love the sinner, hate the sin” argument may be valid there have been those who have used it…and then proceeded to hate the sinner as well.

Secondly, when involved in the “homosexual behavior isn’t necessarily sin” debate I ask this question to the advocates of homosexual behavior (which to my knowledge has still gone unanswered):  “Can you love a God who hates (as sin) all homosexual behavior?”

But another question should be asked to those on the other side of the debate:  Can you love a God who forgives the sin of homosexual behavior and grants new, completely satisfying life in Him to all who repent and believe?  And perhaps a follow up question:  Do you recognize that your sins are just as reprehensible to a Holy and Righteous God?

Posted in Culture, Philosophical Thoughts | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Lordship of Christ…

October 6, 2009 by debese

In the course of preparing for the next sermons as I preach through Philippians I came across this paragraph in MacArthur’s commentary on Phil. 2:10-11. I couldn’t help but chuckling because this is one area where MacArthur seems to be most misrepresented. So, in the name of getting the truth out there, here is a portion of what stood out to me:

Contrary to much popular teaching and preaching, Scripture nowhere speaks of a person making Jesus Lord. Although many people who use that phrase are merely referring to believers’ obedient submission to Jesus’ sovereign authority, such expressions are seriously misleading and confusing. The problem is especially serious because some evangelicals maintain that confessing Jesus as Lord is not an integral part of saving faith. They wrongly view that as an optional, though desirable, step that believers should take sometime after they are saved. The notion is that it is possible to be saved by confessing Jesus as Savior but not as commanding, ruling Lord. But as just cited, it was God the Father who “has made Him Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36), and in order to be saved it is necessary for a person to “confess….Jesus as Lord, and believe in [his] heart that God raised Him from the dead” (Rom. 10:9), a truth repeated a few verses later. “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved” (v. 13) Acknowledging Jesus as Lord must include submission and obedience, because, by definition, the title of Lord assumes it.

The New Testament Commentary: Philippians. John MacArthur pg. 147

I use this as an encouragement to be very careful as to how I present the gospel. How many “innocent” things do we say that can be very misleading and/or confusing? For more on this subject I’d highly recommend reading “The Gospel According to Jesus.”

Posted in Doctrinal Issues, Quotes | Tagged , , , | Leave a Comment »

Unsatisfied with Scripture pt. 3 – Muslims, Christians, Same God?…

October 3, 2009 by debese

This is the final installment as we look at Brian McLarens response to three very important questions.  This final question brought on no doubt by Brian’s recent observance of Ramadan, concerns whether Brian believes that Muslims and Christians worship the same God.

After reading Brian’s answer several times I discover that he doesn’t actually answer the question.  He is after all a left leaning political activists and politicians, especially left leaning ones seem to be really good at doing that.  But it seems that he believes that there is some degree of commonality between Islam and Christianity.  He makes his argument by first pointing out that there are differences in Christianity.

“Do all Christians hold exactly the same concept of God when they worship?”   He lists a few differences then adds “Of course, there are significant differences, so significant that some Christians deny that other Christians are truly Christians.”

Before moving on I’d love to get an answer to this question:  Do you believe that there are specific doctrines that if a person does not believe them (virgin birth, penal substitution, and the resurrection) they are not truly Christians (aka in a genuine saving relationship with Christ)?

He continues his logic this way:

“If Christians differ so greatly from one another in their concepts of God, then of course Muslims and Christians have significant differences too.”

That’s ok, except that when it comes to salvation it’s not a person’s “concept” of God that matters, what matters is if the person accepts the God revealed in Scripture.    It’s not the simply the similarities in “concepts” that unifies genuine believers, it’s the refuting of differences between a man’s “concept” and a Biblical reality.   Again it would be great if he clarified here that these significant differences have important salvific effects!  But instead he looks at the “common” ground between the two.

“Both believe God is omnipotent, all-merciful, and without any imperfection.”

There are so many places we could go with that…but I’m sure it was the all-merciful part of the Muslim God that is fueling Islamic terrorism around the globe.  Interesting side-track though – A genuinely zealous Muslim who truly believes the Quran will kill for Allah.  The biblically, genuinely zealous Christian will die for Christ.  There’s a significant difference!  But continuing on, He makes this point:

“But Christians believe that God is revealed most fully and gloriously in a crucified person, and Muslims believe God is revealed most fully and gloriously in an inspired book.”

I wonder if the truth really likes to be flirted with.  We do believe that God revealed himself fully in the crucified and risen Savior.  But Brian, how does God reveal that Savior to us who live 2000 years later?  Could it be through the work of the Spirit through the inspired Word of God?  And by the way, the fact that Muslims do not believe Jesus to be God is probably the most significant and damning difference.  Brian then raises this “fascinating question”:

“How merciful is God in hearing the prayers and receiving the worship of people whose concepts are less than fully accurate?  If God requires 100% accuracy, we’re all hopeless since we all fall short in our understanding of God.”

Those who worship God must worship him in spirit and in truth.  It’s true that we cannot know God fully because God is infinite and we are finite.  But we can know God truly because He has revealed himself to us through his Word.  And we are required to study scripture to know God!  True there is growth within a Christians life, but until a person is 100% accurate on the fact that he’s a sinner facing the wrath of God, believes by faith in the work of Christ on the cross and throws himself on the mercy offered thereon, that person’s worship/righteousness is as a filthy rag,  utterly worthless.  A person who does not believe Jesus is God cannot worship God.  A person who does not believe that God’s Word is inspired cannot worship God, for how do you worship God but dishonor what he says?

Finally I must add that a huge difference between the Muslim religion and biblical Christianity is that Islam is a works based religion and Christianity is based on faith.  This drives to the theme of this blog in that the Muslim religion is just like any other religion of man – it’s based on the quest for satisfaction based on my own efforts.  Why is it that the Muslim has to force people to believe?  Because in doing so they’re hoping for eternal satisfaction and reward.  Why is it that a Christian offers the gospel to all who will hear whether they accept it or reject it?  It’s because they’ve already found that satisfaction in Christ and earnestly desire others to have it as well!  Why do works-based religions do good works and force others to do what they’re doing (try to fix the environment, feed the poor etc.), because they’re looking for the satisfaction that comes from doing good things.  Why do divinely satisfied Christians do good works (feed the poor, look after the fatherless and widows etc), because in doing so they bring glory to God and proclaim the satisfaction that can only be found in Him!

This is the final installment as we look at Brian McLarens response to three very important questions.  This final question brought on no doubt by Brian’s recent observance of Ramadan, concerns whether Brian believes that Muslims and Christians worship the same God.

After reading Brian’s answer several times I discover that he doesn’t actually answer the question.  He is after all a left leaning political activists and politicians, especially left leaning ones seem to be really good at doing that.  But it seems that he believes that there is some degree of commonality between Islam and Christianity.  He makes his argument by first pointing out that there are differences in Christianity.

“Do all Christians hold exactly the same concept of God when they worship?”   He lists a few differences then adds “Of course, there are significant differences, so significant that some Christians deny that other Christians are truly Christians.”

Before moving on I’d love to get an answer to this question:  Do you believe that there are specific doctrines that if a person does not believe them (virgin birth, penal substitution, and the resurrection) they are not truly Christians (aka in a genuine saving relationship with Christ)?

He continues his logic this way:

“If Christians differ so greatly from one another in their concepts of God, then of course Muslims and Christians have significant differences too.”

That’s good.  Again it would be great if he clarified here that these significant differences have important salvific effects!  But instead he looks at the “common” ground between the two.

“Both believe God is omnipotent, all-merciful, and without any imperfection.”

There are so many places we could go with that…but I’m sure it was the all-merciful part of the Muslim God that is fueling Islamic terrorism around the globe.  Interesting side-track though – A genuinely zealous Muslim who truly believes the Quran will kill for Allah.  The biblically, genuinely zealous Christian will die for Christ.  There’s a significant difference!  But continuing on, He makes this point:

“But Christians believe that God is revealed most fully and gloriously in a crucified person, and Muslims believe God is revealed most fully and gloriously in an inspired book.”

I wonder if the truth really likes to be flirted with.  We do believe that God revealed himself fully in the crucified and risen Savior.  But Brian, how does God reveal that Savior to us who live 2000 years later?  Could it be through the work of the Spirit through the inspired Word of God?  And by the way, the fact that Muslims do not believe Jesus to be God is probably the most significant and damning difference.  Brian then raises this “fascinating question”:

“How merciful is God in hearing the prayers and receiving the worship of people whose concepts are less than fully accurate?  If God requires 100% accuracy, we’re all hopeless since we all fall short in our understanding of God.”

Those who worship God must worship him in spirit and in truth.  It’s true that we cannot know God fully because God is infinite and we are finite.  But we can know God truly because He has revealed himself to us through his Word.  And we are required to study scripture to know God!  True there is growth within a Christians life, but until a person is 100% accurate on the fact that he’s a sinner facing the wrath of God, believes by faith in the work of Christ on the cross and throws himself on the mercy offered thereon, that person’s worship/righteousness is as a filthy rag,  utterly worthless.  A person who does not believe Jesus is God cannot worship God.  A person who does not believe that God’s Word is inspired cannot worship God, for how do you worship God but dishonor what he says?

Finally I must add that a huge difference between the Muslim religion and biblical Christianity is that Islam is a works based religion and Christianity is based on faith.  This drives to the theme of this blog in that the Muslim religion is just like any other religion of man – it’s based on the quest for satisfaction based on my own efforts.  Why is it that the Muslim has to force people to believe?  Because in doing so they’re hoping for eternal satisfaction and reward.  Why is it that a Christian offers the gospel to all who will hear whether they accept it or reject it?  It’s because they’ve already found that satisfaction in Christ and earnestly desire others to have it as well!  Why do works-based religions do good works and force others to do what they’re doing (try to fix the environment, feed the poor etc.), because they’re looking for the satisfaction that comes from doing good things.  Why do divinely satisfied Christians do good works (feed the poor, look after the fatherless and widows etc), because in doing so they bring glory to God and proclaim the satisfaction that can only be found in Him!

Posted in Doctrinal Issues | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Unsatisfied with Scripture pt. 2 – Hell and orthodoxy…

October 2, 2009 by debese

We continue in this series by looking at Brian’s answer to the question regarding the reality of hell. (Brian’s full post can be read here)

I say answer, but there really isn’t an answer…more of an advertisement for books he’s written about the subject, and since I don’t have the time, nor wish to spend the money on the books I’ll be looking at only on what he says in the blog and hopefully not assign to him a position that he doesn’t take.

His response is as follows:

“On hell – You’re right that I don’t follow the conventional teaching on hell as eternal conscious torment for all nonChristians.”

Ok…so I don’t have to read those books because we’re already outside the clear teaching of Scripture.  Let’s look at a few:

This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering– since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, (2Th 1:5-9)

Verse 8 gives us the “who”:  “Those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.”  Or in other words – Those who are outside of Christ, perhaps another way to put it would be “nonChristians.”

Verse 9 gives us the “what” and for how long:  “They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his might”

Suffer is an active verb which means that whoever is suffering is conscious and being tormented and eternal basically means…eternal!  So in this passage we see that hell indeed is a place of conscious torment for all nonChristians!

Another passage from the mind of God:

And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:15)

Brian follows up his answer with this little gem:

“But that doesn’t mean that I don’t believe the Bible:  it means that I don’t believe many of us have rightly interpreted the Bible on this subject”

Well, the above passages don’t leave a lot of room for alternate interpretation.  But beyond that, this is an incredibly arrogant statement.  To be fair, I don’t believe that Brian McLaren is concerned with being consistent with orthodox Christianity but this statement basically says that the apostles, church fathers and theologians throughout the past 2000 years have been ignorantly following error…but fortunately I now know how to correctly interpret these passages now.

But how does this topic relate to our ongoing quest for Divine satisfaction?  The issue of hell actually has much to do with that topic.  It all goes back to our God-given purpose: To glorify God by enjoying Him forever.  As I’ve stated before the only way to be completely satisfied is to fulfill your God-given purpose.  The only way to do that is to have a relationship with God and the only way to do that is through the work of Christ on the cross.  On earth we are striving for that God-glorifying satisfaction by ridding ourselves of personal sin and living God-glorifying lives.  In Heaven we no longer have to strive for that satisfaction for we see Christ face to face…the God-glorifying satisfaction will be continually realized.

But for the non-believer, earth is a quest to find satisfaction in drugs, money, political activism, power, religion, etc., but refusing to acknowledge God’s purpose for his life But without Christ, the non-believer will die unsatisfied, unfulfilled and still rebelling against his creator.  So in addition to the eternal torment revealed to us in Scripture, the occupant of hell lives a life of eternal frustration – unable to be satisfied…even for a moment…and eternally willfully refusing to glorify God.

God desires our satisfaction in Him!  But Hell is a place of eternal torment and frustration, a place that those who refuse to find their satisfaction in God must go so that God may be glorified through the satisfaction of His Holy justice.

Posted in Doctrinal Issues | Tagged , , , | Leave a Comment »

Older Posts »