The Author of Sin
~ Taken from Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin. Footnotes excluded. ~
Apologetics is easy, but it is often made difficult by unbiblical traditions and irrational assumptions.
When Reformed Christians are questioned on whether God is the "author of sin," they are too quick to say, "No, God is not the author of sin." And then they twist and turn and writhe on the floor, trying to give man some power of "self-determination," and some kind of freedom that in their minds would render man culpable, and yet still leave God with total sovereignty.
On the other hand, when someone alleges that my view of divine sovereignty makes God the author of sin, my first reaction tends to be, "So what?" Even Christians who disagree with me stupidly chant, "But he makes God the author of sin, he makes God the author of sin…." However, a description does not amount to an argument or objection, and I have never come across a half-decent explanation as to what's wrong with God being the author of sin in any theological or philosophical work written by anybody from any perspective.
The truth is that, whether or not God is the author of sin, there is no biblical or rational problem with him being the author of sin. For it to be a problem, it must make some point of Christianity false, or contradict some passage of Scripture. But if God is the author of sin, how does it make Christianity false? One must construct an argument showing this by citing established premises that necessarily lead to the conclusion that Christianity would be false if God is the author of sin. What is this argument? And what passage of Scripture does it contradict? You can cite any passage you want, but you have to show that it necessarily applies to the question and makes it impossible for God to be the author of sin. Where is this passage of Scripture?
Among the many fallacious replies is the appeal to James 1:13. Using this verse to deny that God is the author of sin is one of the worst misapplications of Scripture, and because this error is very popular and influential, it has caused much damage and generated an unnecessary burden for those who would defend the faith.
Consider the context. James is discussing the practical outworking of the Christian's faith in his letter, and so he often stresses the Christian's direct responsibility, and from the Christian's immediate perspective. James is pointing out what the Christian should consider and address in his struggles as a Christian – he is not dealing with metaphysics. In other words, he is addressing his topics from the standpoint of a Christian relative to his immediate considerations and responsibilities, and not relative to broad metaphysical principles.
However, when we are discussing divine sovereignty vs. human freedom, cause and effect, etc., we are indeed dealing with metaphysics. Of course, the conclusions reached on this level carry necessary implications for practical living, and what the Bible teaches about metaphysics and practical living are completely consistent with each other. Nevertheless, it is true that as long as the discussion remains on the metaphysical level, the reference point is different, so that one must be careful not to invalidly infer a metaphysical principle from a verse of practical instruction.
With this in mind, read the passage again. It does not affirm or deny whether God is the author of sin – it does not address the topic at all, but its concerns are completely different. It just tells you that God is not the tempter, which is altogether different from saying that God is not the author of sin.
That is, if God directly causes you to sin, it does make him the "author" of sin (at least in the sense that people usually use the expression), but the "sinner" or "wrongdoer" is still you. Since sin is the transgression of divine law, for God to be a sinner or wrongdoer in this case, he must decree a moral law that forbids himself to be the author of sin, and then when he acts as the author of sin anyway, he becomes a sinner or wrongdoer.
But unless this happens, for God to be the author of sin does not make him a sinner or wrongdoer. The terms "author," "sinner," "wrongdoer," and "tempter" are relatively precise – at least precise enough to be distinguished from one another, and for God to be the "author" of sin says nothing about whether he is also a "sinner," "wrongdoer," or a "tempter." And for one not to be a wrongdoer by definition means that he has not done wrong. Therefore, even if God is the author of sin, it does not automatically follow that there is anything wrong with it, or that he is a wrongdoer.
However, this is not to distance God from evil, for to "author" the sin implies far more control over the sinner and the sin than to merely tempt. Whereas the devil (or a person's lust) may be the tempter, and the person might be the sinner, it is God who directly and completely controls both the tempter and the sinner, and the relationship between them. And although God is not himself the tempter, he deliberately and sovereignly sends evil spirits to tempt (1 Kings 22:19–23) and to torment (1 Samuel 16:14–23, 18:10, 19:9). But in all of this, God is righteous by definition.
The verse is telling you that when you deal with temptation, you must directly address your lust, and not just blame God and then do nothing, or remain in your sin. Read all of James 1 and see if this is not his obvious emphasis. He deals with joy, faith, perseverance, doubt, pride, lust, anger, moral filth, and being a doer of the Word. He is dealing with the Christian's direct responsibilities in practical living, and he does this by relating it to the internal motives and characteristics of the person.
In verse 13, he is instructing the believer on how to rightly approach a temptation – he is not trying to explain the metaphysics behind it. Or, he is considering the believer's responsibility concerning the inner factors in sanctification, and not the metaphysical cause or principle for these. But the metaphysical cause or principle is exactly what we are discussing when we consider whether God is the author of sin. Therefore, James 1:13 is not directly applicable to our topic. If one still wishes to deny that God is the author of sin, he will have to use another verse.
Those who cite James 1 to assert that God cannot be the author of sin might use verse 17 to reinforce their understanding of verse 13; however, if verse 17 is interpreted in a way that is consistent with their interpretation of verse 13, then this would make verse 17 contradict Isaiah 45:7. But if verse 17 is correctly interpreted so that it does not contradict Isaiah 45:7, then it no longer reinforces their false interpretation of verse 13. A more detailed examination of verse 17 will have to wait until another time, but what I have just said already renders their interpretation of verse 17 impossible, so I need not say more for our present purpose. The point is that nothing in this passage from James denies (or affirms) that God is the author of sin.
The admitted motive and effect of the popular Reformed answer is to satisfy human standards of fairness and righteousness. Dabney, Shedd, and others admitted that their answer is meant to satisfy human intuition. If not for the fact that God's absolute sovereignty is repugnant to sinful human intuition, made defective by the noetic effects of sin, the "author of sin" question would have no logical entry point into theological discussions at all.
In contrast, the biblical approach to this type of questions and objections is not to justify God, but to rebuke man for questioning and objecting in the first place.
Our passage from Isaiah 45 is one example:
I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God….I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things….
Does the clay say to the potter, "What are you making?" Does your work say, "He has no hands"?
Woe to him who says to his father, "What have you begotten?" or to his mother, "What have you brought to birth?"
In other words, "I am the only God. Whether it is prosperity or disaster, I am the doer of all these things – there is not another God to do them. Dare you question me about this? Who are you to object?"
Although this verse might not conclusively settle every detail, unlike James 1:13, it does have something to do with metaphysics. He is the only God, and this is inseparably connected to the fact that it is this one and only God who causes "all these things," including both prosperity and disaster. He is the doer of them all. This is a denial of any type of dualism – there is not another power that can cause prosperity or disaster.
Contrary to the traditional explanation, God does not say, "Oh, no, I am not the author of sin. Although I am the ultimate cause of all things, I distance myself from directly causing evil by establishing secondary causes and free agents. So although I create and sustain all things, men freely sin by thinking and acting according to their own dispositions. The evil dispositions come from Adam. As for how Adam got his evil dispositions…well, it will just have to remain a mystery for you." If this is the answer, why not jump right to the mystery and save us all some time?
The Bible never responds this way to this type of questions and objections. There are many biblical passages saying that God causes all things, and the metaphysics behind it is explained by God's omnipotence – the same omnipotence that created everything. On the other hand, all the passages that people use to deny that God is the author of sin or to prove compatibilism are always just descriptions of events and motives, without dealing with the metaphysical cause of those events and motives.
Instead of giving the popular answer, which is weak, evasive, incoherent, and confusing, God unashamedly declares, "Yeah, I do all these things. What are you going to do about it? Who are you to even ask me about it?" When it comes to metaphysics, including God's relationship to human decisions, whether for good or for evil, this is how the Bible responds.
Then, we read from Romans 9:19–21:
One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
Again, this has something to do with metaphysics (determinism, freedom, etc.), since the context has to do with election and reprobation, and the making of the elect and the non-elect, as the potter makes pottery out of clay.
And contrary to the typical response, Paul does not say, "Oh, no, you don't understand. Although God determines all things, he causes all things only by having you freely make decisions according to your own nature, which came from Adam, whose nature mysteriously turned from holy to evil, so that God is not the author of sin, but so that you are responsible for your own decisions and actions."
Instead, Paul says that God's control over both the "noble" and the "common" is as the potter's control over a lump of clay. And just as a lump of clay cannot question the potter, Paul's response to the objector is not, "But you made yourself evil" or "But you freely perform evil according to your own nature," but instead he says, "Shall the creature say to the Creator, 'Why did you make me like this?'" And Paul does not say, "But God is not the author of sin," but instead he says, "God has the right to make one person righteous and another person evil, to save one and damn another. Of course no one can resist his will! But who are you to talk back?"
This is the Bible's approach. It rebukes the objector and answers the objection at the same time. But the answer does not deny that God is the direct cause of sin; instead, it boldly says that God has a right to make whatever he wants and do whatever he wants. Instead of stepping backward or sideways, it steps toward the objector and slaps him in the face!
This is God's answer. It is strong, direct, simple, coherent, and irrefutable. It is perfect.
Recommended:
Systematic Theology
Ultimate Questions
Apologetics in Conversation
Commentary on Ephesians
The Author of Sin
God the Author
Chosen in Christ
The Problem of Evil
"Command Ye Me"
~ Taken from Vincent Cheung, Doctrines and Obedience. Footnotes excluded. ~
In offering examples on how various biblical verses are being distorted by the Charismatics, and by teachers of the "prosperity gospel" in particular, there is an example from John Avanzini's writings that I would like to discuss.
The verse in question is Isaiah 45:11. In the KJV, it reads, "Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me." In a book where Avanzini teaches what he calls the "memorial prayer," which is, according to him, a form of prayer to be performed "when all else fails," he claims that this verse is God's direct invitation for believers to command the works of his hands. That is, you are to command God to do what you desire, and he will obey you and perform what you command.
Avanzini claims that when this was first revealed to him, it appeared so incredible and mind-boggling that he "checked" it, and sure enough, he says, this is exactly what the verse means. However, when we read the verse in a modern translation, or when we note the immediate context of the verse by also reading the surrounding verses (in any translation), it becomes rather obvious that the verse asserts precisely the opposite of what Avanzini teaches:
Isaiah 45:5–13 (NIV)
"I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
"You heavens above, rain down righteousness; let the clouds shower it down. Let the earth open wide, let salvation spring up, let righteousness grow with it; I, the LORD, have created it.
"Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground.
"Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'He has no hands'?
"Woe to him who says to his father, 'What have you begotten?' or to his mother, 'What have you brought to birth?'
"This is what the LORD says – the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work of my hands? It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts. I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the LORD Almighty."
To paraphrase, "I am the only God. Whether prosperity or calamity, I am the one who causes it, and there is nothing you can say about it. What? Are you going to question me about my plans? Are you going to give me orders?"
Thus verse 11 is spoken within a context and with a meaning that is directly against what Avanzini teaches.
Recommended:
Prayer and Revelation
Biblical Healing
Calvin on Music and Prayer
And surely, if the singing be tempered to that gravity which is fitting in the sight of God and the angels, it both lends dignity and grace to sacred actions and has the greatest value in kindling our hearts to a true zeal and eagerness to pray. Yet we should be very careful that our ears be not more attentive to the melody than our minds to the spiritual meaning of the words. Augustine also admits in another place that he was so disturbed by this danger that he sometimes wished to see established the custom observed by Athanasius, who ordered the reader to use so little inflection of the voice that he would sound more like a speaker than a singer. But when he recalled how much benefit singing had brought him, he inclined to the other side. Therefore, when this moderation is maintained, it is without any doubt a most holy and salutary practice. On the other hand, such songs as have been composed only for sweetness and delight of the ear are unbecoming to the majesty of the church and cannot but displease God in the highest degree.
…Lastly, we should hold that the tongue is not even necessary for private prayer, except in so far as either the inner feeling has insufficient power to arouse itself or as it is so vehemently aroused that it carries with it the action of the tongue. For even though the best prayers are sometimes unspoken, it often happens in practice that, when feelings of mind are aroused, unostentatiously the tongue breaks forth into speech, and the other members into gesture.
John Calvin
Institutes of the Christian Religion
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Prayer and Revelation
Gordon Clark, Sanctification
John Owen, Communion with God
"Money is the Answer"
(The following is a supplement to the previous blog entry, Slave to the Lender.)
One of the relatively obscure verses distorted by some Charismatics, particularly some of the advocates of the "prosperity gospel," is Ecclesiastes 10:19, which says, "A feast is made for laughter, and wine makes life merry, but money is the answer for everything."
Some of the prosperity teachers, John Avanzini being one example, have inferred from this that God himself is recommending money as the solution to every problem and the way to achieve any goal. Then, it seems that to devote an extraordinary amount of attention and effort to getting rich is nothing other than to follow a biblical teaching on how we ought to live. After that, it is only a small step to the mindset that to "seek first the kingdom of God" is to seek first to get rich, to seek money before anything else.
This is not just a hypothetical distortion of Scripture and an imaginary slippery slope — there are in fact "Christians" who teach and practice this, and they assure themselves that they are in full agreement with Scripture. In fact, from their perspective, they are the only responsible and obedient ones — while all the other Christians are working hard to spread the gospel through preaching, they have a larger vision and a smarter approach.
You see, if they can get rich, then they don’t have to preach to or reason with the unbelievers — they can just buy them. The unbelievers don’t respect the gospel, but they respect money, so if you have more of it than they do, then they will listen to you. Money is the key to getting people’s attention and making an impact in the world. After all, the Bible itself teaches, "…money is the answer for everything."
Again, I am not being sarcastic, but this is a close paraphrase to the actual statements that some of these people have made. One of them told me that the apostle Paul failed in his ministry because he was never as rich as Solomon, and thus he never wielded the full resources and blessings that God has given to every believer in Christ. On the other hand, once we have attained the extreme prosperity that Solomon enjoyed, then all the unbelievers will come and kowtow to us. This, according to this person, is effective gospel ministry.
I have discussed this type of thinking in my article, "Kingdom First." But let’s also take a look at this verse in Ecclesiastes.
To correctly understand this verse or almost any verse in the Bible, you must take into account the immediate context provided by the surrounding verses, and then also the general context of the entire book.
The verse itself provides a contrast between "money" and "a feast…and wine." A feast and wine have particular uses and effects, but in contrast, money has many uses and effects. This is a statement about the true state of things, but in itself, the verse does not tell you what to do with this information. It would be wrong to immediately infer, "Therefore, you should regard money as the most important thing in your life, and you must seek it with all your might."
Anyway, right now, I don’t want to spend time gradually broadening our scope and to discuss everything that we encounter as we do so. If you wish to study the passage in greater detail, you should consult a reliable commentary on Ecclesiastes.
For our purpose, it is enough to go straight to the conclusion of the book and read what the author intends for us to get out of Ecclesiastes: "Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil" (12:13–14).
Fear God! Keep his commandments! For there will be a judgment! This is "man’s all" (NKJV); this should be our whole concern. From the very beginning, the author has been trying to show that all the things and the ways of this world are "meaningless," and after an extended discourse on the things and the ways of this world, the conclusion is that our whole duty is to fear God and keep his commandments, for there will be a judgment.
So, the author is not persuading his readers to pursue the things and follow the ways of this world, or to be enamored with all that he has described between the beginning and the ending of Ecclesiastes. But his point is precisely the opposite, that these things are vain, futile, and meaningless. The meaning of life is stated in the conclusion, that is, we are to fear God and keep his commandments, knowing that he will judge all men. Since this is the point he is making, any inference from any verse in Ecclesiastes that is inconsistent with this is a false inference.
Thus we are to seek and obey God, not Mammon (Matthew 6:33). According to the teachers of the prosperity gospel, it is as if it is God himself who commands us to seek Mammon, so that we are to seek God by seeking Mammon. But this perversion is condemned by verse 24, where the very point Jesus makes is that the two are mutually exclusive, not mutually supportive.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, "Kingdom First"
Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Philippians
Slave to the Lender
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
This is a question about buying a house with a large mortgage. Do you think that it is generally unbiblical to buy a house with any mortgage at all?
The Charismatics teach that when you borrow, you are essentially bowing down to the banks or the lenders.
For the benefit of those readers who are not familiar with this aspect of Charismatic teachings, let me offer an explanation.
First, let us admit that what we are talking about here refers to the teachings of some Charismatics, and not all of them.
These Charismatics usually belong to the "Word of Faith" or the "health and wealth gospel" crowd, but not everyone within this group completely agrees on the subject. For example, the teaching on borrowing considered here is taught by Kenneth Copeland, Jerry Savelle, and many others. However, even within the "health and wealth" crowd, there are those who do not interpret lending and borrowing the same way — for example, the late Kenneth Hagin considered borrowing an acceptable option for Christians.
Nevertheless, since the teaching is usually found among these Charismatics and not the non-Charismatics, in this sense it is fair to say that "the Charismatics teach this."
These Charismatics that we are referring to teach that the atonement of Christ has redeemed believers from "the curse of the law" (Galatians 3:13); therefore, when truly appropriated by faith, the atonement guarantees in this life the complete deliverance from all the effects of the curse of the law described in passages such as Deuteronomy 28. It follows that a person who walks in faith should not experience (or should always overcome) the problems and calamities described in this and other passages.
I have addressed the "triumphalism" of some Charismatics in my book, Biblical Healing. Although the context there is healing, the same problems and principles apply to the Charismatic teachings on financial prosperity.
Now we will proceed to consider the question on borrowing.
The verse from which they have taken the expression is Proverbs 22:7, which says, "The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender."
So the Charismatics did not invent the phrase, but they have distorted it. The verse is making a factual statement, but in itself it does not tell us whether it is morally wrong to borrow. It does not tell you not to borrow, and it does not say that it is a sin to borrow; instead, it just tells you what happens when you borrow by describing the relationship between the borrower and the lender.
The verse is literally true. If you take out a big loan to buy a place, then in a real sense, you will be working for the bank from that time forward until you pay off the whole thing. And if the price of the place falls below the amount you borrowed, then you really will be working for the bank!
In other settings where one borrows from another, a similar relationship is also established. Consider the many college students who go credit card crazy, and also consider their college student loans. Some of them have to keep paying their debts for years after graduation. They have become slaves to the lenders.
This might make you think twice about borrowing, but the verse in itself does not tell you not to do it. It just tells you what will happen.
Then, the Charismatics also use the following verse when teaching against borrowing: "He will lend to you, but you will not lend to him. He will be the head, but you will be the tail" (Deuteronomy 28:44).
The verse is spoken in the context of God’s covenant curse against those who would break his law. The Charismatics have again distorted it, interpreting it as if it says, "If you borrow, then you will become cursed. If you borrow, then you will become the tail and not the head."
But instead, this verse is saying, "If you disobey me, then I will put you under a curse, and then you will have to borrow." The need to borrow is one manifestation of the covenant curse, and not the cause of the curse.
Analogous to this is the relationship between the curse and banishment from the land (that is, the Jewish exiles). If we were to use the same reasoning here, we would teach, "God’s Word says that if you are banished from the land, you are or will be under a curse, so just don’t leave. If you leave, it means that you don’t have faith, and you will suffer for it." The cause and effect are reversed. Rather, the proper teaching is, "Do not disobey God and break his commandments; otherwise, he will put you under a curse, and as a result, you will be banished from the land."
Nevertheless, even if you have the need to borrow, that in itself does not indicate that you are under God’s curse, since some people are just poor, even if they are right before God (James 2:5).
Of course, then there are those who are not poverty-stricken, but they just want to live beyond their means.
Recommended:
Ministry Spending and Favoritism
Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Philippians
Vincent Cheung, The Parables of Jesus
Vincent Cheung, Biblical Healing
Occult Items in the Home
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
I am thinking about something that I may have already asked you during a phone conversation some time ago.
You were saying that the occult items that may be in our homes or in places that we stay should not have any effect on a Christian, that is, unless the Christian has willingly acquired them.
Again, I am in a situation where I am not the owner of the house so that I cannot just discard these occult items, since they belong to other people in my family.
The Bible forbids the worship of idols and the use of occult items, but there is no reason for believers to own these things at all. There are Christians who acquire various religious statues and occult objects as decorations and for their cultural significance. But this is already spiritual adultery.
When Paul saw that the city of Athens was "full of idols," he was not struck with artistic and cultural admiration; rather, he was "greatly distressed" (Acts 17:16). Any other reaction indicates nothing other than a spiritual defect and sickness in the believer.
It follows that a Christian should never travel to places that are "full of idols" just for entertainment or to satisfy their curiosity. If looking at demonic objects is your idea of fun, then there is something severely wrong with you.
This includes books on the occult and false religions (Acts 19:19) — the Christian is not to study them or practice their teachings. This might pose a problem for those Christians who wish to research the occult and false religions in order to refute them, so I will briefly address this also.
First, to put it mildly, I am uncertain that it is biblically wise or even permissible to run a ministry that specializes in refuting the occult and false religions. My understanding and conviction is that every legitimate Christian ministry should focus on the positive presentation of the whole counsel of God. Granted, the refutation of false ideas will almost always be a part of this, and this will sometimes include the direct refutation of the occult and false religions.
However, when this becomes the focus of the ministry instead of a mere support and reinforcement to the positive presentation of biblical teachings, which should be the main thrust of every proper ministry, then this ministry should be considered defective and inferior.
If a certain minister or scholar wishes to perform an extraordinary amount of research into the occult and false religions, then, even if this is biblically permissible, the least that he must do is to perform this work under the supervision of or in association with other ministers or scholars whose focus is on the positive presentation of biblical doctrines. Still, he should study Scripture and reliable Christian literature much more than he spends time in his research on the occult and false religions. He should also maintain constant fellowship with faithful Christians.
To ignore these principles and practices is to be foolhardy with one’s faith, and might even amount to testing God. Occult materials offer a similar temptation as the one which plunged our first parents into the depths of spiritual darkness and depravity. More than a few Christians have been taken by its promise of forbidden knowledge and power.
As Scripture warns, we must not think more highly of ourselves than we ought, but we must exercise our gifts according to the measure of our faith. We must be sober-minded, and understand the devices of the devil.
Second, the biblical/presuppositional method is sufficient to destroy any occult teaching or false religion without intensive and detailed research. It is cumbersome, and after a certain point impossible, to refute every occult teaching or false religion that we might have to deal with if we must first research the subject in detail every time. And the whole approach seems premature and even ridiculous in the light of the fact that most Christians have not even learned the most elementary things about biblical doctrines.
I can easily refute any occult teaching or false religion once I encounter it, including all those that I have never even heard of, because biblical revelation is my foundation and biblical reasoning is my weapon. It is impossible to defeat the mind of Christ, which God has graciously given to us when he sovereignly granted us faith to understand and believe his Word.
Just so no one misunderstands, I am not completely against counter-cult ministries — I just think that many of them have an unbiblical focus and an unhealthy obsession. It is possible to fix these problems and still remain a strong voice against the occult and false religions. In fact, if we will maintain the proper focus and be obsessed only with Jesus, we can be an even more powerful voice against the occult and false religions than any ministry that almost exclusively focuses on researching and refuting them.
We are talking about having occult items or non-Christian religious objects in the home. If you are not the one who brought them into the home and it is beyond your power to remove them, then it would seem that you have not sinned against God, in the sense that you are not personally and directly culpable for another man’s adulterous relationships, or the many sins of the people in the community that you are living in. It will not affect you in the sense that no direct judgment will come upon you for having those items at home, since you would instantly remove them if the situation were under your control.
However, you will probably be indirectly affected by other people’s sins and the ill effects of these sins. One example is how the sins of the people of Israel prevented Joshua and Caleb from entering Canaan for forty years, although these two had not sinned. It was not a direct judgment against them, but a natural consequence of belonging to that sinful community.
If suffering the consequences of belonging to a sinful community is unbearable or unwise, then you might consider removing yourself from it, if it is at all possible and practical. If this is impossible, then you will have to remain in that community, at least for now, and pray to God for strength and blessings. Of course, at appropriate and strategic times, you should confront the sinful beliefs and practices in your family or community with the claims and commands of God.
In other words, I do not say that a Christian who lives with a family of devout Buddhists must remain in that home, especially if the situation vexes his soul, hinders his growth in piety, and prevents effective ministry to other people. However, before he leaves, he should have repeatedly and in various ways confronted the sins of his family members and preached the gospel to them.
Also, he will probably continue to have opportunities to discuss the things of God with his family members even after he has left the home. So this does not necessarily mean a termination to all natural relationships with the family, but only a physical separation. Now, of course, if the occultist or idolator is a spouse, then the believer must not depart, in accordance with the teachings of Scripture.
It is not possible to discuss every scenario here. In any case, it is always preferable to talk over these problems and your scriptural options with mature believers, such as your church elders, before taking drastic actions.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, Prayer and Revelation
Occult Science
In my previous blog entry (Tai Chi and Chi Gong), I mentioned that teachers of the occult have been presenting their ideas increasingly from a scientific perspective. I would like to elaborate on that in what follows.
The darkest piece of literature that I have ever read was a classic manual on necromancy. This was not an ordinary occult book that you could find in the self-help, psychology, or New Age section of any bookstore; moreover, the material was not just about how to talk to your dead relatives or even the typical techniques of channeling. Rather, most of it had to do with the conjuration of demons, and for murderous intents. It was explicitly and self-consciously satanic in its teachings.
I mention this to point out that even some teachings on necromancy (again, more than ordinary channeling or talking to the dead) are now being presented from the scientific perspective. By exploiting the idolatrous reverence that many people have toward experimental science (that is, the sinful confidence in humanity to autonomously obtain knowledge apart from God’s revelation), even the darkest demonic doctrines are being adopted by those who would otherwise reject them as superstitious, impractical, or evil.
This scientific version of the occult also provides many professing (not necessarily real) Christians, who also idolize science, the excuse to practice all varieties of divination. The thinking is that if something is scientifically explained as natural, then even though it could be used for evil, in itself it is probably neutral or even good.
Therefore, to practice clairvoyance or astral projection is merely to exercise our innate God-given abilities — it is not spiritual or demonic, but natural and scientific. Trances have nothing to do with the spiritual, and surely never anything demonic, but they are explained in terms of enhanced alpha and delta brainwaves. And to study Astrology or Feng Shui is merely to discover and exploit the "natural laws" that God has installed in the universe, just like we do in Physics or Chemistry. (Note: I deny that there are such things as natural laws except in the sense that they are descriptions of the way that God ordinarily acts to sustain his creation and to cause every event. Here I am using the term as other people would use it.)
Of course, even with this way of thinking, these professing Christians cannot escape the many biblical prohibitions against divinition and the dark arts. For example, Deuteronomy 18:10–11 says: "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer." But it does provide them with an excuse (however illegitimate and fallacious) to ignore these clear references, whereas previously they did not even have this.
Not all who worship science (that is, themselves) are taken in by this particular deception. However, their reason for rejecting it is just as irrational; that is, they dismiss the scientific claims and explanations of the occult as "pseudo-science" — not real science at all. But this dimissal is usually done upon hearing the very mention of the topic, without actual consideration of the experiments, statistics, and theories presented. Thus they beg the question and behave "unscientifically."
My answer is simpler: ALL science is superstitious and irrational — all scientific reasonings are logically fallacious. So science itself is pseudo-rational, and what is pseudo-scientific is not essentially worse (even if relatively worse) than what is scientific. Both of them are destroyed under rational analysis, and must kneel before divine revelation. I can refute any scientific theory just as easily as I can refute any occult teaching (see recommended materials below), so science has no right to speak when I am discussing these things — it doesn’t have the answer. Thus I don’t have to refute the science of the occult, because I can directly refute science itself, and then demand a real rational defense from my opponent.
When it comes to the occult, many Evangelical and Reformed Christians commit the error of dismissing this entire category of materials as pure superstition. But if so, then they must also dismiss as superstition significant portions of the Bible that acknowledge the reality of at least some of these things. The fact is that many who claim to affirm biblical supernaturalism affirm it just enough to permit supernaturalism during biblical times, but not so much that they have to live as supernaturalists today. They affirm it just enough so that they could affirm the creation of the world and the inspiration of Scripture, but not so much that they have to confront the reality of demonic activities today. They affirm it just enough so that they could pass themselves off as doctrinal supernaturalists, but not so much that they could not live as practical deists.
If you are a pastor, occult teachings and practices might constitute a greater problem in your congregations than you think. For various reasons (the scientific presentation of the occult being one of them), many professing Christians do not perceive any conflict between their faith and the occult. It is your duty to address this topic so that your people will understand the biblical commands and prohibitions in this area.
And when you warn your people against the occult, don’t do it by trying to give a scientific refutation, while letting your people hold on to their idolatrous attitude toward science. You would be giving them a wrong reason for avoiding the occult, and the idol would still be in their hearts to be exploited by the next set of scientific claims.
Instead, destroy the idol — rationally demonstrate to them that science itself is always fallacious, that man can never obtain knowledge apart from God’s gracious revelation. Rather, we should embrace the Word of God as the all-sufficient starting point and controlling factor in all of our thought and conduct.
Then, explain to them that the true wisdom is not found in science and the highest power is not found in the occult, but wisdom and power are found only in the Great Book, through which we can have intimate contact with the very wisdom and power of the Author and Ruler of all things (Galatians 3:5).
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, Prayer and Revelation
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation
Tai Chi and Chi Gong
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
I am often asked by Christians whether it is wrong to practice Tai Chi. I usually explain that it has its roots in Taoism and the martial arts, and that it has to do with the "chi" force in the body. And if they are filled with the Holy Spirit, why do they need to learn to control this "energy"?
The Tai Chi people have taken over our most beautiful park in the city called Queen Elizabeth park, and they are there by the hundreds, all practicing Tai Chi.
Do you have any thoughts on this matter? I value your perspective. Thanks.
When I was in the third grade, seemingly "out of the blue," I asked my mother to buy me two English Bibles (I wanted two different translations), so although no one taught me to do it, I started reading the Bible early in life. Nevertheless, I was not converted until several years later.
Meanwhile, before my conversion, I read much on a variety of subjects (many of which a Christian should avoid), including the martial arts. Thus I have done a moderate amount of reading about the technical, philosophical, and esoteric aspects of the subject, but most of this was done when I was very young, while I was still in elementary school and junior high, so I cannot claim to be an expert.
At that time, my main interest in Chi Gong (also spelled "Qi Gong") had nothing to do with the promised health benefits, but rather with its alleged potential to increase one’s striking power, and especially its seemingly superhuman promises, such as the ability to strike at one’s opponent at a short distance without direct physical contact, and even through thin obstacles. (I took school fights very seriously!)
Some of these teachings are presented from an esoteric perspective; however, similar to how many occult teachings are being presented nowadays, Chi Gong teachings are now often presented from a scientific perspective.
My general position on the martial arts is that, given the right context and motive, it is acceptable to learn certain combat techniques. Sometimes, this is not only acceptable but necessary even for Christians. For example, it is necessary for members of the military, the police force, and security guards. I also consider it acceptable for Christians to learn fighting techniques for personal self-defense.
Of course, we can make numerous qualifications about this, but this would distract us from addressing the main point of your question. For now, let us just say that it is at least sometimes acceptable to learn and practice certain kinds of fighting techniques.
However, when a system is more than a physical and practical form of self-defense, then problems begin to arise. For example, although Tai Chi Chuan can be a very fast, flexible, and powerful fighting method, it is not just a practical system of self-defense, but today it is usually practiced for health reasons. Also, it consists of more than just physical movements, but it is often taught with an aim to harness the internal and almost mystical "chi" force that is based on non-Christian theories of metaphysics and anthropology.
It was deliberately developed by its founder Cheung San Fung as a system that would be consistent with Taoism. Thus it is almost certain that one could not practice Tai Chi without adopting beliefs and/or movements that are inseparably linked to or derived from Taoist philosophy.
As I mentioned above, some advocates are increasingly trying to present Tai Chi and Chi Gong from a scientific perspective, so as to demystify them and make them appealing to those who otherwise would consider them too mystical or esoteric. Teachers of the occult have been doing the same for a long while now, but they have not abandoned the mystical perspectives, so the same philosophies and practices are being taught from both the mystical and scientific angles, ensuring both kinds of followers.
(Of course, many scientifically inclined individuals would call these kinds of "scientific" teachings "pseudo-science." However, until they debunk them, this is just an assumption, and they are just revealing their own prejudices. Also, I have argued elsewhere that all empirical sciences are in fact pseudo-rational — that is, irrational — and one type of nonsense is not essentially better, even if relatively better, than another type of nonsense. They are all nonsense and unreliable.)
What makes them unacceptable for Christians is not only that their origins are tied to anti-Christian philosophies, but that they are still so tied, explicitly and implicitly, to anti-Christian ideas.
Also, not only is Tai Chi inseparably linked to some anti-Christian ideas, but the very fact that it seeks to achieve relaxation (peace?) and health without relationship to any explicitly Christian belief or practice (such as faith, repentance, prayer, Bible study, etc.) is unacceptable. It is in practical and often explicit competition with the gospel.
This is the general basis from which I would oppose Tai Chi and other related practices.
If it does not often come up in conversation where you need to refute it, you may not need to study it too much at this time, for there are too many false philosophies in this world to study all of them. Instead, when you find yourself speaking to an advocate or practitioner, you can just listen to what he believes about it, and then question and refute it.
Of course, if the subject frequently comes up, or if you are often asked by Christians about it, then it will probably help if you understand a little more about Tai Chi and Chi Gong. But there is no way I can get into this here.
In any case, remember that the biblical/presuppositional method can refute any non-Christian belief. Although you may use weaker, inconclusive, superficial, and even fallacious (such as scientific) arguments against Chi Gong, ultimately these cannot defeat the stubborn person. For example, if I like practicing Chi Gong, and somehow you can prove that practicing Chi Gong will shorten my life for 50 years, I could still say, "So what?" And that might be the end of it.
Also, the use of scientific arguments demands that you know something about the most recent scientific research done on the subject, and that you should probably understand it better than the average advocate or practitioner. This is not easy to do and to maintain.
So the easiest, quickest, and the most rational way to approach the "scientific" Tai Chi or Chi Gong practitioner is just to refute science itself as fallacious (which at one stroke destroys the credibility of all the scientific research that supposedly supports your opponent), and then move on to examine the actual ideas and presuppositions in your opponent’s beliefs, leading to a rational demontration of the superiority and the necessity of the biblical worldview, including repentance toward God and faith in the gospel of Christ.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, Prayer and Revelation
Edmund Clowney, Christian Meditation
Territorial Spirits
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
Is the Charismatic teaching about territorial spirits incorrect?
This is the false teaching that certain evil spirits are especially associated with a geographical area ("greed," "lust," "pride," "the occult," and so on; sometimes it might have a name, such as "dragon"), and they put up such stubborn resistance against the gospel that Christians find it difficult to evangelize or to achieve any great spiritual progress in their ministries.
Thus what Christians should do is to "discern" the evil spirits (probably by extra-biblical revelation) that are "ruling" over the area (located in the sky above the area), and pray against them (by exercising spiritual authority over them) so that they would depart.
Once they have departed, there will be a sudden change in the spiritual "atmosphere" in the area; evangelism and other Christian work will become more effective from that point forward.
C. Peter Wagner is one of the chief proponents of this teaching.
The doctrine has no real biblical support, but it is affirmed based on misapplications of Daniel 10, Jesus' teaching about the "strongman," and scriptural references to demonic "strongholds."
The Bible mostly relates the effects of evil spirits with the minds of people, who may in turn carry out evil actions. For example, a city that is especially bound by sexual sins, more so than other cities, may have become a strategic location for demonic influences of this sort. The East Coast, and very much so in the Boston area, is filled with intellectual pride, having so many top universities.
But these demonic influences work out themselves not in the air, but through the minds of people. By various means, they induce people to think in certain ways, and to adopt certain worldviews. The problem is intellectual in nature, and not an indefinable something "in the air."
Likewise, the "strongholds" in Scripture are not little castles in the sky, but they refer to the stubborn evil mindsets and dispositions installed in the minds of men. The Bible teaches that they consist of "pretensions," "arguments," and "thoughts."
Thus it is also unbiblical to pray that God will reveal to you what kind of spirits are dominant over a given geographical area. And it is futile to combat demonic "strongholds" by screaming at the sky, calling the evil spirits by name, and commanding them to depart.
The implication for both evangelistic and pastoral ministries is that, instead of naming the spirits and commanding them to leave the sky above you, we simply preach the whole counsel of God. If we find that a particular mindset or worldview is strongly held by people in a certain area, then we can study up on the subject so as to be better prepared to handle the resistance. Jesus dealt with the "strongman" by (1) preaching — thus counteracting false ideas in the mind, and (2) casting out demons from people (not from the sky).
The Charismatic teaching of "territorial spirits" has no support from the Bible, nor does the Bible tell us that we must discern the particularities of certain people groups. However, if you happen to discern relevant particularities of a people group (see Acts 17:22; Titus 1:12–13), and know how to respond to it by applying biblical teachings, then by all means adjust your presentation to best impact the people.
The following is a relevant passage taken from my Commentary on Ephesians:
Daniel 10 relates what happened in the spiritual world as a result of his prayer to God. It does not teach that we are to pray directly against demons or to angels for anything. Rather, we must pray directly to God, and trust him to do what needs to be done. We then participate in spiritual conflict and wage war against Satan primarily by engaging in intellectual preaching and argumentation against demonic ideas in other people. And since our divine weapons are founded on spiritual wisdom, we are not referring to arguing against non-Christian ideas with non-Christian wisdom. The nature of spiritual conflict does not consist of arguing against, for example, secular science with better secular science; rather, by divine wisdom and power, we declare and demonstrate the superiority of divine wisdom over the entire spectrum of secular ideas. We are referring to the triumph of Christian theology over all non-Christian ideas, whether the debate has to do with science, history, politics, ethics, or any other subject. In short, our strategy is a wise application of biblical revelation, made effective by divine power.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Zealous for God's Honor
Exodus 32:25-29
Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him.Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’" The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."
Numbers 25:3-13
So Israel joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor. And the LORD’s anger burned against them.The LORD said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the LORD’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel."
So Moses said to Israel's judges, "Each of you must put to death those of your men who have joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor."
Then an Israelite man brought to his family a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them — through the Israelite and into the woman's body. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.
The LORD said to Moses, "Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites; for he was as zealous as I am for my honor among them, so that in my zeal I did not put an end to them. Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him. He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites."
Deuteronomy 13:5-16
That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.
Deuteronomy 33:8-11
About Levi he said: "Your Thummim and Urim belong to the man you favored. You tested him at Massah; you contended with him at the waters of Meribah. He said of his father and mother, ‘I have no regard for them.’ He did not recognize his brothers or acknowledge his own children, but he watched over your word and guarded your covenant. He teaches your precepts to Jacob and your law to Israel. He offers incense before you and whole burnt offerings on your altar. Bless all his skills, O LORD, and be pleased with the work of his hands. Smite the loins of those who rise up against him; strike his foes till they rise no more."
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment (ch. 1)
The Reformation Study Bible
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
I do have the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible (NIV). Is this identical to the Reformation Study Bible for the ESV?
Should I get the commentary you mentioned as well (Matthew Henry)?
The Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible was taken and "expanded" from the original The Reformation Study Bible (NKJV, formerly entitled The New Geneva Study Bible) under a different editorial staff. But I found that the "expansion" was often done by just making the same sentences more verbose. The ESV edition of The Reformation Study Bible was taken from the original and made under the same staff and general editor (Sproul). It has been adapted to the ESV.
The ESV edition of The Reformation Study Bible is probably the best, but the notes are similar in the NIV edition. The theological notes are more conveniently gathered in Packer’s Concise Theology.
You should eventually get a more detailed commentary. If you have nothing, then start with Matthew Henry, since he is quite reliable, and his commentary contains useful explanations to the text as well as some devotional applications. It is one of the best general-purpose commentaries, but for advanced studies, you will find that it is not detailed or technical enough.
Also consider IVP’s New Bible Commentary.
Recommended:
The Reformation Study Bible (ESV)
J. I. Packer, Concise Theology
New Bible Commentary (IVP)
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible
Matthew Henry is available in one volume, six volumes, abridged one-volume NIV, abridged one-volume KJV, condensed edition in a study Bible, and various "compact" editions.
I recommend the six volumes if you are going to frequently consult Matthew Henry (or if you use it to study the Bible book-by-book), or the one volume if you want to save money or space.
I do not recommend the abridged NIV, abridged KJV, or the compact editions. The Matthew Henry Study Bible, however, is not bad as a study Bible.
For the absolute beginner, it would be a great start to have The Reformation Study Bible, and then Matthew Henry in either the one volume or the six volumes edition.
When Other People Fall Away
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
…I am somewhat affected by former pastors who became atheists, Catholics, etc.
We know that faith is a grace-gift of God, but it helps to work out the intellectual issues in your mind.
The Bible teaches us about sin; it gives us examples of the apostasies of long-time professing believers and ministers. And the parable of the sower tells us that some "believe" (false faith) for a while, and then fall away. So, the fact that some professing believers and even ministers fall away from the Christian faith is exactly what we should expect, since it is thoroughly consistent with what Scripture teaches. The falling away of some believers and ministers are examples of the truth of Scripture.
Also, if you are going to be affected by people converting away from Christianity, then how about considering the fact that many people are also converted to Christianity? It is irrational to be affected by other people’s conversion in either direction, but one could at least be consistent and be affected both ways, instead of being affected only by those converted away from Christianity.
Your doubt is selective — you are letting something affect you in one direction while you are not letting the same thing affect you in another direction. This is doubly irrational. If everyone in the world converts to Christianity, would that make Christianity more or less true? If anything, that would contradict Christianity, since Scripture guarantees that not everyone would be converted.
The point is that your doubt does not arise from rational thinking — it is not that you are too rational; rather, it arises from irrational and selective thinking. Thus you must doubt your doubt. Nothing other than God’s Word can withstand intense skepticism, including skepticism itself. But as it is, your doubt is selective and biased against Christianity.
Also, all of those who fall away from the faith are extremely stupid people who defect for irrational reasons, and whom I can easily crush in debate. But you must learn to do the same.
So, you should rationally consider the various aspects of the situation — the irrationality of your own doubt, the reasons why people fall away (the problem of evil, pursuit of personal lusts and ambitions, etc.), the reality of sin and false conversions, and so forth.
Meanwhile, since faith is a grace-gift, you should continue to pray and study for God to increase your faith and to grant you spiritual stability. You must continue to press hard for holiness and assurance, by using the means of grace (prayer, study, etc.) that God has given to you for precisely such a purpose.
It also helps to deal with doubt within the context of a community of faithful Christians, and under strong spiritual leaders.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation
Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm
When There are Multiple Perspectives
NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. The article was released as a draft/preview to Captive to Reason. For the current and official version of the article, please download the book from the online library.
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
I have given away your books to Christians on several occasions.
From the comments that I receive from people, it seems that they are quite resistant to certain teachings, although they don’t always explain.
Sometimes their objection is based on the fact that various preachers have different opinions, so that they are unsure what they should believe.
In the case of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, one lady who had attended a Pentecostal seminary said that she once read a book that contained fifty points supporting Calvinism and another fifty points supporting Arminianism. So which should she believe?
She just gave up and said, "I will just forget about the whole thing and still keep preaching the gospel" — perhaps implying that she would stick to Arminianism since, in her thinking, Calvinism somehow eradicates evangelism.
I suppose the doctrine of election would not be the only thing that they dislike, since I affirm many things that are against popular opinion, even if they are biblical and rational.
But if they disagree with something, they must have actual arguments against those points that I make, and these arguments must actually refute me.
Unless they have these arguments, then a stubborn disagreement is dishonest and sinful. When appropriate, you must press this point, since it might not be obvious to them. Truth is not subject to their preference. If their disagreement is strong, unfair, and stubborn enough, it might even mean that they are not really Christians, since they are rejecting the clear biblical truth and insist on believing in what is false regardless of what the Bible says.
Of course, this is true not just when people read my books, but it is true when one reads the Bible or any Christian work. That is, if one disagrees, then he must have a good reason, and if he stubbornly disagrees with what is really a biblical teaching, then it is sinful, and in some cases, it might even indicate that he has never been converted.
You have already implied that a person who claims to be unable to decide based on the fact that there are arguments on both sides nevertheless does not (and really cannot) remain neutral.
In this case, this woman cannot just say that she will give up investigating and "just keep preaching the gospel," since, especially in the case of Calvinism and Arminianism, the very nature of the gospel is the issue being debated. So what is the gospel?
It is foolish to refuse to decide just because there are multiple perspectives. There are arguments for and against many religions. If she cannot decide between Calvinism and Arminianism because there are arguments on both sides, then neither should she be able to decide for or against Christianity. So how did she decide for Christianity, and how does her decision stick?
Also, she says that there are arguments for both sides, but do both sides have good arguments?
For example, Arminians often argue that Calvinism (especially regarding its doctrine of election) teaches something that is unfair. This may carry strong persuasive power for many irrational and careless people, but this does not mean that it is a good argument. As you now know, there are some simple and conclusive answers to this objection. Those people just don’t know about them, or in some cases, refuse to respond to them out of sinful intellectual dishonesty.
In around one minute, I can make up ten arguments asserting that I am the US President, but they won’t be very good arguments. I can say, "I want to be the US President, therefore I am the US President." This is a real argument, just not a good one. Another one: "My mom says that I am a good boy, therefore I am the US President." This is also a real argument, with one explicit and one assumed premise, leading to the conclusion. But this argument is also fallacious and easily destroyed. It is not much harder to destroy every argument for Arminianism.
In any case, it would be supremely stupid for someone to say that now she is unsure whether I am really the US President, since there are arguments on both sides!
So, one of the things that we should do with people who say that they cannot decide between Calvinism and Arminianism because there seems to be arguments on both sides is to sit down with them and actually examine those arguments.
Your task would then be to show that Arminianism doesn’t really have even one good argument in its favor. The truth is specific and exclusive, and there are no good arguments for falsehood. So it is not good enough if Calvinism wins ten points and Arminianism wins two — if you handle things right, Calvinism should have all the points and Arminianism should have zero.
This also applies when it comes to scriptural arguments. If Calvinism is true and Arminianism is false, there should not be even one verse of Scripture that supports Arminianism. We affirm Calvinism not because there are more biblical passages that support it, but because all relevant biblical passages either explicitly teach it, or are at least consistent with it, whereas there are no biblical passages that teach Arminianism.
Nevertheless, in a book in which there are fifty arguments supporting Calvinism and fifty supporting Arminianism, there would be probably quite a few bad arguments for Calvinism among those fifty points, and some of those bad argument will be based upon inconsistent Calvinism. Whatever the reason, all bad arguments for Calvinism should be discarded. But then, if you will examine the fifty arguments for Arminianism, you should be able to easily destroy them all.
It makes no sense that a person should be confused about an issue just because there are multiple perspectives. For every truth, there is logically an infinite number of possible falsehoods or deviations relating to it.
For example, if the truth is 1 + 1 = 2, then, we can deviate from this by saying 1 + 1 = 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, and so on to infinity. This is the case regarding any truth. It is a sign of an irrational and unstable mind to be bothered just because people disagree and offer arguments for different views.
On the other hand, even if everyone agrees on something, it doesn’t mean that the position that they agree on is correct. So, whether something is popular or controversial is rationally irrelevant.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation
Not Enough "Faith" to be an Atheist?
NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. The article was released as a draft/preview to Captive to Reason. For the current and official version of the article, please download the book from the online library.
(The following is taken from an email correspondence.)
In the context of defending Christianity, believers sometimes would say something like, "I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist." Even some presuppositionalists abuse the word by saying that every worldview must begin by taking its first principles on "faith."
However, this is both biblically false and strategically unwise.
When non-Christians make the accusation that we affirm Christianity based only on "faith," they are not using the biblical definition of the word, but by it they mean something like, "belief by pure assumption without any rational justification." Some Christians then make a rational case for Christianity, and conclude, "It takes even more faith to be an atheist, and I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist."
When used this way, faith means mere credulity, and this implies that Christianity is affirmed by credulity, only that it takes even more credulity to be an atheist. This unbiblical use of the word encourages our audience to have a little credulity, so that he will become a Christian, but not too much, lest he becomes an atheist. But if this is what "faith" means, then why not renounce all credulity and have no faith at all?
The problem is further aggravated when Christians assert in the same context that faith is not mere credulity, but that it is rational. But if we plug this back into the statement, "I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist," then it becomes an admission that atheism is more rational, which is exactly what we denied when we first said, "I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist."
In the biblical context, faith is always a good thing, and it is always good to have more of it. But suddenly, in the very context of defending "faith," we assert that atheism must also begin with "faith," and that atheists in fact have more of it, since it takes even more "faith" to be an atheist.
Then, in the same discussion or debate, we also say that "faith" is rational, and that the atheists don’t have it at all because it is a gift of God. Or are we saying that a little of this divine gift would make us Christians, but a lot of it would make us atheists?
If we are using the biblical definition — if we are talking about the kind of faith that we have and want our hearers to have — then, the truth is that if I have any faith at all, even as small as a mustard seed, I would not be an atheist. The atheist has no faith, not more faith. If we are using the biblical definition of the word, then if you have any faith at all, you are already a Christian.
So, this use of the word "faith" may seem clever to some, but it is in fact unbiblical, foolish, confusing, and self-defeating. At least in the context of a biblical discussion, we should never use the word this way, that is, to denote credulity.
Rather than saying, "I don’t have enough of a good thing to be an atheist," we should say, "I don’t have enough of a bad thing to be an atheist." Thus, it is much more appropriate to say, "I am not stupid enough to be an atheist."
It also follows that we should never say, "We all have to begin from faith." No, we don’t. We all begin from some first principles as the logical starting point of all our thinking. Christians affirm Scripture as their starting point by faith-reason (a divine gift of assenting to truth that is eminently rational), but non-Christians affirm their various false and irrational first principles by their wickedness and credulity.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Dress Code at the Church
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
As you might be aware, one of the unofficial rules at [name of church] is that one must dress really nice when coming to church. They argue that since one usually dresses his best for an important function, the same principle should be applied when meeting the Almighty.
My church also teaches the same. However, I don’t necessarily follow it for several reasons:
(1) I think that it’s legalistic.
(2) Romans 14:5 says that "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."
(3) The Bible never says that Jesus and his disciples had to dress in a noble manner when attending the synagogues.What do you think of my reasoning?
I agree that the Bible does not directly require one to dress really nice to church.
A similar argument to the one you mentioned is to say that Old Testament worship prescribes beautiful clothings and ornaments for the priests, and since Christians are now the priests of God in Christ, we should also dress nice when going to church.
However, this is a misapplication of the ceremonial commands, and a bad misapplication at that. For even if the ceremonial commands were to apply, why is the principle to "dress nice" as opposed to dress exactly as the Old Testament prescribed for the priests? (For more on the Law and its application, please see my The Sermon on the Mount and Commentary on Ephesians.)
So the issue is not whether there is a direct command for dressing nice at church; however, there are at least two other issues to consider.
First, one of your chief concerns should be to edify other people.
Romans 14:5 does say, "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind"; however, you should not forget verses 15 to 19:
If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.
You should strive to help faciliate worship, and to avoid drawing attention to yourself. When going to a church consisting mostly of poor people who do not have nice clothes, you should not dress too nice so that you will not stand out too much. But if you have the means, you should not dress too badly to a church where most people dress well, again, so as not to stand out too much. Of course, there are other reasons why people dress differently besides economic factors, but the principle is to avoid drawing undue attention to yourself.
A person who walks in love does not insist on his rights, but rather thinks about how he can contribute to the edification of other people. However, I would oppose any accommodation that amounts to an idealogical compromise, or an implicit approval of unbiblical thinking.
For example, a person does not have to dress exactly like today’s teenagers or to use their slangs and expressions to preach to them. Just dress and talk in a way so as not to allow these things to get in the way without compromising your own biblical beliefs. The church should influence culture instead of letting culture influence it.
If wearing baggy pants and talking like a barbarian will make the difference between heaven and hell for my hearers, then I will gladly accomodate. But it is usually enough to just dress casually and avoid pretentious language. Those who are so obsessed with looking and sounding exactly like those they are trying to reach are often distracted from the actual message that they should be preaching, which is where the power lies afterall (Romans 1:16).
Some people end up compromising the very precious words of God, so that the Bible itself can become The Word on the Street (Zondervan) — a "paraphrase" so abominable that you would give anything to have people read The Message or Revolve instead.
We can only accomodate people to a certain point, after which we must, by the authority of God, demand that they follow us, as we follow Christ. If they refuse to abandon their unbiblical and brutish ways of thinking and living, then it means that they are reprobates, foreordained to damnation.
To reach today’s teenagers, some people go as far as putting on nose rings and dyeing their hair. This is unnecessary, since the power is really in the gospel message, which is the means by which the Spirit confronts, convicts, and converts the hearers.
At least in some cases, the truth is that some professing believers simply enjoy the secular culture — the clothes, language, music, etc., and this is their excuse to embrace the world and still call themselves Christians.
As I have stated several times in my books, some people say that they will go to parties and dinners, and to associate with unbelievers, in order to reach them, "just like Jesus did." However, they do not even mention the gospel most of the time, even after an extended relationship with the unbelievers. The truth is that they in fact enjoy doing what the unbelievers do, and talking about what the unbelievers talk about. And while they are having fun, they are lying to themselves and to others about their true motive. This is carnality with a mission, only it is much more about the carnality than about the mission.
Of course, I mention teenagers above only as an example. The same principles apply whenever we attempt to reach any people group.
Second, the Bible says in Hebrews 13:17:
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Assuming that your pastor is not some raging heretic or evil villain, this verse alone should settle the issue. For practical issues such as the dress code, if the pastor says you should wear nice clothes to church, then wear nice clothes to church. Do what the pastor says to make his job easier. It is as simple as that.
Although I do not think that there is a direct biblical argument or requirement for dressing nice to church, I would regard a pastor’s desire to develop his congregation into decent, disciplined, and organized people a valid one, as well as his desire to present Christians to outsiders as clean and orderly individuals, rather than slobs and bums.
I should not need to mention this (but sadly, I do) — it is wrong for women to dress like whores both inside and outside of the church.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians