Deistic Implications of Word-Faith Teachings
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
In context, the "Charismatic theology" mentioned below is not referring to just any Charismatic theology, but the "Word of Faith," "the health and wealth gospel," or the "name it and claim it" teachings, as espoused by people like Kenneth Copeland and Kenneth Hagin. (See How To Have Faith in Your Faith by Charles Capps, but then, see The Real Faith by Charles Price.)
I am thinking that the Charismatic theology leans toward deism. In their theology, the false doctrine of a self-willed salvation also extends to things like healing and prosperity. Not only does it deny the sovereignty of God, but it makes men equal with God, and agrees with the humanistic doctrine that men are the masters of their own fate.
That’s right. Very good.
The deistic implications of WOF doctrine are not always obvious even to its critics, so I am impressed that you notice it.
Even the doctrine of justification by faith has become for them the doctrine of "I will save myself by my faith." However, the biblical doctrine of justification by faith is really teaching that we can do nothing by ourselves, that we must totally depend on Gracious Omnipotence to save us. Therefore, it is very proper to say that, by justification by faith, we are really not teaching salvation by faith as such — that is, not by some power inherent in human belief — but we are teaching salvation by Christ.
It is Christ who saves us, and not faith itself. Faith comes into the picture because it is Christ who saves us by means of giving us faith in him. It is right to say that we are saved "by faith" only if we understand it this way. Why then, does Scripture constantly affirm "justification by faith"? And why is it appropriate for us to use this expression? It is because in many places Scripture is contrasting justification by faith against justification by works, and it is appropriate for us to use this expression because we must continue to make such a contrast in our teaching, our thinking, and our living. However, we must keep in mind that "justification by faith" does not mean that the power to save is in the belief itself; rather, the saving power resides only in God, provided through Christ, and applied by faith.
As you observed, failing to acknowledge this simple distinction, some Charismatics have come to affirm a version of deism, at least in some parts of their theology. They think that God has set down some universal principles that one can operate at will once discovered. Then, Hagin draws the right inference from this false doctrine (that is, his false conclusion is the logical implication of the false doctrine), so that according to him, even unbelievers can use these "faith principles" to attain healing and prosperity. That is, if the power is in belief itself, then anyone can exercise the same power to attain the same things. To illustrate his point, Hagin even refers to the effect of a placebo to illustrate the inherent healing power of "faith."
That said, it is difficult to consistently charge them with deism, since they are not always consistent in their own teachings on the subject. On the one hand, they teach that anyone can tap into these principles or "spiritual laws" through belief; on the other hand, they affirm that God often acts mightily in response to belief.
Now, when we consistently apply the principle that divine power is in belief itself, it seems that even God’s divine power reside in and is exercised by belief, or faith. And this is exactly what the WOF teachers affirm. They fail to realize that biblical faith refers to a relationship between the one who believes and the one who is believed, so that the Christian judges God to be sufficient in power and faithful in character to carry out all his promises (Hebrews 11:11, 19).
Kenneth Copeland related an incident in which a person said to him, "God doesn’t have faith — he is the object of our faith." Apparently confused by the simple distinction, Copeland smirked and said, "He was too educated for me." And as far as we can tell, that is exactly right.
Recommended:
Pentecostalism and Cessationism
Ministry Spending and Favoritism
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Philippians
Vincent Cheung, Biblical Healing
D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit
John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos
The Practical and Existential in Evangelism
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.)
Is it always preferable to do evangelism using the approach taught in your Ultimate Questions, rather than appealing to the existential values and the practical advantages of coming to Christ?
In The Light of Our Minds (ch.1), I show that, technically speaking, apologetics and evangelism can be distinguished from each other, but they have such an intimate relationship that there is often no need to speak of them as separate and different, that is, unless we are involved in a discussion that requires greater precision, and thus the distinction.
With that in mind, Ultimate Questions is more about apologetics and philosophy than evangelism. (See Presuppositional Confrontations, ch. 2, where I blend together apologetics and evangelism.) The method espoused there is always the best way to do apologetics, since rationally speaking, your opponent can evade anything other than valid deductive arguments, often just by saying, "I don’t care," "That doesn’t prove anything," or "So what?"
But since most people are irrational, they often respond better to non-rational or irrational methods. For example, a personal testimony is often quite effective (at least in producing superficial effects in the hearers, but not in producing faith), although it doesn't really prove anything. Then, although the apostles mainly emphasized God’s grace and purpose, and man's need to repent and believe, they did mention some of the existential benefits of coming to Christ.
It depends on your audience as to the kind of effects that you can expect from non-rational or irrational approaches. If you were to argue that Islam is a false religion because it instructs its adherents to murder those who oppose it, this might carry weight with some people, but I would reject the argument right away, since I would realize that it is fallacious. It is logically invalid to assert that Islam is wrong because violence is wrong, but it should be the other way around — if Islam is right, then violence is right. If Islam truly reveals the mind of God, then whatever Islam teaches is true, including violence; but if Islam is wrong, then the violence that it teaches is unjustified. We cannot begin from the violence that it teaches to determine whether or not Islam is wrong.
Yet we encounter similar irrational arguments all the time — that is, the kind that puts things in the wrong order — and it is effective with many people. Sometimes this is because there is an innate knowledge of God and his moral laws in every person’s mind. Thus there is an instinctive moral opposition to murder. Some cultures or people groups may have suppressed this more than others, but then other parts of their innate knowledge is more evident with them. Because of this innate knowledge of God and his moral laws, even presentations that are not strictly valid (with conclusions deduced from established premises by logical necessity) are often effective, since they still appeal to something that is already innate in the hearers. That is, these invalid presentations might be applying some premise or information that the hearers already know, even as they try to suppress it in their minds. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we should tolerate or encourage these invalid presentations.
But because people are irrational, they are often deceived by outright false premises and by false inferences, so that even arguments that are completely void of truth are often effective — arguments that are invalid and contradict both biblical revelation and man’s innate knowledge — that is, if it appeals to some sinful preference in the hearers.
One important effect of regeneration and sanctification is to rescue man from this stubborn and pervasive irrationality.
The deductive/presuppositional approach is always preferable in apologetics — it is the only rational route. And if you think about it, opportunities for evangelism often arise out of apologetic encounters — that is, from discussions in which the differences of worldviews generate disagreements.
Your Christian worldview will often generate disagreements with other people about politics, science, ethics (abortion, adultery, etc.), world religions…and just about everything. But if the deductive/presuppositional approach is always better in an apologetic encounter, and evangelistic opportunities often arise from the clash of worldviews, then the need for the deductive/presuppositional approach comes up just about every time you do evangelism. Even if the encounter begins from a non-argumentative presentation of the gospel, if someone has a question or objection (which is common), you are back at apologetics.
The deductive/presuppositional approach is a necessary part of preaching the gospel, since much of it involves presenting the teachings of the Bible, knowledge that is necessary for salvation. The apostles themselves employed deductive/presuppositional arguments in their preaching, to both believers and unbelievers. Reading the preaching of the apostles, some people can see only personal testimony, since they are predisposed to notice these things, but they don’t do a very good job even when relating their personal experiences. And of course, their personal experiences are nothing like the apostles’, who were with Jesus for several years, and who were with him in his death and resurrection.
Nowadays, when people talk about personal testimony, they often have in mind a feeling of ecstasy or exhilaration (which is not even conversion), a moral reformation (but they are still not very moral), even a vision or some other special experience (but the "gospel" they attach to it may not be biblical), or otherwise some silly story that doesn’t really contribute to the case for the gospel. Do not assume that someone is doing what the apostles did when he gives his personal testimony — it is usually nothing like theirs.
Then, if you present some sort of a pragmatic argument, so can the atheist, the Communist, the Mormon, and just about anybody from any belief system. That is, just about anybody from any belief system can relate what he considers a positive change in his life that resulted from that belief system.
Pragmatic arguments are logically worthless, although they are often psychologically compelling (the reason for this has been explained above). How rational is your audience? The more rational your audience, the more you risk being laughed at by using a pragmatic argument.
If a Buddhist says to me that Buddhism changed in his life, I would not challenge the claim — I would just laugh at him. It does not prove that Buddhism is true. Even a movie or a novel can change a person’s life or inspire moral reform, but it says nothing about whether or not the philosophy behind the movie or the novel is true.
An argument based on effect or personal experience works like this:
1. If X, therefore Y
2. Y
3. Therefore, X
This type of reasoning is called "affirming the consequent," which is always fallacious. But it is the exact reasoning process employed by every argument that appeals to the empirical and the pragmatic, and it is the very core of science. (See Bertrand Russell, "Is Science Superstitious?")
Jesus says that "you will know them by their fruit"; however, apart from biblical revelation, we cannot even specify what is a good fruit and what is an evil fruit. Of course Jesus knew this, and he was certainly not telling us to evaluate a person by our own non-biblical opinion.
Similarly, when you give a personal testimony about your faith, or when you enumerate some of the existential benefits of coming to Christ, the testimony and those benefits could be considered positive only because they are specified as such from the biblical perspective. So, rationally speaking, if the pragmatic and existential were to worth anything at all, they must still be derived from a biblical/deductive/presuppositional foundation, for by themselves, they are irrational and irrelevant.
Thus, although it is often acceptable to present your personal testimony or to discuss the existential benefits of coming to Christ, you must not attribute to these things a higher rational status than they deserve, and you must base them firmly on the foundation of biblical revelation, and discuss them only within such a context. You should give them relatively minor roles in your overall presentation, since in themselves they do not even present the gospel; they do not communicate the word of life, or the power that saves.
In short, it is best to preach the gospel through biblical expositions, clash with your opponent using the deductive/presuppositional approach, and then as optional illustrations (not as strict rational arguments), perhaps relate your personal experience and some of the existential benefits of faith.
Of course, these are not necessarily done in the above order, but they can be flexibly blended together in the course of your conversation with the unbeliever. In addition, one aspect of your presentation must not contradict another. For example, after you have completely destroyed the rational standing of induction, sensation, intuition, and science as part of your apologetic, do not then elevate your personal experience or self-knowledge to the undeniable rational certainty that can be attributed only to Scripture.
Finally, although non-rational or irrational approaches sometimes appear more effective because most people are irrational, it does not follow that we should tolerate this. In fact, as long as one’s faith is not mainly or only based on the biblical/rational, but on the personal, practical, or existential, that faith might even be spurious, or at least forever feeble. Part of our presentation, then, should be to challenge the irrational standards of our hearers. Why should they respond better to personal testimonies, or to practical or existential arguments, than to biblical/rational arguments? They should not, and this is precisely one of the things that we should get across while preaching the gospel and defending the faith.
Recommended:
http://www.intoutreach.org/seeking.html
http://members.aol.com/jonathanedw/Seeking.html
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 1
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 2
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation
Vincent Cheung, The Light of Our Minds
Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word
Joel Beeke, Puritan Evangelism
Gordon Clark, Today’s Evangelism
Walter Chantry, Today’s Gospel
A Great Cloud of Witnesses
The following deals with a question related to The Ching Ming Festival (2). I have numbered the paragraphs in the message from the reader so that you can more readily identify the corresponding sections in my response.
(1) What do you think about the popular belief that we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses and the people in heaven are looking over the banister cheering us on or watching us?
(2) I asked one of my teachers if there is a possibility that my dad or other members of the family that have died saw me preach one of my first sermons. He said it is possible because we are the body of Christ and they are not really dead. They are in heaven alive and can see activity here on earth.
(3) I believe I heard a well-known theologian say that he gets nervous some times because he realizes that he is not just preaching to the congregation, but also a great cloud of witnesses, which is the body of Christ here on earth and in heaven.
What are your thoughts on this?
— 1 —
The biblical verse from which people derived this idea about "a cloud of witnesses" is Hebrews 12:1, which says, "Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us."
To correctly understand this verse and how it applies to our question, we should consider the sense in which these past believers are "witnesses" to our race. It is true that a "witness" often refers to someone who has had direct contact with a given subject of inquiry, and thus it appears to many people that for these past believers to be witnesses must mean that they are currently aware of our activities.
Some people even believe that these past believers are watching and hearing what we are doing, so that when we preach, they are actually listening to the sermon, and when we sin, they are actually watching.
However, this is not a necessary implication of the verse, and as we shall see, it is not even a probable interpretation.
Consider Matthew 12:41–42:
The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.
The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.
Jesus is addressing the Pharisees and the unbelieving people of "this generation," that is, the Jews.
The men of Nineveh will condemn the unbelieving Jews, not because they were direct witnesses of their unbelief, but because they (the men of Nineveh) repented at the preaching of Jonah.
And the Queen of the South (Sheba) will also rise to condemn the unbelieving Jews, not because she personally witnessed their unbelief, but because she came to hear Solomon’s godly wisdom.
Each of the above is a double a fortiori, in that (1) the men of Nineveh and the Queen of the South were Gentiles, not Jews, so they lacked the spiritual privileges that the Jews had, and (2) Jesus was greater than both Jonah and Solomon. So, if an evil nation would repent at the preaching of Jonah, and if an foreign queen would come to hear the wisdom of Solomon, then how utterly strange and outrageous it was for the Jews, those entrusted with the oracles of God, to oppose the very Son of God? Thus the Jews were worthy of double condemnation.
But our focus is now on the "witnesses." They will condemn the unbelieving Jews not because of their knowledge about the Jews, but because of what they themselves did in contrast with the unbelieving Jews.
With this in mind, turn your attention back to Hebrews 12:1. The previous chapters give us the context that helps us to grasp the sense in which these past believers are witnesses to our race of faith.
Hebrews 10:32–39 says:
Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering. Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions.
So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. For in just a very little while, "He who is coming will come and will not delay. But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him." But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.
The Jewish believers were experiencing pressure and persecution, and they were tempted to abandon their faith, and to return to their former profession. Weaving an intricate doctrinal treatise together with godly pleas and threats, the inspired writer of Hebrews admonishes them to maintain their faith.
Then, in Hebrews 11, the writer recounts numerous deeds performed by believers of previous generations, often against great danger and opposition. This is what it means to "live by faith" and not "shrink back."
It is clearly in this sense that these past believers are now "witnesses" to our own race of faith. They have already completed that which these Jewish believers were now tempted to give up, and now they serve as "witnesses" or testimonies to the promises of God and the power of faith. But "God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect" (Hebrews 11:40), then let us not allow their lives to condemn us but rather encourage us to complete the race, looking to Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith (12:2).
So, the point is not, "You better run well because they are watching you," but rather, "Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart….Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees" (12:3, 12).
Applying this to our question, the verse (12:1) does not tell us whether or not these past believers know what is happening on the earth — that is, whether or not they do, this verse does not tell us. It tells us only about what we should now do in the light of what they had done. Relative to our question, there is no way to validly infer anything more from the verse than this.
— 2 —
Yes, it is possible that your father and other deceased family members saw you preach one of your first sermons, if this is what God had chosen to show them. But the reasons that your teacher gave are poor: "He said it is possible because we are the body of Christ and they are not really dead. They are in heaven alive and can see activity here on earth."
I am also part of the body of Christ and I am not really dead, yet I have never seen you preach, so this can’t be enough. Then, that they are "in heaven alive" does not imply that they "can see activity here on earth." If your teacher did not mean to connect the two, then he has given no reason at all as to why people "in heaven alive" "can see activity here on earth."
Now, there are passages like Luke 16:24–25 and Revelation 6:9–11.
Luke 16:24-25 says:
So he called to him, "Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire." But Abraham replied, "Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony."
However, this passage does not tell us how and when Abraham knew about the rich man’s life. It does not say that Abraham knew this by watching and hearing the rich man’s life while the rich man was still alive. It is possible that the information was revealed to Abraham after the rich man's death. Either way, this passage does not tell us how he knew.
And Revelation 6:9–11 says:
When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed.
But again, the passage does not say that these martyrs were watching and hearing the activities on earth. Rather, the passage tells us that they were "watching" God and speaking to him about the earth. We cannot infer more than this from the passage.
— 3 —
He probably meant it to sound pious, but this is not impressive at all.
There is something wrong with a person who, if he is going to be nervous at all, is not already nervous enough because GOD is watching him, but because he thinks that dead people are watching him.
And is this not just another form of necromancy, a form of conscious and deliberate interaction with the dead, even if not as blatant and overt?
Biblical spirituality is "simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3, NASB). Many false biblical interpretations result from the desire to make spirituality more exciting, adventurous, and meaningful (from the carnal viewpoint), often by making it more esoteric and complicated. But the simplicity of biblical spirituality should more than satisfy the believer, that is, unless he has lost his first love.
Recommended:
Personality without Corporeality
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment
Gordon Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man
Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm
Personality without Corporeality
In The Ching Ming Festival (1), I referred to two biblical passages to show that Samuel and Moses retained their personal identities even though they had died and were without their bodies. Here is the relevant portion of that article:
For example, Samuel appeared as Samuel to Saul after death but before the resurrection, and Moses likewise appeared as Moses to Christ, implying that personal identity is associated with the incorporeal soul without a necessary connection to the body. Then, Jesus said that we should not be afraid of those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul, as if the two are different and separate, and that the soul is more important. (See Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:4–5; 1 Corinthians 5:3, 7:34; James 2:26.)
There was a question about whether these two passages are applicable.
That is, when King Saul went to the witch to conjure Samuel, it was said that she had a "familiar spirit." So it is assumed by some that she did not really have the ability to conjure up the dead, but that when she appeared to communicate with the dead, she was only communicating with this familiar spirit. Thus the question is whether it was really Samuel who appeared.
Then, some people think that the Bible never said that Moses really died, and so we do not know for sure whether he soul was ever separated from his body, or whether he was taken up like Enoch and Elijah.
The following is the response that I sent out in an email:
Actually, the Bible itself says that it was Samuel who appeared. Read the account in 1 Samuel 28. We have no reason to believe that it was not Samuel that appeared.
When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!"
The king said to her, "Don't be afraid. What do you see?"
The woman said, "I see a spirit coming up out of the ground."
"What does he look like?" he asked.
"An old man wearing a robe is coming up," she said.
Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.
Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"
"I am in great distress," Saul said. "The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has turned away from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do."
Samuel said, "Why do you consult me, now that the LORD has turned away from you and become your enemy? The LORD has done what he predicted through me. The LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hands and given it to one of your neighbors — to David. Because you did not obey the LORD or carry out his fierce wrath against the Amalekites, the LORD has done this to you today. The LORD will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The LORD will also hand over the army of Israel to the Philistines."
Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground, filled with fear because of Samuel's words. His strength was gone, for he had eaten nothing all that day and night. (v. 12–20)
As for Moses, the Bible itself says that he died (Joshua 1:2), and that Michael the archangel contended with Satan over the body (Jude 9).
Elijah did not die, or at least we have no evidence to believe that his soul was separated from his body, and that is why I did not cite him as an example, but it was appropriate to cite Samuel and Moses. They were living, thinking, and speaking — but disembodied.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment
Gordon Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man
The Biblical Approach to Evangelism
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
Do you by chance have any books specifically focused upon missions and evangelism? I remember you mentioning that apologetics is a part of evangelism and was wondering if you had a more evangelism oriented work.
As you may have noticed by now, I am fond of addressing many topics by structuring my presentations around scriptural passages and skeletons.
Although I have commented on the different aspects of evangelism in various places, I have addressed evangelism mainly in my exposition of Acts 17, which you have probably already read. That chapter blends evangelism and apologetics (which are technically distinguishable, but often combined in practice) together in its discussion of the Mars Hill discourse. You might also want to read my short work, Preach the Word.
Evangelism should usually be done by preaching the whole counsel of God, instead of by the now common "hit-and-run" method. Evangelism is very much a "teaching" ministry (Matthew 28:19-20), so that when there is time, one must definitely follow Paul’s procedure in Acts 19:
Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord. (v. 8–10)
As J. I. Packer writes in A Quest for Godliness: "Evangelism must rather be conceived as a long-term enterprise of patient teaching and instruction, in which God's servants seek simply to be faithful in delivering the gospel message and applying it to human lives, and leave it to God's Spirit to draw men to faith through this message in his own way and at his own speed" (Crossway, p. 163–164).
But when there is no time, or when the person is already sufficiently taught and informed, God might perform a quick work, as in Acts 8:26-39:
Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road — the desert road — that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture: "He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth."
The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?" And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.
For more on this subject, you might look into the sermons of Jonathan Edwards, and Puritan teachings on evangelism and "seeking" salvation through the means ordained and provided by God.
And of course, to preach the whole counsel of God, you need to know the whole counsel of God. Therefore, you must constantly be improving in your understanding of the biblical faith, and in your ability to clearly and precisely explain it.
Recommended:
http://www.intoutreach.org/seeking.html
http://members.aol.com/jonathanedw/Seeking.html
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 1
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 2
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Vincent Cheung, The Light of Our Minds
Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word
Gordon Clark, Today’s Evangelism
Joel Beeke, Puritan Evangelism
Adultery: A Capital Crime
The laws of Moses, therefore, very properly made adultery a capital crime; nor does our Saviour, in the incident of the woman taken in adultery, repeal that statute, or disallow its justice. The legislation of modern, nominally Christian nations, is drawn rather from the grossness of Pagan sources than from Bible principles. The common law of England, and the statutes and usages which our Commonwealth has drawn thence, present a most inconsistent state. There is no statute whatever for punishing adultery as a crime!
Robert L. Dabney, Systematic Theology
(The Banner of Truth Trust), p. 407–408.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
John Murray, The Principles of Conduct
The Ching Ming Festival (2)
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
Thus, there are biblical reasons why we respectfully treat and bury a person’s body after his soul has departed from it. Because of what the Bible teaches about the present and future roles of the body, we do not just throw a dead human body into a dumpster or feed it to animals, which might seem more convenient and practical. Rather, we treat it in a way that is consistent with its important role in the present life, and with our anticipation of the future resurrection and judgment.
It is true that God can produce a body even if it has been cremated or fed to animals, so we are not trying to make the task of resurrection easier on Omnipotence — not at all! Rather, among other biblical reasons, the proper treatment and burial of the body is a sign of the believer’s anticipation of the resurrection and the judgment.
It is with this biblical understanding of the constitution of the human person, of the importance of the body, and of the anticipation of the resurrection and the judgment, that we should formulate beliefs, practices, and traditions allowed and encouraged for Christians, and also evaluate those that are related to the Ching Ming Festival.
It is possible to treat and bury the body well, care for the grave site, and even mourn for the dead, without being idolatrous or superstitious. We can do these things in memory of the person and in faith toward God, without violating the teachings of the Bible. That said, we must be careful not to venture into unbiblical thinking and practices while we perform something that ought to be biblical when properly performed.
For example, there is a great difference between speaking fondly of the deceased person and speaking fondly to the deceased person — it is the difference between holy conversation and necromancy. So while we mourn for the dead and weep for our loss, we must not say anything that directly addresses the deceased person, or to say anything with the belief that the deceased person can hear us. In addition, we should not direct to the deceased person any semblance of worship, such as bowing at his grave site, or offering incense and various sacrifices.
As a side note, it follows from the above that the Catholic veneration of saints and of Mary is nothing short of necromancy. It is an abomination to be condemned in the harshest and most extreme terms. To be a Catholic is to be a necromancer.
Also, consider the practice of requesting forgiveness from or granting forgiveness to the dead as a psychological exercise. This is recommended by some psychologists and "Christian" counselors as a way to deal with "unresolved issues" between the living and the deceased, that is, for the psychological benefit and relief of the counselee. But it is also necromancy. Granted, it might be a weak form of necromancy, without spectacular demonic displays and immediate catastrophic effects, but the principle is the same. Any unresolved issues can and must be addressed between the Christian and his God.
Now that we have considered the relevant biblical teachings, it appears that the Ching Ming question has already been mostly answered. It only remains for us to make some specific applications.
In general, we must not participate in anything that even implies our agreement with idolatrous, superstitious, and unbiblical beliefs. But it seems impossible to participate in Ching Ming and avoid making such an implication at the same time, that is, unless you were to constantly declare your opposition to every unbiblical belief and practice performed throughout the entire day to your family members and to other people around you.
I agree that it is mentally and physically possible to avoid all unbiblical beliefs and practices even if you were to accompany your family to the grave site on Ching Ming, but the issue is not always what you are thinking and doing, but the impression that you are giving other people, and the inferences that you are allowing them to make (1 Corinthians 8:4–13; 10:19–33).
Thus consider the things that you must avoid and refuse — you must not even help your family carry the idolatrous items to the grave site, or help them light the fire for burning the sacrifices, and you must not even stand beside your family members in a way that implies your approval as they offer idolatrous worship and practice necromancy. This overt defiance against Ching Ming will generate great offense, but anything less than this would be compromise.
Just as you must not behave around a statue of Buddha in a way that implies belief in its reality or power — such as bowing to it or taking off your shoes — you must not attend to someone’s grave in a way or in a context that implies belief in or compromise with unbiblical ideas. However, consistent with the biblical teachings that we have considered above, there is nothing wrong with attending to someone’s grave in itself — such as pulling weeds around it and cleaning the tomb stone. What I am saying is that it is difficult to do all of this on Ching Ming without implying that you are performing more than a practical procedure and with a biblical mentality.
Therefore, unless you can find some way to clearly establish your opposition to the idolatry and superstitions associated with Ching Ming, it is best to abstain from all participation.
In some cases, this stance might lead to intense conflicts with your family members. There are some things that you can do to reduce these conflicts. For example, you might suggest that you will visit the grave site alone or with your family on another day, so that you do not appear to be scorning the very memory of your ancestors. Of course, even then, you must distance yourself from all unbiblical practices when you are at the grave site.
Also, you must explain the biblical reasons for abstaining from these practices, and expound the gospel to your family. Sometimes, especially after your repeated pleas against idolatry and superstition have been ignored or even rebuked, it might be appropriate to forcefully renounce the idolatrous traditions and harshly condemn your relatives for these abominable beliefs and practices.
You are in a position to do this especially if you have moved away from your parents and have become the head of your own household. In fact, as the head of your own household, you have tremendous authority, which you must exercise to enforce biblical precepts in the home and to protect it from spiritual invaders.
Many men cower before their own parents and their in-laws even over religious matters that affect their wives and children. Oh, what cowards! Once you become the head of your house, you have the full authority to establish a Christian home and to keep out every abomination. Your parents and your in-laws must now interact with your family on your terms — that is, on biblical terms — and if they refuse, you have the full authority to cut them off. So don't whine and grumble when your unbelieving relatives vex your soul, oppress your wife, and mislead your children. You can stop all of that — TODAY.
(Am I the only one who knows this or dares to speak this way? This aspect of the husband's authority — and duty — is rarely taught. It needs to be taught because the husband needs to exercise it, the wife needs to submit to it, and the couple ought to know about it before they get married in the first place. In addition, this authority and responsibility must be specified and acknowledged by both parties in the marriage vow. Now, the husband has the authority whether or not it is taught or acknowledged beforehand, but learning and acknowledging it before marriage help to avoid problems later.)
Whatever you do, unless you compromise your faith or unless your family converts, there will always be conflict and persecution (Matthew 10:34–39; 2 Corinthians 6:14–18). We must not fear this, but boldly confront it with joy, zeal, and hope.
(end of series)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment
Gordon Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man
Loraine Boettner, Immortality
Robert Morey, Death and the Afterlife
The Ching Ming Festival (1)
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
What is the Bible’s stance on "respecting the dead"? In particular, I am considering how a Christian should behave toward the Ching Ming Festival.
For those readers who are unfamiliar with the Ching Ming Festival, a search on the Internet will provide many short articles explaining its background and significance.
On the day of this annual festival, multitudes of people visit the grave sites of their deceased relatives to perform acts of cleaning and worship.
The worship performed might include bowing at the tomb stones and prayers to the deceased, including updates on the conditions of the family members, and requests for special blessings and protection. There are also various offerings, including food and incense, burning a special type of "money" for the dead, or even small paper models of various objects such as houses and cars. It is believed that by burning these objects, they are transferred to the afterlife where the deceased can make use of them.
When considering how a Christian ought to behave toward the Ching Ming Festival, it would be helpful to first summarize the biblical teachings relevant to the subject.
The Bible teaches that the human person consists of the soul, which is the "inward" incorporeal part, and the body, which is the "outward" corporeal part.
A number of Christian scholars, including some prominent Reformed theologians, insist that the Bible consistently refers to the human person is a unity, that is, as one, so that we should not make a sharp distinction between the soul and the body, or to identify the "person" with the soul.
For example, in one of his lectures, Greg Bahnsen opposes making a sharp distinction between the soul and the body, or to identify the "person" with the soul, by saying that the human person is not "a ghost in a machine." When he brings up the obvious question of how a person’s identity is then maintained between death and resurrection (since the soul is separated from the body, but a "person" is supposed to consist of both), he shrugs it off as a "mystery."
This evasion is popular with many Christians, and a favorite of Reformed believers, used as a license to affirm just about every false belief that they cannot defend. It is not a mystery if it has been clearly revealed in Scripture (see my Commentary on Ephesians), but anything will appear perplexing when it is obscured by false assumptions and the stubborn resistance of human traditions.
(I am using Bahnsen only as a memorable and surprising example. The reader should note that there are different versions of this error, affirmed by different theologians, some more unbiblical than others. Consider, for example, the view of Berkhouwer in his Studies in Dogmatics.)
To make a sharp distinction between the soul and the body, to identify the "person" with the soul, and to consider the soul as superior or more important than the body, is sometimes considered the gnostic or the "greek" view. But as Gordon Clark points out, it is often unhelpful to just label a position as "greek," since the greeks held all sorts of positions on various matters that contradict one another. So, although one may call a position Plato’s view, Aristotle’s view, and so forth, it is often too broad and inaccurate to just call something "greek."
In any case, the view opposed, which we will here call the "gnostic" position, regards matter as evil, or at least affirms that evil comes from matter and not spirit. Therefore, when the soul leaves the body at death, it is in a real sense the liberation of the soul or the person from the prison of flesh. Of course this view is unbiblical, but it is not the necessary result of making a sharp distinction between the soul and the body. In fact, one can even affirm that the soul is superior to the body, and still not end up with the gnostic view, since a good thing can be superior to another good thing.
It is true that many biblical passages address the human person as a single unit, just as we all do in ordinary conversation; however, in none of these instances is the Bible discussing the constitution of the human person. On the other hand, when the Bible addresses the constitution of the human person, or when it refers to the constitution of the human person in order to make some other point, it always speaks of the human person as consisting of two parts — the incorporeal (mind, spirit, heart, etc.) and the corporeal (body, flesh, etc.).
Although the expression is a bit crude and loaded, the Bible indeed teaches that the human person is as "a ghost in a machine," that the person’s identity is in his incorporeal soul, and even that the soul is superior to the body.
For example, Samuel appeared as Samuel to Saul after death but before the resurrection, and Moses likewise appeared as Moses to Christ, implying that personal identity is associated with the incorporeal soul without a necessary connection to the body. Then, Jesus said that we should not be afraid of those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul, as if the two are different and separate, and that the soul is more important. (See Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:4–5; 1 Corinthians 5:3, 7:34; James 2:26.)
There are too many clear biblical passages supporting these points for them to be denied, and to say that the Bible always refers to the person as one, without a sharp distinction between the soul and the body, and without speaking of the soul as the superior part, can only be the conclusion from a selective and illegitimate use of Scripture.
That said, it remains that the body is important. For the Christian, it is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19), and it is the same body that will be resurrected and transformed (1 Corinthians 15:35–58). "Therefore," Paul writes, "honor God with your body" (1 Corinthians 6:20). We can readily affirm all of this without also affirming the unbiblical view denied above. That is, with full biblical support and without slipping into the gnostic position, we can affirm that there is a sharp distinction between the soul and the body, that personal identity is associated with the soul (even if there is some relation to the body), and that the soul is superior (or more important) than the body.
(to be continued)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment
Gordon Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man
Why God Created Evil
~ Taken from Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin. Footnotes excluded. ~
I've been enjoying the great articles as of late regarding who God is. The clear logic of your articles and the Bible is refreshing.
One of my friends (who is in seminary) read your article and asked, "Then why did God create sin?"
I haven't answered him yet, but wanted to think it through. Is his question a bad question? Should it be "cause" and not "create"?
What are your thoughts?
Thanks for affirming the Bible as the foundation of all our learning and not traditions that men so often teach. And thanks for your time.
To say "create" or "cause" would be just about the same thing in our context, and both words are applicable, so I think both are fine.
We are not using the word "create" in the same sense as God's original creation out of nothing, but we are referring to God's control over things that he has already created. That is, although God must actively cause evil thoughts and inclinations in the creature, and then he must actively cause the corresponding evil actions, he does not create new material or substance when he does this, since he is controlling what he has already created.
It is true that a person sins according to his evil nature, but as Luther writes, it is God who "creates" this evil nature in each newly conceived person after the pattern of fallen Adam, whose fall God also caused. And then, God must actively cause this evil nature to function and the person to act according to it. Luther writes that God never allows this evil nature to be idle in Satan and in ungodly people, but he continuously causes it to function by his power.
Luther perceived the biblical and metaphysical absurdities of affirming anything short of the above; in contrast, the weak view (common to Reformed Christians today) is an unbiblical, unnecessary, irrational, and sophistical evasion. If our position is hyper-Calvinism (it is not), then it would simply mean that hyper-Calvinism is the correct and biblical view. And mislabeling it as fatalism doesn't do anything, either – it is the wimp's way out.
As for God's purpose for sin and evil, first, in boldly acknowledging the biblical truth that God is the sovereign and righteous "author of sin," we can note that even if we were unable to answer the question as to why he caused sin and evil, it would not pose a problem to Christianity, nor would it undermine what I've said about the "author of sin" issue. That is, even if we do not have an answer to the question, there is no self-contradiction in our view, nor does our view contradict Scripture. It would just be a matter of a lack of information, and rationally speaking, this is all that is at stake.
That said, we do have an answer to the question, and it is in the very passage that we examined from Romans 9:
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?
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory – even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (v. 19–24)
According to Paul, at least one reason (it doesn't have to be the only reason) God created the reprobates (that is, to "create sin") is to provide a context through which he can reveal his wrath – something that the elect will otherwise never witness or experience. In other words, the reprobates are for the education and edification of the elect. They maintain a world of struggles and temptations for the elect, and at the end the elect will witness the outpouring of divine wrath against them. All of this serves to advance the sanctification of the elect and the declarative glory of God.
The following is taken from my Systematic Theology:
One important but neglected benefit that the love of God makes available to Christians is spiritual illumination:
Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him. (John 14:21)
I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. (John 15:15)
Theological knowledge – that is, intellectual knowledge about spiritual things – is one of the least prized gifts from God. But to be a friend of God means to have such knowledge. The scorn with which many professing believers regard doctrinal studies shows that they do not truly love God, although they would like to think that they love him.
Jeremiah 9:23-24 tells us that our priority is to obtain understanding and knowledge about God:
This is what the LORD says: "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:23-24)
The knowledge of God is the most valuable treasure, and everything else is "dung" (Philippians 3:8, KJV) in comparison. In offering his elect reliable information about himself, God is giving them one of the greatest gifts that he can give to them….
One purpose of the reprobates – "the objects of his wrath" or those who are "prepared for destruction" – is that God may reveal this aspect of his nature to "the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory" (Romans 9:22-23). Since Christians have been "saved from God's wrath" (Romans 5:9) through Christ, this is one divine attribute that the elect will never experience, and therefore it must be demonstrated to them in other people. Recall that one benefit God gives to the elect is information or knowledge about himself, and this shows us to what lengths he will go to make himself known to his people.
Of course, people might not like this explanation, but it is the explicit teaching of Scripture. All that God does is intrinsically good and righteous, so it is also good and righteous for him to create the reprobates for the above purpose. Humanistic thinking will be horrified by this teaching, since it is more concerned about man's dignity and comfort than God's purpose and glory, but those with the mind of Christ will erupt in gratitude and reverence, and affirm that God is righteous, and that he does all things well.
Recommended:
The Author of Sin
The Author of Confusion
Compatibilist Freedom
Augustine and Compatibilism
"Soft" Determinism
Determinism vs. Fatalism
Systematic Theology
Ultimate Questions
Apologetics in Conversation
Commentary on Ephesians
The Author of Sin
God the Author
Chosen in Christ
The Problem of Evil
Church and Seminary (3)
Of course, all of this applies to me as well — the day that I consider myself too much of a "man of God" to scrub the church toilet is the day that I have become as a filthy toilet to God. And doing a half-baked job wouldn’t do, either — if I scrub a toilet, I am going to make it shine.
I will not pretend that I’ve had as many opportunities to perform menial work as many other people, but whenever the demand was placed upon me, I did a good job with a good attitude.
To illustrate from an early experience, all the students at my high school were required to work a year in the kitchen.
I was placed under an elderly and grumpy supervisor who was accustomed to handling spoiled and grumbling students — kitchen work was considered the worst on campus. Probably expecting another lazy and whiny worker, the supervisor was very harsh and critical at first. But I worked so hard and so well that her attitude toward me was changed after several days, and she even started giving me preferential treatment.
I was promoted from the smelliest and most disgusting tasks in the kitchen (like dumping leftovers from people’s dishes and trays into a hole where all of this mixed discarded food had been for many hours), to repetitive tasks like peeling potatoes (thousands of small red potatoes!), and finally to the front of the kitchen to arrange the items on the counters and to serve food to the students.
My favorite tasks were the disgusting and the repetitive ones. People stayed away when I was doing the disgusting tasks (I didn’t think it was that disgusting, but apparently others did), and I didn’t have to think about what I was doing for the repetitive ones, so that while I was working, I would spend all those hours meditating on Scripture, and on the sermon that I would preach that week.
On the last day, when the year was up, the full-time adult workers at the kitchen were in tears when it was time for me to leave; they were actually weeping and trembling. This is the power of the normal biblical work ethic. I was not like this because I was born this way, but because I was a Christian, sovereignly changed and nurtured by God.
Jesus left us an example, so that if even our Lord and Teacher was willing to perform a servant’s work, we dare not consider ourselves greater than our master (John 13:14–17). Although it is unbiblical to require a minister to do menial work as part of his regular duties (Acts 6:2), the point is that he should never consider himself above that kind of work, and should gladly perform it whenever it is needed. (In fact, a leader should make a point of humbling himself and setting an example, by occasionally helping with the lowly tasks at church and also in other situations.)
The problem is that, unless I put him on a probation without pay, if I am going to train or test someone I’ve hired from the outside regarding these things, I will have to pay him a reasonable salary even while he is on probation, and when he is not really doing the work that I hired him to do.
Moreover, I have been using humility and work ethic only as examples — there are many other things that I need to test and probably teach him as well. But if I were to promote someone from within my own church or ministry, he would have already been trained and tested for a long time.
There are certain things that a seminary can do to help train and test their students when it comes to humility. For example, all the janitorial work can be done by the students. But seminaries might consider this unfeasible for various reasons, and even those who are willing to implement something like this cannot make it work as well as a church can.
Also, if all the students are doing this sort of work as part of the school requirements, they might not perceive its significance and so would just go through the motions, and it would be much less humiliating to the proud (which makes the training less meaningful and effective) than if they were in the extreme minority, as would be the case if someone is being trained and tested in a church community.
To prevent misunderstandings or misapplications of what I've said, know that my main point is not that seminaries are useless or that they should be abolished, but that churches should be much more deliberate and thorough in their teaching ministries, in training and testing both doctrine and character. If this is done, then in general a church would be the better environment for raising up its own workers and leaders.
(end of series)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word
Gordon Clark, The Christian Philosophy of Education
Church and Seminary (2)
Some seminary graduates are very proud and stupid, and completely unworthy of ministry. Most cases are not even examples of "knowledge puffeth up" (1 Corinthians 8:1), but the belief that they have knowledge that puffs up, since they really know very little.
It is impossible to tell whether a person knows anything just because he has a degree. I remember that when I was still in elementary school and then in junior high, my parents saw my interest in biblical things and were concerned to ensure that I was not being misled in my studies. So they brought me to several elderly seminary-trained pastors, and also a successful Christian businessman, and gave me the opportunity to discuss theological issues with them. None of them could answer my questions; none of them could refute anything I said; and none of them knew the relevant biblical passages half as well as I did.
Looking back, I now perceive that some of my beliefs were false, and that I really knew very little. In fact, I was not even converted at the time. Yet these pastors, who were trained in seminary and had years of experience in ministry, could not properly instruct even a child like me. In other words, it was not that I was especially competent, but that they were especially incompetent, despite their degrees and years of experience.
Of course, not all seminary graduates are like this, but the point is that just because a person has a seminary degree does not mean that he is competent. Just because a person has a seminary degree does not mean that he achieved good grades in seminary — ask him to show you the transcripts. But it might not mean much even if he did receive good grades in seminary. Many of you who have been through school realize that there is a difference between getting good grades and truly learning the materials. There are techniques to scoring high on exams, but it is another matter to master the subject.
Now if I were to hire a seminary graduate from outside of my circle, instead of promoting someone whom I have known and trained for months or even years, there is no chance that I am going to let him teach my congregation or my audience right away. First, I have no idea if he knows anything in the first place, whether or not he has a seminary degree. Second, knowledge is not the only qualification for ministry, but a minister must be above reproach in character also.
So I might put him on probation for a while, and make him do all sorts of menial work. I am going to make him haul boxes. I am going to make him scrub toilets. I am going to make him serve coffee to janitors and secretaries. I am going to make him help in the nursery so that he can change diapers and mob up vomit.
If he thinks that he is too good for all of this, then he is no good to the ministry. If, fresh out of the seminary, he already thinks that he is some "man of God" that is too important to do anything other than preaching and writing, and to have people sit at his feet to hear his wisdom, then he is really a useless piece of trash, and he is so stupid that he doesn’t know it.
(Cleaning toilets ought to be a joy anyway — the stuff that you scrub off the toilet is much less stubborn and much more fragrant than many of the people that you are going to deal with in ministry. So if you can't even handle toilets — and what you find in them — how are you going to handle people?)
Nobody in the organization is going to respect or mention, or be interested in or intimidated by his seminary degree and other human credentials. And the more he talks about it or tries to impress people by it, the more we will look down on him and humiliate him. And if he ever tries to introduce himself as "doctor" so-and-so, he might as well walk right out the door and never come back (Matthew 23:7-12). If he has the goods, then he can show us by his humble and excellent service.
There are many other things that I would do to train and test a person; there are hundreds of details that I pay attention to. I am going to take him on errands and meals, and I am going to watch how he treats the waiters and the doormen. I am going to casually suggest that we meet at a certain time, and then see if he arrives early (I always do). If he is married, I am going to watch how he interacts with his wife, to ascertain as much as I can whether he selfishly lords it over her, or whether he uses his authority to serve her with sacrificial love.
When someone is being considered for Christian ministry, all of these things are relevant, and I have not yet even started to describe the high doctrinal and intellectual standards that should be required. If it is someone that I have personally trained, I would already have all the information I need about him, but a seminary degree tells me none of these things. Consider the biblical lessons and tests based on Luke 14:7-11, Proverbs 29:5, James 1:19 (also Proverbs 10:19), and many others.
So what if he has a seminary degree? I can train up someone more intellectually competent in several months to a year. (The academic and practical training in seminaries are not nearly as grueling as what I would offer and require anyway, so even if I were to hire a well-trained seminary graduate, I would still have to train him all over again.) But if he is too "holy" or educated to mob up vomit or scrub the toliet, then I don’t want him to even lick stamps for my church or ministry. He is not even good enough to be the speed bump on the church parking lot, and he can forget about being an elder or teacher.
On the other hand, nothing that I have described should pose a problem to the real spiritual servant, one who is not trying to be a master or a celebrity to God's people (Matthew 20:25-28).
(to be continued)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word
Gordon Clark, The Christian Philosophy of Education
Church and Seminary (1)
A pastor recently said to me, "I want to know if there is a position open that I can come and serve directly under you for a period of 3 months so that you can teach me." I have received similar requests before, but there are more of them this year. Then someone else asked me which seminaries I could recommend.
This reminds me of what a Christian professor told me when I asked him which seminaries he endorsed. He wrote:
I cannot recommend any seminaries. My standard advice to anyone seeking any advice of any type of school is this: Read widely in the field in which you are interested. When you find an author who knows what he is doing, go study with him wherever he teaches, and put up with the rest. There is a much better chance of finding a sound man than there is of finding a sound institution.
He makes a good point, but do what you will with his advice.
Right now I am thinking about only one’s training for ministry. Elsewhere, I have stated my view that seminaries are necessary only because churches do not have adequate teaching ministries.
Of course, even when a church is adequate in its teaching ministry, a seminary might still have certain advantages, such as a larger community of scholars, a larger library, and so on. However, if the church is really serious about its teaching ministry, then the difference between its resources and a seminary’s resources will only be one of degree, so that a seminary is still not absolutely necessary for adequate ministerial training (seminaries can be useful even if not necessary).
Thus, for example, a church should certainly have its own community of scholars (teaching elders and other teachers), a good-sized library, and other resources for teaching and research. These scholars might not be qualified to teach on every obscure topic, and the library might not have the resources to address every obscure matter. But again, we are considering only those things that are necessary for ministerial training.
In other words, I am saying that the training model of Christ (e.g. Jesus and the Twelve) and the apostles (e.g. Paul and Timothy) should be more than sufficient, and that it is often seemingly insufficient is only because the churches have not really adopted it. Church elders should be able to train their own partners and successors, instead of having to send their own people to seminaries to be taught by people whom nobody in the church knows or has even heard of.
Even worse than this is when a church finds that it needs to hire someone from the outside with whom it has never had a previous relationship, instead of having someone available from its own congregation whom it has already trained, who has humbly served for years in the church without an authoritative office, and whom the church can now promote and ordain as overseer.
(to be continued)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word
Gordon Clark, The Christian Philosophy of Education
Wealth and Wages
James 5:1-11 (NIV)
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.
Be patient, then, brothers, until the Lord's coming. See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop and how patient he is for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near. Don't grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!
Brothers, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Philippians
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment
Vincent Cheung, The Parables of Jesus
John Murray, The Principles of Conduct
Seminary and Elitism (2)
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
There is no magic formula in dealing with these people, since their personalities and responses vary. You should pray for wisdom, and for the work of the Spirit.
Nevertheless, I can suggest several options to you. Some of what follows cannot be performed at the same time. They are to be chosen depending on the person and the situation.
(1) Plainly tell them what you think, whether gently or forcefully.
For example, what you said to me when you described the problem should be said to some elitists:
They are hard to reason with, because there is an arrogance — unless I know the original languages, and have put in my time in seminary, well, then I don’t "belong," I don’t really "know the issues," and I am not "nuanced" enough. Then, when I attempt to point out or question a point of their doctrinal system, they get really upset, like I am not supposed to question them, because, well, I don’t know why!!
(2) Use their credentials against them.
Since they have seminary degrees and you don’t, then they should know what they are talking about even when you don’t. According to their standard, if they defeat you, this is the way it should be, and it is no great achievement, nor should you feel especially ashamed. But if you defeat them, what is their excuse? They went through a program of specialized training and they are still not as good as you? Are they complete idiots?
You can boldly point this out, and then laugh, and laugh, and laugh. Or, you can gently bring up this point, and "wonder" aloud why they can’t answer you if they are so much better trained and informed.
Of course, you will have to know what you are talking about. No one says that you can be ignorant and get away with it.
Also, once a person claims a private right to discuss certain matters only because he has the proper credentials, then it follows that he has no right to discuss all other matters on which he does not have the proper credentials. You have not affirmed this premise, but he has, so other than his specialization he must now be silent about everything else, whether it be physics, accounting, politics, sports, cooking, parenting, the weather — everything.
Also, you might push it so that if he has a degree specializing in New Testament studies, he should be silent when it comes to the Old Testament, theology, apologetics, and all other biblically related subjects.
That is, once they appeal to their degrees to silence you or to avoid discussion with you, then they are stuck. If they claim that they have a right to address a subject and you don’t because they are the ones who have the relevant degrees, then by their own standard they can no longer address subjects outside of their specializations.
(3) Take the humble position.
Sometimes it is strategically advantageous to first take the lowly position when dealing with an arrogant person. Timidly ask him, who knows so much, to explain to you what he is saying and why. If he understands his subject so well, perhaps he should be able to at least explain and defend his basic points? If he cannot, then you can "wonder" aloud if it is because he might not understand or be able to defend his views after all.
(4) Hurt their pride.
Sometimes when people are arrogant, you will have to hurt their pride. To one, you might laugh at his seminary (if it is really a bad or mediocre one), and say that you would rather not go at all than to go to that one. To another, you could harshly insult him and incite him to debate with you, and then you must take him down HARD. The point is not just to win, but you might be saving him from a long prideful (and thus sinful) life of futile ministry. Of course, this means that you must actually win the argument.
(5) Expose them to the audience.
Sometimes there are people around listening to the conversation. If your opponent attempts to bully you by appealing to his superior human credentials, you can seize on that and expose his pride and incompetence to the audience.
Once someone tries to bully me like this in a conversation or debate, then I’ve got him. I am going to pound on that, again, and again, and again, and again. He is never going to hear the end of it. I am going to make him regret ever having gone to seminary.
I am going to point out his pride over, and over, and over again to the audience, and with every little mistake he makes, I am going to point out how incompetent he is even when he has a seminary degree (the more advanced the degree, the more stupid it makes him look), and every time he fails to refute a point I make or establish one of his own points, I am going to point out how badly he fails even when he has superior credentials. And then I am going to laugh, and laugh, and laugh.
This would not be just to vindicate myself, but the audience must hear this, and again, this might even save the arrogant person from his pride.
(6) Explore non-rhetorical options.
There are other things that you might do that are not rhetorical in nature. For example, you can call their professors, and tell them about the situation.
If the professors are responsible believers and not completely worthless, they might see the problem and do something to help you — some might even rebuke their former students or make them patiently talk to you about the topics in question.
If I ever find out that someone I’ve trained were to exhibit elitism, I would privately rebuke him and make him ask forgiveness from those whom he has offended. If he refuses, then he is a piece of spiritual garbage, and I would publicly denounce and humiliate him. I regard elitism in a believer as this serious and sinful, and teachers who do not correct this in their students partake in their sins.
Elitism is a sin, but it is also a tactical error in debate and discussions, especially when confronting someone who is not intimidated by it and who knows how to expose and exploit it.
There are other things that I can say, but I have already written a lot. I hope that this gives you some ideas.
(end of series)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word
Gordon Clark, The Christian Philosophy of Education
J. Gresham Machen, Education, Christianity, and the State
Seminary and Elitism (1)
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
First off, I thoroughly enjoy your website/blog. I am always edified by your posts, and your works on apologetics have fundamentally changed the way I engage unbelievers.
I am looking for some simple encouragement. It seems that historic, Reformed theology is taking a bashing. I am in a malaise right now. I am a Reformed Protestant, Baptist in bent. I have never been to seminary, and don’t plan too, for various reasons. I have friends who go into seminary believing the Bible, then come out with all sorts of stupid ideas that the Bible is "ambiguous," and "not clear" on issues like how a person gets converted to Christ!!! What is that? Maybe I am just too naive or something, I thought seminaries are supposed to teach/exegete the Word, not undermine it’s authority. Unbelievable.
I find so much encouragement from the Word and my church already, where I have some deep fellowship with other reformed folks. I guess what I am looking for is advice. How do I deal with people who are my friends, who are now very antagonistic towards Reformed theology? They are hard to reason with, because there is an arrogance — unless I know the original languages, and have put in my time in seminary, well, then I don’t "belong," I don’t really "know the issues," and I am not "nuanced" enough. Then, when I attempt to point out or question a point of their doctrinal system, they get really upset, like I am not supposed to question them, because, well, I don’t know why!!
To say the least, I get frustrated. I am sure you know what I am talking about.
Yes, I know the problem that you are talking about. There is the specific problem of rejecting Reformed theology without good arguments, and then there is the broad problem of elitism, which infects people of every theological persuasion.
The problem with elitists is not just that they often offer no actual arguments against those with whom they disagree, or that their arguments fail, but a major problem is that they are often not the elite at all, but just a bunch of big dummies! So there is both pride and self-deception.
Elitism is part of pharisaism. The Pharisees demanded proof of divine authority from John the Baptist, Christ, and the apostles, but by this they had in mind human credentials, since they had confused one with the other, or equated the two. That was the nature and extent of their own credentials, and that was what their qualifications amounted to — mere men approving one another.
And that is what a seminary degree amounts to — not the approval of God, but the approval of men. This doesn’t mean that a seminary degree is evil, but it means that we must not think of it as more than a badge of human approval. And we need more than human approval if we were to be the ministers of God.
It is true that some Calvinists have exhibited this same elitism when debating Arminians (I have in mind a prominent Calvinist who has been, probably correctly, accused of this more than once). This is a shame, because it does not amount to a good argument, and discerning people will count it against the one who uses it. It is not necessary or productive to use this point to defend Calvinism or Christianity.
To the elitist, we can point out that there are always some people (or even multitudes of them) who have greater credentials than he does, and who at the same time affirm a contrary view than he does. You don’t have to bring in the people with these greater credentials — just cite from their books. Does the elitist then surrender? Is he then reduced to silence? If he is a consistent elitist, then he should; however, more likely than not, he is going to fight on, only that he might suddenly lose interest in comparing credentials.
The truth is that most seminary graduates are very incompetent. They have learned enough to look down on others, but not enough to really know what they are talking about.
This is not hard to understand. If you have been to college, you might have realized that after graduation, you still knew relatively little about your major — you were still far from being an expert. And if you had obtained an advanced degree, whether masters or doctorate, you might have realized that although you have gotten better, you were still not very good.
The most competent thinkers are those who study and train hard outside of, after, and sometimes even without college/seminary. As Paul says, you must work hard to become a workman that can rightly handle the word of truth. In my books and articles, I have provided numerous examples of the foolish mistakes that even seasoned professors can make. Anyone who thinks that he is something when he just comes out of a seminary, even with a doctorate degree, is to be dismissed and despised.
(to be continued)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word
Gordon Clark, The Christian Philosophy of Education
J. Gresham Machen, Education, Christianity, and the State