Where are the references?

The Bible is not an encyclopedia, dictionary or theology textbook. Proof-texting is an illegitimate method for substantiating one's theology. Isolated statements from Scripture can be used to illustrate a position, but they are worthless in proving it. Doing theology has little in common with doing geometry proofs. It's more of an art than it is a science. But it does have a lot in common with the discovery of new scientific theories which are persuasive because of their elegance and explanatory power.

Back to Why?

For the Record—Part 2

It seems that this lack of willingness for open dialogue is not limited to just a few sites.

Over at Slice of Laodicea they published a diatribe against a rap video produced for the 2006 Purpose-Driven Worship Conference. Then another harangue was posted claiming that it was blasphemous.

I posted the following comment:

This amazes me. No, not the video, but everyone's reaction to it.

Does this video push the limits? Certainly. Is it irreverent? Maybe if you think wearing jeans to church is irreverent.

Is the use of the word “Ho” unwise? Probably. Does that make this dangerous? Not unless you find the word “crap” offensive.

I tend to restrict the word “blasphemy” for things that are much more seriously an affront to God. But there is precedence for a broader meaning of the word.

"In the NT, blasphemy takes on the wider Greek meaning, for it includes slandering a human being (Mt 15:19; see also Rom 3:8; 1 Cor 10:30; Eph 4:31; Ti 3:2), as well as God. It even includes mocking angelic or demonic powers, which is just as wrong as mocking any other being (2 Pt 2:10–12, Jude 1:8–10). In other words, slander, derision, and mocking of any kind are totally condemned in the NT" (Tyndale Bible Dictionary).

Sounds like many of the things said about Rick Warren, N. T. Wright, and Brian McLaren might fit into this category.

Ingrid then made a new post entitled, “Pastor Defends Rap Video.” Several misrepresentations were made in the post and the comments. When I attempted to clear these up, my comments were not posted. (Notice a pattern here?)

So here’s the essence of what Ingrid kept me from posting (in two separate posts):

I never defended the video. I simply said that I thought you all were making too big a deal of it. I didn’t send this as an e-mail. I posted it in the other thread as a comment.

Then there followed the customary piling on by all the usual suspects, including Jim from OldTruth who has been following me around trying to impugn my character.

Many of these same people were over at the blog of Michael Lukaszewski, pastor of the Oak Leaf Church questioning his salvation and integrity.

God Bless,

Rod

For the Record

In case anyone in interested, here’s the background of what has been happening over at EmergentNo, a Web site that takes as its mission the responsibility to expose the “error” of the Emerging Church. Carla made this post responding to Brian McLaren’s answer to his critics.

She writes:

As I read the friendly note this morning, it occured [sic] to me that the vast majority of people I have read critiquing Brian McLaren, do so with a passion for truth and a zeal for accuracy & context. Oddly enough, those are two of the things McLaren says folks are not using (truth & accuracy) when they critique his work.

Then she sets out a detailed (eight-part) analysis of his friendly note to his critics. She lists what she considers logical and theological errors in what McLaren has to say.

In reading this analysis, I found it to have its own errors and problems. Yet the first three comments start out like this: “Good post, Carla.” “Excellent critique!” “Right on the money Carla.”

So I set out to do an analysis of the analysis. (It required two posts, because the commenting software has a character limit.)

My experience has been that objectivity and fair treatment are in short supply at this site. And I knew that I was inviting a barrage of personal attacks. I was not disappointed.

(Interestingly enough, I couldn’t get anyone to address the logical fallacies and other problems that I pointed out in Carla’s analysis. Not a single person addressed a single issue that I raised.)

I was told that my comments were “ungracious & uncalled for.” But when I pressed for examples (repeatedly), none were given.

Shortly after I made my first post, a comment was made at Kingdom Come. This person said, “Sorry to be off-topic here, but I just read your response to Carla over at ENo -- thanks for putting the time and energy into responding so articulately. I really enjoyed reading what you had to say.”

The comment thread at EmergentNo continued for more than 100 comments.

In the course of this banter, I engaged a couple of Carla’s supporters in dialogue. One of them eventually said, “Thank you for your posting. I understand what you are saying, even if I dont [sic] agree with you, I do understand. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this. Thank you!”

Another one said, “Thanks for the thoughtful post and excellent questions…. I have noted the careful, deliberative way you have made your remarks here. While you might not agree with me totally, you at least are much more thoughtful and careful then others have been here.”

One person who did not agree with Carla said that I was “thoughtful and kind.”

Carla made another post on the blog with the comments turned off. Without addressing the issue directly, she tried to explain why she didn’t feel the responsibility to respond to every comment.

I responded to that statement with a further comment in the previous thread.

I was continuing my amicable dialogue, now with two of Carla’s supporters (the ones I just quoted above with the positive statements), when I was secretly banned from making any comments. There was no public statement that I was being denied the right to publish my comments. I was simply locked out.

Carla makes it her business to hold other people’s feet to the fire. But when she is challenged, she says, “I’m just a humble, home school mom without any formal training in logic or theology.”

I don’t want to make it my mission in life to point out the errors of other people. But I needed to set the record straight.

God Bless,

Rod

2 John 7-11

“Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work” (2 John 7-11).

This is talking about itinerant teachers who are teaching error, a very specific error. They are teaching that Jesus did not come to earth as a true human, that he only appeared to have a human body. The Elder warns that hospitality is not to be extended to such a person. This does not justify refusing hospitality to those who disagree with us on some point of theology.

Return to Radical Hospitality.

Jesus as a stranger

Jesus was born in a stable because there was no room for him in the inn (Luke 2:7). He came to his own, but they rejected him (John 1:11). He was rejected in his home town (Luke 4:28-29). He had no place to lay his head (Luke 9:58).

Return to Radical Hospitality.

Tax collectors & sinners

“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners” ’ ” (Luke 7:34).

Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way. When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly. All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a ‘sinner.’” But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost” (Luke 19:1-10).

Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them. When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner” (Luke 7:36-39).

Return to Radical Hospitality.

Leprosy

This term is used for many different skin diseases that could be spread throughout the community. They were declared unclean by the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 13, Numbers 5:2). Jesus, however, touched a man with leprosy in the act of healing him (Matthew 8:3).

Return to Radical Hospitality.

Desperate

Here’s an example of who I’m talking about.

Pastor Rod

“Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be”

Open Debate

If you found something at Kingdom Come that you want to debate at length, you can do it here.

Pastor Rod

Calvinism and Choice

The Calvinist system defines “choice,” “freedom” and “will” in such a way that it is impossible for anyone to cite a passage from the Bible that a Calvinist cannot interpret to fit his framework.

This framework is based on what I consider some philosophical sleight of hand. Here is a passage from Jonathan Edwards:

The plain and obvious meaning of the words freedom and liberty, in common speech, is power, opportunity, or advantage, that any one has to do as he pleases. Or in other words, his being free from hindrance or impediment in the way of doing, or conducting, in any respect, as he ‘wills.’ And the contrary to liberty, whatever name we call that by, is a person’s being hindered or unable to conduct as he will, or being necessitated to do otherwise (Edwards, Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2, sec. 5).

The first sentence sounds reasonable enough. Freedom means the power to do as one pleases. But Edwards means something very different from what a non-Calvinist thinks he is saying. Edwards means that a person is “free” to do what his “will” determines that he do. The “will,” in Edward’s view is entirely determined. But as long as a person acts according to his “will,” he is “free.”

This does not mean that a person is free to choose between several different options. This does not mean that a person has the power to determine what his will is.

Edwards explains this:

What has been said may be sufficient to show what is meant by liberty, according to the common notions of mankind, and in the usual and primary acceptation of the word: but the word, as used by Arminians, Pelagians, and others, who oppose the Calvinists, has an entirely different signification. These several things belong to their notion of liberty. That it consists in self-determining power in the will, or a certain sovereignty the will has over itself, and its own acts, whereby it determines its own volition’s; so as not to be dependent in its determinations on any cause without itself, nor determined by any thing prior to its own acts (Edwards, Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2, sec. 5).

If one accepts these definitions that Edwards uses and the relationship of choice and will that he affirms, then any Bible passage calling for a choice can be accommodated quite nicely in the Calvinist system. (There are only a few minor exceptions.)

In other words, it is a waste of time to try to convince a Calvinist that the Bible teaches that humans have choice. They say, “Of course they do.” They mean something very different, however, than what the non-Calvinist means. They mean that a person is free to choose his greatest desire as determined by his will. This is always a single thing.

The non-Calvinist might protest that this is not fair. “How can people be responsible for their choices when they can only choose one thing? This sounds like a Soviet election.”

The Calvinist responds that a person chooses what he wants to choose; therefore, he is responsible.

The non-Calvinist again protests, “But those who receive God’s grace do not choose it freely. They are forced to make that choice by God.”

The Calvinist smiles and shakes his head as if talking to a small child, “God doesn’t force anyone against his will. God changes the person’s will so that he chooses faith in Christ willingly.”

The non-Calvinist becomes frustrated and accuses the Calvinist of ignoring the plain teaching of the Bible. The Calvinist simply replies, “If you want to prove that Calvinism is not biblical, then you should at least do your research and know what you are talking about.”

Once this fortress of “choice,” “freedom” and “will” has been erected, it is impregnable. Once you grant Calvinism its definitions and philosophical framework, it can withstand any attack on the issue of free will.

The non-Calvinist “feels” that Calvinism is not right. But he doesn’t seem to be able to make any headway in establishing a case against it. This is because the battle is over before it begins. It’s a little bit like playing a game with a die:

Calvinist: “Wanna play a game?”
Non-Calvinist: “Sure, what is it?”
C: “It’s called Everyone Has an Equal Chance”
N: “OK, that sounds like a fair game. How do you play.”
C: “You roll a die, and number that comes up determines who wins.”
N: “Are the numbers divided equally?”
C: “Of course, they are divided into the even numbers and the odd numbers.”
N: “That’s equal. One, three and five are odd. Two, four and six are even.”
C: “OK, here’s how it works. If I roll an odd number, I win.”
N: “What happens if I roll an odd number?”
C: “If you roll an odd number, then I also win.”
N: “OK, I think I see how this works. The odd numbers belong to you, and the even numbers belong to me, right?”
C: “That’s right. If I roll an even number you lose.”
N: “Wait a minute. What happens if I roll an even number?”
C: “Then you also lose.”
N: “This doesn’t seem right.”
C: “But you already agreed that it was fair because the numbers were divided evenly.”
N: “But I can’t win.”
C: “Who said anything about that?”

This is the game you play if you try to prove libertarian free will by citing Bible verses. Unless you renegotiate the rules of the game, you cannot win.