Phriday Phil

Well its Friday and time for our weekly Phil.  I came across this while looking into the subject of Doctrine.  I was led to do so after a "conversation" I had with someone who stated that there was no difference in a Muslim rejecting the Christ of the Koran and a "Christian" (his italics not mine) who rejects the Christ of the Bible.  His conclusion "Absolutely nothing".  My point in answering him was that the Koran's Jesus is not the same as the Bible's Jesus so that in rejecting the claims of the Koran one has only rejected error.  However, by rejecting the claims of the Bible one has rejected truth and there's a vast difference between the two which he refuses to acknowledge or just cannot see.

So enjoy this classic repost from '05.

Can We Talk?

Can't we all just get along?
Why "playing nice" by postmodernist standards is a losing proposition
by Phil Johnson

The favorite buzzwords of the postmodern spirit all sound so warm and friendly, don't they? Conversation, dialogue, openness, generosity, tolerance. Who wouldn't want to participate in discourse with someone who truly prized human values such as those?

On the other hand, the very same Zeitgeist has demonized a host of other essential biblical values, such as authority, conviction, clarity, and even truth. In the milieu of the emerging discussion, this second category of words has been made to sound harsh, unreasonable, arrogant, and extreme—if not downright evil.

Moreover, postmodern human values are increasingly being defined in a way that expressly precludes eternal biblical values. For example, the prevailing opinion nowadays is that you cannot be "open" and certain at the same time. A person who speaks with too much conviction is ipso facto deemed an "intolerant" person. Above all, anyone who recognizes the full authority of Scripture and insists that God's Word deserves our unconditional submission will inevitably be accused of deliberately trying to stymie the whole "conversation."

This is not to suggest that disagreement per se is prohibited in the postmodern dialectic. Quite the contrary, "deconstruction" is all about disputes over words. Postmoderns thrive on dissent, debate, and contradiction.

And (giving credit where credit is due) it should be noted that postmodernists can sometimes be amazingly congenial in their verbal sparring with one another.

One thing the participants in the postmodern "conversation" simply will not tolerate, however, is someone who disagrees and thinks the point is really serious. Virtually no heresy is ever to be regarded as damnable. The notion that erroneous doctrine can actually be dangerous is deemed uncouth and naive. Every bizarre notion gets equal respect. Truth itself is only a matter of personal perspective, you see. Everything is ultimately negotiable.

Now, if you want to join the postmodern "conversation," you are expected to acknowledge all this up front—at least tacitly. That's the price of admission to the discussion. Once you're in, you can throw any bizarre idea you want on the table, no matter how outlandish. You can use virtually any tone or language to make your point, no matter how outrageous. But you must bear in mind that all disputation at this table is purely for sport. At the end of the day, you mustn't really be concerned about the truth or falsehood of any mere propositions.

Some "conversation." The ground rules guarantee that truth itself will be a casualty in every controversy, because regardless of the substance or the outcome of the dialogue, participants have in effect agreed up front that the propositions under debate don't really matter.

Entering the "conversation" at all is tantamount to breaking the seal on a software package. The moment you do it, you have putatively given your consent to the postmodernist's ground rules. If you then violate those rules—meaning if you take any doctrine too seriously or insist that Scripture is really authoritative—you will be savaged as someone who is cruel, intolerant, unenlightened, and hopelessly arrogant.

That's why it is well-nigh impossible to have an authentic, meaningful conversation with a devoted postmodernist and ever see anything genuinely resolved. The postmodernist by definition has no real hope or expectation of arriving at the truth of any matter. That's not the goal of the postmodernist exercise. It's not even a desirable objective. The only real point is to eliminate certitude altogether. This is done not by settling disputes, but by silencing or assimilating everyone who resists the unrestrained free flow of the postmodernist idea-exchange.

Truth is under attack on countless fronts today. What's popular these days—even among professing Christians—is glorying in ambiguity and uncertainty. Precious few are still committed without reservation to the truth and authority of Scripture. The very last thing I would willingly do in times like these would be to pledge a moratorium on candor or agree to a ceasefire with people who delight in testing the limits of orthodoxy. See Nehemiah 6:2-4.

Demonism and Deliverance Ministries

Before us this week is the topic of Demonism as it relates to the Biblical accuracy and necessity of “Deliverance” ministries.  At the heart of this discussion is, ‘Can Holy Spirit indwelt believers be demon possessed (indwelt)’ and if so, by extension, ‘Is deliverance of said “believer” the proper approach needed.’  To answer yes to the first question leads to the second, however to answer no to the first, if indeed the person is possessed calls for much more than what the deliverance ministry offers; for what is needed is salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ not just deliverance from a demon.

First, ‘Can Holy Spirit indwelt believers be demon possessed (indwelt).’  Now in proper biblical hermeneutical fashion we must observe one of the first rules of doctrinal formation; that clear doctrinal passages have priority over parables, idioms and figures of speech, unclear historic references, Old Testaments types and shadows, etc. and ‘experience’ as well.  It is the clear position of the scriptures that once an unbeliever becomes a believer, he is FILLED with the Holy Spirit.  Yet those in the opposing view would seek to compartmentalize the believer separating the spirit from the soul thereby allowing God to reside in their spirit and the demon in their soul.  One may ask and in fact God does “…what communion has light with darkness?  And what accord has Christ with Belial” (2 Cor 6:15).  Further, the scriptures make no distinction along these lines between the body, soul, or spirit of the believer but declare the believer’s body the temple of God (1 Cor 3:16).

For the purveyors of such doctrine, the scriptures must be often times ripped from out of their context or make claims that simply are not supported by the revealed facts; often reading into them things not stated as with and improper treatment of Luke 13: 10-17.  At best it is sloppy hermeneutics, at worst it is a willful twisting of the scriptures to suit sinful lusts.  Take for instance the two passages relating to Saul (1 Sam 18:10-11; 19:9-10) often cited by deliverance ministries as proof that believers can be possessed.  The scriptures note of (1 Sam 18:10-11) the distressing spirit did not possess but came ‘upon’ him, and this spirit was from God ‘Elohiym’.  In 1 Sam 19:9, 10 the evil spirit was not in but upon Saul and, again, the spirit was sent from the LORD ‘Yahweh’.  In each case, the spirit was sent by God to oppress not possess Saul.  A somewhat similar thought occurs with Job in which Satan was sent by God to “test” Job in Job 1:12 and 2:6. 

However, some would attribute these differences to differences in interpretational understanding, but the Bible is not entirely silent on this question.  Through the understanding of the Scriptures as a whole, one is lead to the inescapable conclusion that a Spirit filled, blood washed, born again believer cannot be possessed by a demonic spirit.  So, by answering question 1 with no, question 2 is negated.

But one must ask why in light of clear Scriptural teaching and church doctrinal history would this heretical teaching be gaining greater acceptance?  To answer we must allow for the ignorance of some and affirm the greed of others.  Many, especially “laity” are ignorant, some willfully, of the teaching of Scripture and this is to their shame.  And of the purveyors, again we must allow for stupidity but many teach this out of nothing more than greed.  And this is on both sides of the equation, for the professional money, recognition, and prestige is a strong lure and for the “laity” it removes the responsibility of ones sinful actions.  For if a believer can be demon possessed then it is true what the prophet Flip Wilson said in the early 70’s “The Devil made me do it” and he is responsible not me.    

Foundational Truths – God – Eternal

God Eternal

In prior posts I have established (even if in a basic form) the Existence of God and the Possibility of knowing God.  And prior to moving into the Nature of God and the relationship that exists between the Godhead i.e. the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as I indicated last week, I felt it appropriate to first establish some principles which are shared by each, namely some of their attributes. 

                                             

This will not be an in-depth exploration since literlly volumes of books have been written on this one subject alone.  The goal here will be to offer enough of a foundation from which to operate.  

Now we established earlier that God does not seek to argue His existence but He does state in many places the fact that He is ETERNAL.   

The Psalmist declares His eternality as being “from everlasting to everlasting” or from “before the beginning and after the ending” (Ps 90:2).  Isaiah declared that His name is Holy and that He lives forever (Isa 57:15).  Jeremiah recognized Him as the “everlasting King” (Jer 10:10).  Paul acknowledged His “His eternal power” (Rom 1:20) who is able to “establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ” (Rom 16:26).  As well as seeing Him as the “King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, [who will receive] honor and glory forever and ever” (1 Tim 1:17).  And three times in the Revelation of John He states of Himself as being “the Alpha and Omega, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty… the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Rev 1:8; 21:6; 22:13).

When we speak of the eternality of God we must understand that His very nature is (a) without beginning or end, free from all succession of time, and that contains within Himself the cause of time.  This means we must also differentiate between being immortal and being eternal for man is immortal and his soul will live forever but man had a beginning.  God on the other hand is without cause, He is self existent, and without beginning or end, He is outside the bounds of time.

Spurgeon commenting on His eternality use His love as an example:

Do you not know that God is an eternal, self-existent Being, that to say He loves now, is, in fact, to say He always did love, since with God there is no past, and can be no future? What we call past, present, and future, He wraps up in one eternal NOW. And if you say that He loves you now, you thereby say that He loved you yesterday, He loved you in the past eternity, and He will love you for ever; for now with God is past, present, and future. Those who talk of God’s beginning to love His people know not “what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” They might speak of man beginning to love; they might speak of angels beginning to love; but of God we never can, since He, without beginning, had a deathless love in His heart; He has an affection which has no source except in Himself, He could not begin, for He is without beginning of years, and without end of days. From everlasting to everlasting He is God; and from everlasting to everlasting His mercies extend to His people. (from his sermon "Christ's Prayer for Believers")

              

So how does the eternity of God affect our life?  For all of us as human beings, life is full of surprises.  We can never know with certainty what lies around each corner, but while we do not know what is around that corner, as believers in Christ, we do know Him who holds the future and for whom nothing is a surprise.  Since nothing ever surprises God, no problem we will ever face catches Him by surprise for it is the Lord who sees the future as clearly as the present.

Absolute Necessity of Sound Doctrine

Is there really a need for sound doctrine in the believer’s life?  I mean is it important to establish clearly whether the Bible makes correct teaching, sound doctrine, ...necessary for the progress of the Christian life.”  In exploring this we will center around two questions “how does the New Testament present the doctrine of doctrine; and what is the relation between doctrine and life?

There is a paradox of 21^st century American life with the plethora of Biblical texts, commentaries, and sermons.  We have at our disposal “millions of books, including vast collections of reformational texts of theology, Bible exegesis, commentary, and sermons.”  And yet we, for the most part, cannot “…give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you…” (1 Peter 3:15).  It seems that someone’s intention is paramount and has supremacy over a proper presentation of the Scriptures.  It is heard throughout the land “they have a good heart” which is usually preceded by some asinine statement or action which cannot be defended by Scripture.  Yet most of the people attending our churches seem to function as if somehow sincerity will do instead of truth.

However, the heresy that somehow there is a disconnect between the head and the “heart” of a Christian is to neglect the clear teaching of the Scriptures.  Yet this does not seem to matter to the Christian who has “experienced” something.  And yet the LORD says, “Come now, and let us reason together…” (Isa 1:18) which is clearly an act of the mind and will.

In addressing the “Doctrine of Doctrine” found in the N.T., we first view it from a negative perspective as the scriptures repeatedly warns the reader of the damage done because of false doctrine.  It is because of this damage that elders are instructed to, be active in opposition to these things and ever vigilant against them.  It is in defense of sound doctrine that the believer should use the examples found in the N.T. approach in battling false doctrine.  1 – Apologetics is an essential part of the Gospel, 2 –Apologetics is therefore not an optional extra, but an integral part of the apostolic mandate, and 3 – Apologetics is for unbelievers a defense of the truth, and for believers a confirming of the apostolic message.

 

From a positive perspective, the believer is exhorted to learn or educate oneself that they may educate others.  It is the profitability of sound doctrine which gives rise to its necessity; as Paul states in 2 Tim 3:16 that all of the Scriptures are given by God and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.  Its result if properly applied is found in verse 17, he will be a man of God, complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work.  No more comprehensive statement could be made of the perfect sufficiency of Scripture.

The necessity of sound doctrine is exemplified in that only through it can the believer know the will of God in any given circumstance.  Since God’s word is His revelation of His will to man, if one is to walk in accordance to His will he must first understand and properly apply its precepts.  It is axiomatic, since in these last days He has “spoken to us by His Son (The Word)” (Heb 1:2) and the Word is contained, at least as much as His revelation to us, in the pages of the Holy Bible, the only way to be in His will is to dwell in sound doctrine.   And it is here in the life of the believer that sound doctrine is to be manifested.