That’s how the verse reads in the KJV: Avoid every appearance of evil. It’s 1 Thess 5.22 and it puts a damper on everything. But does it really mean this? Does it really mean that even if something looks like it’s evil to some, we can’t enjoy it? Hardly.

The Greek text really should be translated, abstain from every form of evil. There is a genuine correspondence between form and evil: that is, stay away from evil things. But the reason that form (or, in the KJV, appearance) was used is because Paul is speaking about false doctrine. This verse, in fact, was more often attributed to Jesus than to Paul in the early church, suggesting that Paul got this line from his Lord and that it was one of the sayings that for some reason didn’t make it into the gospels but was nevertheless an authentic saying of Jesus. It was used with literal reference to coins; to abstain from every form of evil was to avoid counterfeit teaching. Further, in the context, it seems clear that Paul is speaking about false teaching. Verses 19-22 read as follows:

Do not quench the Spirit;
Do not despise prophecies;
But examine all things: cling to the good, abstain from every form of evil.

In context, Paul is saying that false teaching should be avoided, but true teaching should be what believers follow. They shouldn’t be duped, shouldn’t become gullible, but must test prophets and see whether they are from the Lord. They need to examine all these teachings and cling to the good and throw out the bad.

If we look at the broader context of the New Testament as a whole, we see that Paul was certainly not speaking about avoiding every appearance of evil in 1 Thessalonians 5. His own mission was governed by the mantra, I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I might save some (1 Cor 9.22).

Further, consider the life of Jesus. The distinct impression one gets from the gospels is that Jesus simply did not have the same scruples about his associations that the religious leaders of the day had. They avoided the appearance of evil at all costs; Jesus seems almost to have had the opposite approach to life and ministry (see, e.g., Luke 7:39). Even his disciples had been oppressed by all the rules and traditions of men. But Jesus freed them from such nonsense. In Matt 15, the Pharisees were stunned that Jesus’ disciples did not perform the Jewish hand-washing ritual before they ate. They hammered on the disciples and on Jesus for not obeying the oral commandments. Jesus did not say, Sorry, boys. I didn’t mean to cause offense. It won’t happen again. Instead, he very boldly pointed out that these religious leaders had exchanged the laws of God for their own self-made rules. He called them hypocrites who had no heart for God. The most remarkable verse in this whole pericope is verse 12: Jesus’ disciples came to their Master and said, Did you know that the Pharisees were offended by what you just said? Didn’t they know that offending the Pharisees was part of Jesus’ job description!

To wield 1 Thess 5.22 as a weapon to restrict a believer’s personal freedom is against the general tenor of the New Testament and of the Lord’s life in particular. Ironically, to avoid every appearance of evil is far more in keeping with the Pharisees’ model of righteousness than with Jesus’! I like John Piper’s notion of Christian hedonism for it falls in line with the Westminster Confession’s statement that our prime objective is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Gee, maybe that’s what the Christian faith is all about? What a novel concept!Similar Posts:

• Was James Being Legalistic in Acts 15? or “Can I Eat a Rare Steak?”
• The Myth of “Abraham’s Bosom”
• Don’t forget to enjoy life
• Inviting Jesus into your Heart (Dan Wallace)
• Walid Shoebat Youtube Video on the Mark of the Beast

While the issues are complex and I do not wish to enter into a dialogue about this person’s spiritual state, I do want to mention a verse that has put him in a spiritually catatonic state. He believes that, “like it was with Esau,” it is too late for him. He believes that the repentance that he seeks has been removed from the table. In other words, he believes that there is a time when repentance is no longer possible.

Here is the verse often referred to in support of this idea:

Heb 12:17 
“For you know that even afterward, when he [Esau] desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears. (NAU)

The impression is that Esau rejected the blessing of God through his birthright (which is true). When he later realized how fool-hearted this was and turned to God for repentance, he was rejected. It was just too late.

Even John Piper, whom I love and respect very much, uses this verse in such a way. Speaking about those who are in hell, he says that they will desire repentance, but have their desire rejected. Like Esau, it will be too late

When he [the unbeliever] dies, he will be shocked beyond words. The miseries [in hell] are so great he would do anything in his power to escape. That it is not in his power to repent does not mean he wants to be there. Esau wept bitterly that he could not repent (Hebrew 12:17). The hell he was entering into he found to be totally miserable, and he wanted out. The meaning of hell is the scream: “I hate this, and I want out.” (source)

While I have a different take then Piper concerning people’s disposition in Hell (see my “Why is Hell Eternal“), I also think he follows the popular (and understandable), yet wrong, conception of what is being communicated here.

The question is What did Esau seek with tears? What is the “it”? Piper assumes that it is repentance. While the translation I used (NAU) leaves the question open for interpretation, the word order in English does not bring out the possibilities. It does seem like it is repentance that Esau is seeking. Notice how so many other translations give this impression as well:

KJV: For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

ESV: For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

NKJ: For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears.

NLT: You know that afterward, when he wanted his father’s blessing, he was rejected. It was too late for repentance, even though he begged with bitter tears.

RSV: For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

All of these translations give the impression that what Esau sought for was repentance. If this were the case, this is a cause for great concern since it would teach that we can turn to God with tears, truly seeking repentance, but be unable to find it. It would teach that there are people who truly want to turn from their sin, but cannot find the ability to repent. It would teach that there exists the possibility for you to approach the throne of God requesting the gift of repentance and be turned down. It would teach that there is a time in this life when it is just too late, no matter how much you desire to change. That is scary.

However, there is another, and I believe, more faithful way to understand this passage. You see the pronoun “it” has not one but two possible referents. When structured like the translations above, the common way to read this in English is to look for the closest possibility as the referent to what Esau sought. The closest referent to “it” is “repentance.” However, the Greek goes by different rules. Word order is secondary to inflection. The word “it” is a feminine pronoun. This means that the noun which it modifies will be feminine too. In this verse there are two feminine nouns: “repentance” and “blessing.” Therefore, there are two viable options here for what Esau sought with tears. It was either repentance or the blessing. Neither is preferred based on grammar and syntax, therefore we must look to the context of the story the author of Hebrews is alluding to.

When we turn back to this story in Genesis 27, we see Esau being tricked out of his blessing by both Jacob and his mother. After Esau found out he had been tricked and Isaac had blessed Jacob rather than him, he broke down. Notice how the narrative goes:

Gen 27:35-38
And he [Isaac] said [to Esau], “Your brother came deceitfully and has taken away your blessing.” 36 Then he said, “Is he not rightly named Jacob, for he has supplanted me these two times? He took away my birthright, and behold, now he has taken away my blessing.” And he said, “Have you not reserved a blessing for me?” 37 But Isaac replied to Esau, “Behold, I have made him your master, and all his relatives I have given to him as servants; and with grain and new wine I have sustained him. Now as for you then, what can I do, my son?” 38 Esau said to his father, “Do you have only one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, O my father.” So Esau lifted his voice and wept. (NAU, emphasis mine).

You see that Esau did indeed weep. He did indeed repent. But what was it he repented and wept over? It was the loss of his blessing. The context seems clear that the author of Hebrews is saying that Esau sought his blessing with tears, not repentance.

I think some of these translations do a good job of bringing out this nuance:

TNIV: Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could not change what he had done.

NJB: As you know, when he wanted to obtain the blessing afterward, he was rejected and, though he pleaded for it with tears, he could find no way of reversing the decision.

NRS: You know that later, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, even though he sought the blessing with tears.

NAB: For you know that later, when he wanted to inherit his father’s blessing, he was rejected because he found no opportunity to change his mind, even though he sought the blessing with tears.

NET: For you know that later when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no opportunity for repentance, although he sought the blessing with tears.

It is unfortunate when Bible translations seek to leave the options open in situations such as this. This is one of those places where I believe translation philosophy militates against the clearer meaning of the text. I understand the reasoning in many cases, but here, the casualties are plenty as the implications are severe. Normally we would seek to leave ambiguity where it truly exists. I get that. But can we really say that this passage presents us with such a dilemma? Its it really ambiguous enough to leave the English word order in such a misleading way? I applaud the later translations for bringing out the meaning of this passage and hope the updates on other translations such as the ESV and the NAS follow suit.

I believe that the Bible teaches that there is never a day when repentance is beyond our grasp. Even the thief on the cross was able to find humble repentance in his words “remember me when you come into your kingdom.” This is the wonder of our God and the Gospel message. God’s love makes repentance always acceptable no matter where you find yourself in life. If you seek repentance, you will find it. God’s grace is that radical.

Mat 7:7-8
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.Similar Posts:

• Inviting Jesus into your Heart (Dan Wallace)
• How to Know if you’re Elect (Sam Storms)
• Letting My Children Cry
• Will One White Lie Send You to Hell for All Eternity?
• Why Do I (A Calvinist) Go to An Arminian Church?

So far so good? But there is a problem: what about all God’s people who came before Christ’s death? What about Abraham, Moses, David, and Isaiah? According to the theory, they were not yet covered by Christ blood. Conclusion: they, before Christ’s death, were not in the presence of God. They were somewhere else waiting for their sins to be covered.

This “somewhere else” was known as “Abraham’s Bosom.” Think “Protestant Purgatory” or something like that. Abraham’s Bosom existed as a holding tank for God’s people until Christ’s death on the cross. Once the atonement was made, Abraham’s Bosom it was vacated as all its occupants were ushered into God’s presence in heaven.

The name “Abraham’s Bosom” came from the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16. “Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried” (Luke 16:22). Notice, this parable was given before Christ’s atonement. Therefore, people have said that this must be the place, between heaven and hell, that pre-Cross saints went to.

Why there is no such thing as Abraham’s Bosom

As nice and tidy as that might sound theologically and biblically, it does not really work. There is no such place as Abraham’s Bosom.

First, the idea that God cannot be in the presence of sin is untenable.

The passage in Hab. 1:13 simply means that God is too pure to approve sin. It has nothing to do with sin or evil being in God’s presence. Here are some of the reasons:

• After the fall, we find God walking in the Eden with Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:8).
• Satan himself can be in God’s presence. In Job 1:6, we see Satan presenting himself before God (see also 1 Chron 18:18-21; Rev. 12:10).
• Christians, who are still sinners (1 John 1:8), are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Obviously the Holy Spirit must be able to be in the presence of sin.
• Christ, God incarnate, was in the presence of sin the whole time he walked the earth (John 1:14). He was even carried in the womb of a sinner!

Second, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus does not teach that “Abraham’s Bosom” is a separate heaven.

In the parable, Christ is confronting the religious leaders’ bad theology. They were lovers of money (Luke 16:14). They believed that being rich and healthy was a sign that God was on your side. If you were poor and sick then God was not with you. In the parable, the rich man, whom all the Pharisees thought was the best Jew with great rewards waiting for him in heaven, found himself in torment in Hell. The poor sick man, who was, in the mind of the Pharisees, a bad Jew, was ushered by the angels to Abraham’s “side” or “bosom.” The idea is not ontological (dealing with a physical place), but relational. To be at one’s side or bosom represented the closest place of fellowship one could have with another. The one who the Pharisees believed was not a good child of Abraham winds up at the closest place of fellowship that there is—Abraham’s bosom. Christ was being rhetorical. The rich man is unnamed and forgotten forever. Lazarus’ name means “God helps”. The rich man dies and is buried. The poor man dies and is carried by the angels. The rich man goes to hell, “far away” from Abraham (Luke 16:23). The poor man goes to Abraham’s side, in heaven.

Conclusion

Saints in the Old Testament did not need a special dispensation. God can be in the presence of sin. If he could not be in the presence of sin, we are in big trouble. Nevertheless, they were forgiven in anticipation of Christ’s atonement. When David, Abraham, Moses, and other Old Testament saints died, they immediately went into the presence of God on the bases of Christ’s shed blood, though yet future.

Romans 3:24-26
“Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”Similar Posts:

• Health-Wealth Gospel of Suicide
• Will One White Lie Send You to Hell for All Eternity?
• Should the Church Seek for Miracles Signs?
• A Near Death Experience? A Theological Evaluation of Don Piper’s “90 Minutes in Heaven”
• Was God’s purpose in creation to glorify Himself?

Both of these assumptions, however, are based on little evidence. Further, the resultant notion is anything but clear. To invite Christ into one’s heart is hardly a clear picture of the gospel.

Regarding the idea that those in the Laodicean church were not believers, note that in the preceding verse, the resurrected Lord declares, “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline.” Here φιλέω is used for “love”—a term that is never used of God/Jesus loving unbelievers in the NT. This φιλέω is applied to the Laodiceans here, for the verse concludes, “Be zealous, therefore, and repent.” The inferential ‘therefore’ connects the two parts of the verse, indicating that the Laodiceans are to repent because Christ loves (φιλέω) them!

The second assumption is that εισελεύσομαι πρό means ‘come into.’ Such an assumption is based on a less than careful reading of the English text. The ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, for example, all correctly render it ‘come in to.’ (Note the space between the prepositions.) The idea of ‘come into’ would be expressed with είς as the independent preposition and would suggest a penetration into the person (thus, spawning the idea of entering into one’s heart). However, spatially πρό means toward, not into. In all eight instances of εισοέρχομαι πρό in the NT, the meaning is ‘come in toward/before a person’ (i.e., enter a building, house, room, etc., so as to be in the presence of someone), never penetration into the person himself/herself. In some instances, such a view would not only be absurd, but inappropriate (cf. Mark 6:25; 15:43; Luke 1:28; Acts 10:3; 11:3; 16:40; 17:2; 28:8).

What, then, is this verse is affirming? First, it is not an offering of salvation. The implications of this are manifold. Among other things, to use this text as a salvation verse is a perversion of the simplicity of the gospel. Many people have allegedly “received Christ into their hearts” without understanding what that means or what the gospel means. Although this verse is picturesque, it actually muddies the waters of the truth of salvation. Reception of Christ is a consequence, not a condition, of salvation. Second, as far as the positive meaning of this verse, it may refer to Christ having supremacy in the assembly or even to an invitation (and, consequently, a reminder) to believers to share with him in the coming kingdom. Either way, it is not a verse about salvation at all, for the Laodiceans were already saved.

Does this mean that those who have come to faith in Christ via Rev 3:20 are not saved? This answer needs some nuancing. First, if they have truly put their faith in Christ, and they understand that he alone can save them from their sins, then of course they are saved. The problem is that many people cling to the symbol but never understand the reality it is intended to represent. Hundreds of thousands of people have “invited Christ into [their] hearts,” thinking that a mystical experience is what saves them. Then, they go on their merry way, living their lives as they did before. If you were to ask them, “How do you know that you are going to heaven?” they would respond, “Because I invited Christ into my heart.” But if you probe, there is nothing beneath the shallowness of that reply. They did what someone told them to do, but never really embraced the Savior.

What then should we say when we are trying to lead someone to Christ? I think a better picture is simply what the New Testament uses as its normative word– πίστι/πιστεύω. The noun form (πίστι) can be translated ‘faith,’ ‘belief,’ or ‘trust.’ The verb can be translated ‘I believe,’ ‘I have faith,’ ‘I trust.’ In some contexts the object of belief is emphasized (namely, Christ); in other contexts, the kind of belief is emphasized (namely, a genuine trust, an embracing). Thus, πίστι has this twofold force of content and conviction. To be saved, one must have the right object of faith (content); and one must truly put his trust entirely in that object (conviction).

If it causes us some measure of panic to have to use other than Revelation 3:20 when we share the gospel, keep in mind that the earliest Christians did not have this verse. Revelation is the last book of the Bible to be written. How was it possible for Peter and Paul and James to ever see anyone get saved without this verse? They never had it! But if I read the book of Acts correctly, they had a measure of success in sharing the gospel even in spite of this handicap.Similar Posts:

• "You Ask Me How I Know He Lives . . . He Lives Within My Heart". . . And Other Stupid Statements
• 51% Protestant
• 51% Protestant
• Corporate Election (Dan Wallace)
• Charismata and the Authority of Personal Experience

Obviously, I am going to say something that is at odds with the common conception among those of us who grew up in the context of our western Judeo-Christian culture, otherwise I would not have included the word “really,” and put it in italics! The reader must also be warned that I am going to use a phrase that is very offensive to many. I am assuming that I am dealing with a mature audience who understands the intentionality that I bring to this blog. If what I am proposing here is correct, we all need to hear this in order to overcome a serious issue of folk theology that damages the character of God and misrepresents what it means to talk in a “Christian” manner.

For most, the ultimate violation of the third commandment, “You shall not take the Lord your God’s name in vain,” is to say “God damn it.” You can use just about every other word or phrase, no matter how bad, but when your vulgarity includes the utilization of this phrase, many would believe that you have crossed the line. You might even be charged with blasphemy. Some people will stand before God and when asked “Why should I let you in to heaven?” will proudly say, “Because I did not murder, commit adultery, and I never said the ‘G D’ word.” (Please note, I don’t think God is going to ask that question. Don’t go there.)

I believe we have this wrong. In fact, from a purely objective standpoint, I don’t believe that this phrase causes God to bat an eye whatsoever. Think about it this way for a moment. Why would calling on God to damn something be so bad? What does the verb “damn” mean? The American Heritage Dictionary defines the verb ”to damn” as “the act of pronouncing an adverse judgement upon.” To call upon God to damn something is neither sinful nor unbiblical. In fact, you can find people throughout Scripture, especially in the imprecatory Psalms, who call upon God to bring judgement on their enemies. In other words, they are asking for God to damn those who they feel are ripe for His judgement. In this sense, saying “God damn you” can be as biblical as saying “God bless you.”

Some may say to me the reason why this is a violation of the third commandment is because people are using God’s name in a “vain,” “worthless,” or “empty” way. In this case, to say “God damn it!” in our colloquial tongue is not the same as seriously calling upon God to damn something or someone in a biblical sense. For these people, if you say it with the biblical meaning, fine, but if you say it casually, then you have used His name in an “empty” way and thereby have broken the third commandment.

But there are three major problems with this line of reasoning: 

1) “God” is not the name of God, but a common phrase used to refer to deities in general. How can a generic classification be considered a formal name? It would be like you saying that my name is “person.” God gives His name to Moses in the book of Exodus. His name is Yahweh. Would you have the same offense if someone were to stub their toe and say “Yahweh damn it!”? I doubt it. This demonstrates that it is a cultural thing taboo more than anything else.

2) If the principle that we are going by is that we are not to use God’s name and not really mean it, then I believe that we are very inconsistent in what we take offense to as a culture. Why don’t people get offended when others say “God bless you?” Do you think that every time someone says this that they really mean it? Do you think that in their mind they are really talking to God, beseeching on your behalf for a blessing? Just about every email I get ends with the phrase, “God bless.” I seriously doubt that that person actually said a prayer for me before he or she hit send. If this is the case, then why is saying ”God bless you” not just as much a violation of the third commandment as saying “God damn you”? Is it more biblical to ask for God’s kindness or judgment? I don’t think anyone who is honest with themselves can say that they are consistent in this regard. Saying “God bless you” and not meaning it should be just as bad as saying “God damn you” and not meaning it.

3) This is the most important so I have saved it for last. In fact, if what I am about to say is true, then the first two don’t really make a difference. The question is this: What does it mean to use God’s name in an empty or vain way? What does the third commandment really mean? It is hard to tell from a simple word study on the Hebrew term naqa (vain). As well, our understanding of a “name” and what it signifies is much different than what it meant in the context in which this commandment was given. What we have to do is to try to understand what it meant then, so that we can understand how it applies now. It does us no good to anachronistically impose our understanding upon an ancient text. This is eisegesis (reading into the text what we presuppose), not exegesis (letting the text speak on its own terms).

Briefly, here is what I believe your studies will show. The nations to which the Israelites were going had many gods. They were highly superstitious. Their prophets would often use the name of their god in pronouncements. The usage could be in a curse, hex, or even a blessing. They would use the name of their god to give their statements, whatever they may be, authority. To pronounce something in their own name would not have given their words much weight, but to pronounce something in the name of a god meant that people would listen and fear. They may have said, “In the name of Baal, there will be no rain for 40 days.” Or “In the name of Marduk, I say that you will win this battle.” This gave the prophet much power and authority. But, as we know, there is no Baal or Marduk. Since this is the case, they did not really make such pronouncement and therefore the words of the prophet had no authority and should neither have been praised or feared.

God, I believe, was attempting to prevent the Israelites from doing the same thing. God was saying for them not to use His name like the nations used the names of their gods. He did not want them to use His name to invoke false authority behind pronouncements. In essence, God did not want the Israelites to say that He said something that He had not said. This makes sense. God has a reputation to protect. He does not want anyone saying “Thus sayeth the Lord” if the Lord had not spoken. All of you have experienced this. You have had people say you said something you did not say. This can be very damaging to your character. It is very destructive to your name. Why? Because it makes you out to be something that you are not. How much more important is it for God to protect His character? It is fitting that God would have put this as one of the ten most important commandments as the nation of Israel moved towards Canaan. It is his name (i.e. reputation) that is at stake.

What does this mean for us? Well, for starters we understand that the third commandment is not focused on something so trivial as saying “God damn it!” The funny thing is that while some people may never think of using that phrase, people all over the Christian religious landscape are breaking the third commandment every day, damaging the Lord’s reputation. “Thus sayeth the Lord . . .” “God told me to tell you . . .” “God says that if you send in this much money, you will be blessed.” I could go on and on, but you get the point. Using the name of the Lord in vain, I believe, means that you do damage to His reputation and character through false and unsure claims.

Therefore, think deeply before you say “God said . . .” Make sure that He has really said it. Don’t be flippent by trying to encourage a friend and say, “God is telling you . . .” If you are unsure, make your statement reflect your uncertianty. Saying “I think God is telling you to . . .” rather than “God is telling you to . . .” may not be as authoritative, but it will keep God’s reputation safe and keep you from breaking the third commandment.

I think that this misunderstanding of the third commandment is not only sad, but tragic. If I were Satan, I can’t think of a better way to trivialize such an important commandment and misrepresent the character of God than to make people focus its essence on the phrase ”God damn it.”

Does this mean that I believe that we can now say the phrase ”God damn it” and not worry about it? Not exactly. I think that using this phrase in a colloquial way is offensive in many (if not most) contexts. We don’t want to be offensive. It all comes back to being intentional with everything we say (Eph. 4:29). While it is not necessarily a violation of the third commandment, it is offensive speech that must be used with wisdom and discretion.Similar Posts:

• Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain: What Does it Really Mean?
• Can Christian’s Curse?
• The Ten Commandments in Reverse
• What Does it Really Mean to Keep the Sabbath
• The Anatomy of Belief (4): Complexities of Conviction

Christians often scare me. Really, all religious people scare me. But Christians in particular because they are the ones I have to deal with everyday. I have a deep empathy for the so-called “new atheists” such as Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens who find religion repulsive and counterproductive to the betterment of society. While I completely disagree with them for a variety of reasons that will not be covered here, I can put myself in their shoes and find myself saying the same things. Namely: Christians can be so bizarre.

Seriously, we can produce the craziest nutcases the world has to offer. Sadly, it is often our beliefs that are the issue. From the “God told me to kill my children,”  “I cannot talk to you because you are going through a divorce,” “If you say the earth is going around the Sun we are going to put you in jail,” to “Our ministry needs a million dollars or I am going to kill myself,”  we have our embarrassments. The things said and done in the name of God are astonishing and disturbing. Yes, I know. Everyone has their nutcases, but we have the tendency to breed a special variety. I have already, in times past, talked trash on my own breed: Calvinism. But now I am going to get after the species in general: Christians.

In the interest of full-disclosure I must tell you something. I have Gail Riplinger’s book Which Bible is God’s Word sitting right in front of me. Its basic argument is that all Bible translations other than the King James Bible are from Satan. Oh yeah, I am serious. The sin is not that I have this book, but that it is representative of times past when I was, for about six weeks, a KJV Only advocate, believing that all other Bible versions were from Satan. To make matters worse I was actually an outspoken evangelist of this belief. I told my family, my friends, and everyone who would listen about Satan’s plot to get you to read another version of the Bible. I can only imagine what the conversation sounded like. I had “evidence” that I thought was solid, but as I look back on this “evidence”, my face turns red. I guess I keep Riplinger’s book in front of me to keep me humble and always aware of how bizarre I can be.

Christianity is dangerous. The Bible is dangerous. Please don’t get me wrong. I believe that both, rightly understood, are wonderful and true. However, the “rightly understood” is so hard to come by. The difficulty is not that one has to be a super-genius to understand the Bible or the Christian faith. Quite the opposite. The Bible is wonderfully simple and so is the Christian faith.

I believe that the difficulty lies in two areas:

1. Christians believe that the Bible is God’s word.
2. There is not a bolt of lightening that strikes you when you interpret it wrong (i.e. there is no immediate evidence of or consequence for wrong interpretation.)

The reality of these two make a potentially lethal combination. They don’t make good bed-fellows and hence the Roman Catholic cry for an imperial authority to regulate such things. Although Catholics have their share of bizarre teachings themselves, their problem is bigger in my opinion since their bizarre doctrines get dogmatized and everyone must believe them. At least in Protestantism we can both recognize and repudiate our weird uncles. Catholics are stuck having to defend them for all time. (Another story, another time.)

Now for the bizarrity of the moment. . .

This is from an email I received from a concerned follower of our ministry. It is a phone message from his Bible Study leader. Every time I listen to this, I am reminded of the movie “The Jerk” when Steve Martin is getting shot at but he naively thinks the guy is shooting at the cans beside him. “Its the cans. He hates the cans!” Well, in this case: “Its the buildings. God hates the buildings.” Listen and you will see what I mean:

(Please note that the audio has been altered to protect the identity of the caller.)

Buildings are the whore of Babylon? Really? Satan is luring people into buildings which is the great apostasy? Really?

I want to be careful here since I know what this guy is actually a part of. It is a belief that he has about the local church vs. the universal church. It is a belief that he has about what the church really is. I get it. But the way he is using the Scripture to sound an alarm is, well…, alarming. It is bizarre. Sadly, this is not the first time I have heard such stuff. Not only have I seen people make such arguments about church buildings but I have seen others make the same type of arguments about pulpits, pews, steeples, and even clerical robes.  But the real issue is not just their bizarre beliefs, but the level of importance they attach to them. If you are in a church building, you are a follower of Satan, not a follower of Christ.

Chill out. What ever happened to grace in theology? Even if you were right, do you think God really cares that much about buildings?

Why do these types of issues become central to people’s beliefs and passions?

Christians believe that the Bible is God’s word. Yet we don’t have a healthy fear of the Bible and truth. This is why we can get away with such things. Protestantism is based on the supposition that we need to have a personal encounter with Christ though a personal understanding of the Bible. I agree. But I also agree that this opens the door for such abuses and bizarre beliefs. Again, these people believe that the Bible is God’s word. They really believe it. That is not the issue. The issue is that there is not a bolt of lightening that strikes them down for misguiding God’s people. (BTW: If there was, I would have been dead a long time ago).

I don’t know how many times I have listened to a sermon or lesson from the Bible where the person next to me (usually a family member) says, “Pastor so-and-so is so smart. I would have never see all that from the Scripture that he just preached from.” More often than not, I usually think to myself, “Yeah, because it is not there!” We are masters at seeing things and teaching things that are not there and don’t really matter.

I think we should have some type of discipline for people who go theologically haywire. Gracious discipline! It should be part of the discipleship process. When the theological hormones begin to stir and bizarre stuff begins to spew out of our mouths, we need to be taken aside and theologically slapped. Someone needs to tell us to  ”Get a grip, chill out, and grow-up.” Why not? We do this with teens and they need it. I needed more of it. However, when we let things go, we allow people to find comfort in their theological immaturity and then propagate it’s symptoms as signs of maturity! “Satan is in the buildings!” “The New American Standard Bible is from the devil.”

Folks, let us reserve our passions for those things that really matter—those things about which the Bible is clear and those things that the history of the church has held central. These doctrinal sideshows do nothing but bring shame to the name of Christianity and provide illustrations for those like Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens to make their case that we are all nuts. This type of theological immaturity is counter-productive to the central Gospel message which has to do with the person and work of Jesus Christ. We need to be sensible, rational, reflective, and wise. In order to seriously advocate this type of “its-the-buildings” theology, we have to intentionally repress all four.

To all of you who, like me, have said that “Satan created the NIV” and the like, isn’t life bizarre enough without our adulterous affairs with sideshow freaks? Do like me and keep a copy of Gail Riplinger’s book in front of you to scare you into maturity.Similar Posts:

• Theology = Beyond the Bible?
• The Book of Job and the Problem of Pain
• What is Satan’s Goal?
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: What Are Spiritual Gifts? Response – C Michael Patton
• “The Nephilim Have Been Found” or Yet Another Example of Really Bad Apologetics

The hardest thing about theology is not the big words, historical studies, philosophical arguments, or the exegetical rigor one must have. It has less to do with how “smart” a person is and more to do with how much one is willing to learn. It has less to do with a person’s GPA and more to do with their ability to set aside previous notions and allow themselves to engage the issues without letting their baggage – intellectual and experiential baggage – determine the outcome. To truly learn, one must train themselves to be a learner. And this is not easy.

The problem is that when it comes to our religious beliefs, we are content to trade in our normal, everyday methodology of critical examination and inquiry and simply accept whatever fits within our currently held worldview. Christians are normally no different. We love stories that confirm our faith. We love anything that confirms what mom told us. We hate stories that militate against it. We uncritically accept whatever someone says as long as it fits into the color scheme we have already adopted.  We outright reject anything that is against it without consideration.

We are  generously permissive and adaptive to strange stories, folk-lore, and bizarre shared experiences without being critical. Why? Because when it comes to our beliefs, we are ready to practice a methodology that would never pass muster in any other area of life. This is called tabloid theology.

Let me relate this to journalism first.

Tabloid journalism. You know what this is. It is sensationalistic journalism and it is a billion dollar business. It preys on our naiveté to believe something unbelievable. It exists because we like to let down our critical guard and indulge our minds by believing that which normally would be rejected. From alien abductions to pregnant men, the tabloids have it all.

Tabloid theology is the same. It is sensationalistic theology. More than this, it reflects the uncritical attitude of much of our religious culture today. It is the result of a culture that creates a dichotomy between the mind and faith. It is fueled by people’s uncritical methodology. A tabloid theologian is one who constructs his or her theology based upon naiveté. In the Bible, this is called a “simpleton.”

Some examples of tabloid theology:

1. The pancake with Jesus’ image proves that Jesus is real.

2. Statues of Mary crying.

3. Stories of miraculous healings need to be believed without question.

4. The shroud of Turin.

5. The Bible Code.

6. The story of the microphone which picked up the screams of hell during an oil drilling.

7. “If you receive this email, pass it on to five people and you will receive a blessing. If you don’t there will be a curse.” (Don’t say you have not done this!)

8. “If you send a financial gift to this ministry, you will receive a cloth from brother ________ that will heal you.”

9. “I sense that there is someone in the audience who has a back pain. God has healed your pain.”

10. The hitchhiking angel who mysteriously disappears after saying ”Gabriel’s mouth is on the trumpet.”

Many television preaching personalities rely upon the existence of tabloid theologians for their messages will be received without question. Criticism will kill tabloid theology—instantly. Therefore, criticism is seen to be sinful and dishonoring among some. “Doubter! Skeptic! Do you not believe that God will heal?” Many are guilted into becoming uncritical thinkers believing that this is what God would desire of the truly spiritual.

This dichotomy of faith and intellect is not only destructive, I believe it is a sinful dishonoring of God by neglecting the stewardship of our mind. God calls on us to love Him with our entire being, the mind included. When a person believes anything and everything, this evidences a neglect and forfeiture of the mind and jeopardizes the foundation of their belief.

I am not saying that God cannot heal back pain or appear in a pancake with a message. But I am saying that I am not going to believe these type of stories until there is good reason to do so. I am a critical Christian. I am critical of all truth claims, especially those that are about God. Why? Because I must be. God has called me to be. He has called us all to do the same. Our beliefs are too important to surrender based upon the smile of the seller or the good intentions of an email. Our beliefs form the foundation of who we are. If our theology is built upon trust in uncritical hearsay or unexamined sensationalistic claims, we are playing spiritual Russian roulette. As Jonathan Edwards said, “The heart will not accept what the mind rejects.” Eventually our faith will fall apart.

If you are one who accepts anything and everything that confirms your beliefs, I encourage you to become more critical. I encourage you to evaluate truth claims as a skeptic. I know this sounds odd when speaking about God, the Bible, or Christianity, but you must do so. Make sure that any truth claims have an impressive resume before they are believed. When people call you unspiritual for being critical of their stories of divine intervention, take heart. God’s truth will always have an impressive resume.

I believe that religious systems other than Christianity have no choice but to base their religion in tabloid theology. Christianity is the only one that does not. Christianity invites – indeed, demands – criticism, skepticism, discernment, and questions. True Christianity will pass the test.

Proverbs 8:5: You who are naive, discern wisdom! And you fools, understand discernment!

Proverbs 14:15: A naive person believes everything, but the shrewd person discerns his steps.Similar Posts:

• A Warning About Pseudo or “Pancake” Apologetics
• Will Your Faith Grow this Fall?
• Calling someone a heretic—thoughtfully!
• Book Review: Heaven is for Real
• Overcoming Sin and Temptation

At the same time, there are many things that I have believed and about which I continue to grow in conviction. One of these, ironically, is the simplicity of the Christian life. The center point is really not too difficult. God wants us to believe him. Trust, belief, conviction, assurance. These are all words we use to describe this act of the will – faith.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines faith this way:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
4. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Each one of these, in the right context, could describe some aspect of the Christian faith. But we need to go one step further in understanding this term “faith” in a particularly Christian way.

The Reformers sought to distinguish true faith from false faith. The battle cry of sola fide (justification by faith alone) demanded that they define faith in a precise manner.

As started by Luther and developed further by Melancthon and others, the understanding of faith was expressed in three separate yet vitally connected aspects: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

1. Notitia: This is the basic informational foundation of our faith. It is best expressed by the word “content.” Faith, according to the Reformers, must have content or substance. You cannot have faith in nothing. There must be some referential, propositional truth to which the faith points. The proposition “Christ rose from the grave” or “God loves you” for example, provide a necessary information base or notitia that Christians must have.

2. Assensus: This is the assent, confidence, or assurance that we have that the notitia is correct. Here we assent to the information, affirming it to be true. This involves evidence which leads to the conviction of the truthfulness of the proposition. According to the Reformers, to have knowledge of the proposition is not enough. We must, to some degree, be convinced that it is really true. This involves intellectual assent and persuasion based upon some degree of critical thought. While notitia claims “Christ rose from the grave,” assensus takes the next step and says, “I am persuaded to believe that Christ rose from the grave.”

But these two alone are not enough, according to the Reformers. As one person has said, these two only qualify you to be a demon, for the demons both have the right information (Jesus rose from the grave) and are convicted of its truthfulness. One aspect still remains.

3. Fiducia: This is the “resting” in the information based upon a conviction of its truthfulness. Fiducia is best expressed by the English word “trust.” We have the information, we are persuaded of its truthfulness, and now we have to trust in it. Christ died for our sins (notitia). I believe that Christ died for my sins (notitia + assensus). I place my trust in Christ to save me (fiducia). Fiducia is the personal, subjective act of the will to take the final step. It is important to note that while fiducia goes beyond or transcends the intellect, it is built upon its foundation.

The Church today seems to lack #2. Nominal Christianity lacks #3. Postmodernism lacks #1 and #2.

The change occurred during the Enlightenment. Rene Descartes introduced the criteria of absolute certainty (absolute assensus) about all things. Hume responded with radical skepticism (non-assensus) about all things. Kant provided a mediating position which provided the basic framework for our current epistemology. Kant proposed that while we cannot be certain about all things, there is no reason to be skeptical about everything, either.

He relegated all knowledge into two categories: 1.) The real world, which can be known and understood through observation (the phenomenal), and 2.) that which cannot be known because it is unknowable (the noumenal). Religion and all matters concerning the knowledge of God and metaphysics were placed in the noumenal category. Kant was basically saying, you can believe in God, but you cannot believe in Him like you believe in your friends, car, or your popcorn machine. However, when you believe in God, you must understand that your belief is not based in knowledge and intellectual conviction, but in faith.

Hence came the now popular dichotomy between faith and reason. Hence rose anti-intellectualism in the church; hence came the unbiblical banishing of assensus from the Christian faith. Unfortunately, the church has bought into this Kantian philosophy and has been plagued with it for the last 200 years.

We have a song to commemorate this. You know the one? It goes like this, “You ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart.” In other words, I don’t have any true assensus, therefore I appeal to emotional conviction and say it is from the Holy Spirit. Indeed, it could be from the Holy Spirit, but it could just as well be self-produced or from a demon. How do you know the difference?  Many in the evangelical church today have the right information (notitia) but they blindly trust in that information without considering it in a critical manner. Notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind faith.

Please do not get me wrong. I am not saying that this kind of faith cannot be real, but I am saying that it is dangerous. The more I read about those who have “walked away from the faith,” the more I see that their faith was void of this important element that solidifies the truth in their heart.

This can be illustrated by the different seeds in the Parable of the Soils. Two of the three seeds that take root (believe) fall away after a “short time” (it is interesting that we don’t know how short the “short time” is – another blog). Why do they fall away? One reason is probably because they are not really persuaded of the truth. In the end, other truths prove more convincing. Like the character “Pliable” in Pilgrim’s Progress who is never convinced of any particular truth, there are those who wander from “truth” to “truth” based upon the expediency of the day. In the end, I fear, there are many out there who, like Pliable, are really not convinced of who Christ is and what He did.

Am I saying that assensus is the most important aspect of faith? Not at all. All three are equally important. What I am saying is that it is the most neglected. When assensus is neglected, Christianity has no more legitimacy than any other worldview. This is unfortunate. While I believe every other worldview must necessarily exclude assensus to survive, Christianity is the only worldview that does not.Similar Posts:

• “Belief is No Good Without Practice” . . . and Other Stupid Statements (Part Deux)
• Inviting Jesus into your Heart (Dan Wallace)
• "I Was Going to Preach this, but the Holy Spirit Led Me to This" . . . And other Stupid Statements
• "I Don't Want to Know About God, I Just Want to Know Him" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• "Everyone Who Disagrees with Me is a Liar" . . . And Other Stupid Statements

I have heard many people use an illustration when talking about atheism and its viability. Many will say that they can convert an atheist to an agnostic with this simple illustration. Here is how it goes.

If someone claims to be an atheist, you can easily convert them to agnosticism thereby moving them one step closer to theism. How? By asking them a series of questions.

First you ask them how certain they are that there is not a God. If they say that they are not certain, that is just what they believe, then you inform them that they are not really an atheist–one who is certain that there is no God–but an agnostic–one who is uncertain about God’s existence.

If they say that they are certain that there is no God, then you move to step two. Here you draw a large circle that represents all knowledge in the universe. You ask them to draw a circle within that circle that represents their relative knowledge in relation to all knowledge. Of course, they will draw a much smaller circle within the large circle knowing that they do not possess all knowledge, only a small portion of the whole. Once they have created this smaller circle, you ask them if God could exist somewhere in this vast area that you have no knowledge about. They should always answer yes since that area is their area of ignorance. At that point, it is said, you have converted them from atheism to agnosticism. Voila! The Argument from Finite Knowledge.

Let me start by saying that while this sounds really appealing and irrefutable, it is actually a terrible illustration and represents a very modernistic mindset for the requirements of belief. Why? I am glad you asked . . .

Let me turn the tables on you, the one who believes in God. Why couldn’t an atheist use the same illustration for you? You say you believe in God, how certain are you? Absolutely certain? Oh, okay. Well let me draw this circle that represents all knowledge. Now you draw a circle within this circle representing your knowledge. Oh . .  that small eh? Could it be that the evidence for God’s non-existence is found outside of your circle of knowledge? Yes? Well then, I have just converted you from a theistic worldview to an agnostic worldview.

You see, it works both ways. Don’t use this illustration. The fallacy on both sides is that it assumes that certainty is only attained and belief is only justified when we possess all knowledge. In order to have true belief, we have to have absolute intellectual certainty about the matter. Since none of us do, we are all necessarily suspended in agnosticism about the matter and must adopt a worldview of hard skepticism. But this is not the case. All of us base our beliefs on incomplete data, but this does not mean that it is inaccurate data. The case for atheism and theism lies not in absolute knowledge of all things, but in the preponderance of the evidence in the knowledge that we do have. That creates an obligation to believe or not believe something. Otherwise we would be suspended in a state of perpetual indecisiveness about all issues, spiritual or mundane, and never have justification for any belief at all.

The key here is that belief is not based upon absolute certainty, but upon reliance in the evidence and information we do have. This creates an obligation to trust. This trust is a combination of intellectual, emotional, and experiential data. It creates degrees of trust according to the evidence provided.

We cover this way of thinking in Introduction to Theology of The Theology Program, session 6.5.Similar Posts:

• Is this a good illustration of our belief in the truthfulness of Scripture?
• Why I am Not Completely Certain that Christianity is True
• "You Ask Me How I Know He Lives . . . He Lives Within My Heart". . . And Other Stupid Statements
• Is the New Atheism Really Affecting People’s Belief in God?
• Billy Graham and Charles Templeton: A Sad Tale of Two Evangelists

I’ve got a very devote Eastern Orthodox friend (he left evangelicalism and converted a few years ago…he is 24…) he goes on and on about all these fantastic miracles…about saints whose bodies do not decay and even omit “fragrance”…um…something about fire that won’t burn a bishops beard or something…I don’t know…sounds legendary…

What should we make of them? Deny them?

____________________________________

Dear Pastor,

I don’t know. It sounds like folk theology to me as well. As I said in a previous blog, this type of mindset is common no matter where you are. In other words, it is not an East or West thing, but a characteristic of the human conditions. People flock to where the “miracles” “signs” are. While I understand this mentality (since miracles and signs can and often do evidence the presence of God), it is hard to determine what the meaning of such miracles are.

Does it mean that since these things are happening, then that is where the true church is? I am sure that is how many would interpret it. If the miracle itself becomes the determining factor of the true church, I believe that we will be standing on shaky ground. The church exists where the Gospel exists. It does not matter whether it is Orthodox, Catholic, Pentecostal, or an Evangelical Bible church. The Gospel must be the foundation for the church, not miracles signs.

The question I would ask about saints’ bodies not decaying, omitting “fragrance,” and beards not burning is one of meaning. What do these type of miracles mean?

I think we need to be very careful that these types of occurrences, whether they happened or not, do not replace the Gospel and become a Gospel themselves. When this happens, as we have seen in many abuses coming from some of the less responsible in the charismatic movement (I will let you decide who), the Gospel gets completely lost in sensation seeking. Eventually, the one true miracle of Christ’s resurrection which does communicate something - God’s message of righteousness, our horrible sinful condition, and His love, grace, and mercy - doesn’t find a place. I would go out on a limb and say that the biggest problem with the church today is the loss of the Gospel and its replacement by sensation seeking Christianity.

Having said that, we do need to be careful that we don’t put God in a box of our own theological design. Advances in the Gospel through the progress of revelation were authenticated through miracles. Paul said that his authority and message should not be believed because he simply claimed such, but that the miracles and signs that accompanied his ministry authenticated his message. When he defended his authority and message to the Corinthians who were conflicted because of the alternate message of those who claimed the same authority as Paul, he sought to establish himself as an true apostle with true authority.

2 Corinthians 12:12 Indeed, the signs of an apostle were performed among you with great perseverance by signs and wonders and powerful deeds.

It would seem that miracles and signs were not so much acts of benevolence or uninterpreted awe, but signs of authentication to a message. This is why Paul could claim the authority he did. As well, this is why we should never accept any claims to ultimate human authority vested by God without the accompaniment of the message with such signs. This was established very early so that God could protect His name–His reputation–in Duet 13 and 18. Otherwise anyone could claim to have such authority. It was and is an issue of responsible discernment.

While I can’t say whether such miracles [and signs] are indeed occurring or what they mean, I can tell you that the miracle of the resurrection did occur and exactly what it meant. I would stick to this. Where this Gospel of mercy is found and believed, there is the true church.

Should we seek such miracles signs? No. That which has been given is sufficient. Should we ignore miracles signs? No. God may send a message accompanied by such as He has done in the past. The key is in the meaning of the miracle sign. Have I ever seen such a miracle sign accompanied by a message? No. In my opinion, God has not intervened in such a way since the last Apostle. If this is true, all claims of ultimate authority and inspiration are only found in that which has already been authenticated in the Scriptures.

None of us control God. At any time He can cause a saint to have a special fragrance, send a prophet to speak on His behalf, write a new book and put it in the Bible, or authenticate a human head of the Church. I don’t determine this and there is nothing in the Scriptures which would say He cannot do these things. Therefore, I am always open, but responsibly skeptical about such things. Similar Posts:

• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Five – What is Tradition?
• Why I Am/Not Charistmatic: Biblical Arguments for Cessationism – C Michael Patton
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 3): Prophecy and Healings
• Why Eastern Orthodoxy? Part 3: A Gospel Critique of Eastern Orthodoxy