Catch phrases used by believers to allow for false teachings and ideas in the church.

Have you ever faced false teachers and being criticised for it? In my case, this has happen just too often, that is depressing.

Well, Steven Kozar has gathered a list of the most used phrases that those who defend false teachers use against those who point out their teachers' heresies.

Here it's a few of the phrases, and why they are wrong:

1. “You’re just being negative and critical! Don’t you have anything good to say? I can’t believe you’re criticizing (insert famous/popular Christian leader)! At least they’re trying to help-at least they’re doing something! Why can’t you be more positive? I only listen to positive Christians-not haters!” 

Christianity is a specific set of beliefs that is based on one holy book: The Bible. “Sola Scriptura” is the Latin phrase meaning “Scripture Alone.” This principle was firmly established during the Reformation in stark contrast to the Roman Catholic Church, which claimed that church authority (the Pope) was equal to scripture. 

Because we believe the Bible is God’s Word, we must also believe that some ideas are incompatible with the Bible and must be rejected as false. While it’s true that Christians should not be primarily negative and critical people, we should be willing to say negative and critical things about false teachings, because bad doctrine is very harmful-it leads people away from God. The painful reality is that false teachers are great manipulators and they know exactly what to say in order to keep your trust (and keep their money pouring in), so sometimes it’s necessary to say negative and critical things to confront them and their teachings.  The Old Testament prophets, Jesus and all the Apostles did this. 

A lot. 

We should not be primarily thinking “positive versus negative;” instead, we should be thinking, “true versus false.” The Bible is not always a “positive” book because it contains the truth that we need to hear. We humans are like disobedient children who need correction from our Heavenly Father, who loves us enough to tell us the truth.
In Matthew 23:27 Jesus says “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.” Gee whiz, Jesus, that’s not very nice; at least the Pharisees were trying to do something.  

2. “But he’s really famous (he has written popular books, has a huge church, has a TV show, etc.), he must know what he’s talking about!” “That many people can’t be wrong!" 

This exposes the common belief that “the group is always right” (my group!); which is like saying “consensus equals truth.” Christians say that they believe the Bible, but too often what they really believe is whatever their “guy” (local pastor, TV preacher, famous author/speaker, etc.) says about the Bible. On top of that, if a local pastor is actually doing a good job of faithfully preaching God’s Word, he’s often being over-ridden by the surrounding culture. 

We have millions of Christians watching 10, 20 or even 30 hours of television per week, yet they don’t have time to read and study the Bible. But when the latest guru comes along with a new method of “hearing from God” they drop everything to “learn the secret;” yet, they’ve neglected God’s Word-the actual words from God. The situation should be seen as utterly absurd, yet since almost everyone behaves and believes this way, it’s been normalized. As a result, false teachers have free reign and a limitless customer base to promote their weird ideas and enrich themselves. 

In Mark 7:7 Jesus says to the Pharisees (quoting Isaiah): “in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” In Matthew 7:13-14 He says: “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”  Jesus is warning us not to follow the teachings of men (even if it’s a NY Times Best-seller!), and not to “go with the group.”  Psalm 118:8 “It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.”

Go ahead, read the rest, they are very revealing!

PBS Discussion on the historical Jesus

Watch From Jesus to Christ: Panel Discussion on PBS. See more from Station Promos.

Via Zwingliusredivivus

Seven Reasons to Study Church History

Via davidnormanblog.

• It will cure our ignorance of the past.
• It will curb our arrogance of the present.
• It will conserve the faith for the future.
• It will connect us to a rich legacy.
• It will counter the claims of critics.
• It will cultivate Christian growth.
• It will clarify our interpretation of Scripture.

How to Interpret the Bible Like a Liberal in 8 Easy Steps

By David Norman

Step 1. Redefine a theological term in a way that no Biblical author would recognize.

Step 2. Force that theological redefinition on verses that are not primarily addressing a debated issue.

Step 3. Be sure your interpretation aligns with current cultural standards because they aren’t “archaic” and treat everyone “fairly.”

Step 4. Claim Biblical insight into the debated issue based upon that interpretation and read that new insight into verses that actually address the debated issue.

Step 5. Make an emotionally charged accusation against those who interpret the text in a manner consistent with 2 millennia of church history.

Step 6. Enjoy fellowship with others who share your hermeneutical methodology and break from any traditional reading of the Scriptures.

Step 7. Make Scripture mean whatever you want it to despite authorial intent or other trivial matters such as Biblical fidelity.

Step 8. Declare Scripture to be unclear or inconsistent due to the various interpretation and meanings all traced back to poor hermeneutics.

If you happen to be near the University of St. Andrews in the UK

Paul's Letter to the Galatians & Christian Theology

10-13 July 2012

We are pleased to announce the fourth St Andrews conference on Scripture and
 Christian Theology. Since the first conference on the Gospel of John in
 2003, the St Andrews conferences have been recognized as amongst the most
 important occasions when biblical scholars and systematic theologians are
 brought together in conversation about a biblical text. With the book of Galatians as our key text, biblical scholars and theologians of the Christian tradition will gather to work out how exegesis and theology meet, critique and inform each other.

 
 

Richard Hays, George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament at Duke Divinity School, Durham, North Carolina

N.T.Wright, Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, University of St Andrews (St Mary’s College)

Oliver O’Donovan, Professor of Christian Ethics and Practical Theology at the University of Edinburgh (New College)

Main Papers

• Jean-Noël Aletti - Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome
• Lewis Ayres - University of Durham
• John Barclay - University of Durham
• Ivor Davidson - University of St Andrews
• Beverly Gaventa - Princeton University
• Bruce McCormack - Princeton University
• Volker Rabens - University of Bochum
• Thomas Söding - University of Bochum
• Kendall Soulen - Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington D.C.
• Timothy Wengert - Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia
• Simeon Zahl - St John's College, Oxford

Conference Programme now available

Registration and accommodation Full registration (includes 4 nights stay, full meals, conference registration and refreshments): £470 Discounted rate for full-time students (includes 4 nights stay, full meals, conference registration and refreshments): £360 (limited space so book early) Day delegate registration (includes conference registration and refreshments only, accommodation and meals must be arranged privately): £41 per day Guest registration (includes 4 nights stay, full meals - can only be booked in conjunction with a full registration, excludes conference registration and refreshments): £122.40 (inc. vat). Online registration now open. Register here.

For further questions email: galatians@st-andrews.ac.uk

Convenors

Mark W. Elliott, Senior Lecturer in Church History at St Mary's College, author of Isaiah 40-66 in the Ancient Christian Commentary series (IVP, 2007); The Reality of Biblical Theology (Peter Lang, 2007).

N.T.Wright, Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, University of St Andrews (St Mary’s College), author of Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Fortress, 2009); Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (HarperOne, 2011).

Martin Luther's advice on reading Scripture

You should diligently learn the Word of God and by no means imagine that you know it. Let him who is able to read take a psalm in the morning, or some other chapter of Scripture, and study it for a while. This is what I do. When I get up in the morning, I pray and recite the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer with the children, adding any one of the psalms. I do this only to keep myself well acquainted with these matters, and I do not want to let the mildew of the notion grow that I know them well enough. The devil is a greater rascal than you think he is. You do as yet not know what sort of fellow he is and what a desperate rogue you are. His definite design is to get you tired of the Word and in this way to draw you away from it. This is his aim (WA 32, 64f.) -- Martin Luther

3 ways of reading scripture

This is what I wrote in my church's newsletter, and was based on a previous sermon. If you want to hear the sermon, you will find it on this blog.

Last week I stated three manners to read Scripture. The Intellectual (for our own knowledge of the text), the Spiritual (what the text is telling me) and the Ethical (what the text tells me to apply it to my fellow human beings). An example of this can be seen in Mark 1:1-11.

Intellectually, we find out how Jesus was baptized, and how we know that John was the prophet promised from the book of Malachi. Without that information, we would be asking how do we know that John the Baptist was who he said he was, and why do we practice baptism.

Spiritually, we can be sure Jesus comes from God, since God the Father affirms his ministry from heaven. This brings assurance to all Christians, because we know that Jesus’ ministry if approved by God, and that the Holy Spirit is with him. Also, we see, right there at the beginning of the story, the blessed Trinity.

Ethically. I was told that this was difficult to extrapolate from this text. My take on this text starts from the view that we are all sinners, and Christians are baptized sinners. At their Baptism, they are brought to new life. We are to treat others according to this new life given.

I hope that this helps you in your bible reading.

So much fuss about a window. N. T. Wright and reading of Scripture

I got to know about this video through a blogger that totally despises N. T. Wright.

I wonder how what he says on the video attacks the Reform faith. So, it is not right to read the whole of Scripture, just those parts that agree with you. If this is right, then now I understand how some hardline Reformed hate Wright so much.

I like what Scott McKnight has said, that when someone criticises Wright, it is more likely that there's something wrong with the one criticising.

Here it's the video, hope we can all learn from Wright.

Women Bishops or biblical fidelity?

What's wrong with this picture??? Depends who you ask, if you are a liberal, culture driven, pro-feminist, pro-abortion, pro-gay, scripture trumping so called "christian", then the answer may be twofold: how come it took so long to reach this stage, and, there should be more women, if not the majority, sitting there as bishops and ordained ministers.

If you are a biblical based, scripture driven, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, conservative christian, the answer would be another question, How could the church of God reject God so clearly in his face?

I don't deny that there are other, more pressing issues that we, as the church of the Lord Jesus Christ should be battling, the likes of poverty, justice and above all, the salvation of souls. Nevertheless, this issue is one of those that Salomon refererred to as:
Song of Songs 2:
5 Catch for us the foxes,
the little foxes
that ruin the vineyards,
our vineyards that are in bloom.

So, to say as some have suggested, that we shouldn't fight or confront this issue, don't see the greater issue, or don't comprehend it's repercussions. As Wayne Grudem has pointed out in his excellent book, Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?, all those churches that claimed that in order to survive they had to move in with the times, are rather dying, losing members. An example is that the Uniting Church in Australia sees its own demise by 2050, or the Episcopal Church USA, that despite ordaining women not only to the ministry, but also to the post of bishop, and as if that was not wrong enough, went ahead and ordained Gene Robinson, an open homosexual with a partner, as a bishop, the church is still losing members, while the dissenters are growing.

One of the women in the picture (notice all the women "bishops" except one have short hair, makes one wonder!!!), Barbara Darling, third from the left first role, once interviewed me as to gather if I was called to the ministry. Our interview was a mere formality, nevertheless, the interview turned to the topic as to how she had been passed over by men, who did not see God's calling in her life. She saw that as one of the greatest injustices of our time. At the end, I went away thinking if I really wanted to be ordained an Anglican (I was walking strayed from my Baptist roots!!), there were many Anglicans that I admired, N. T. Wright for example, but he has also endorsed women to be bishops. I have written to the good bishop that this approach contradicts his other approaches to be faithful to the biblical sources. However, he said something very encouraging during the debate that the Church of England is going through this last couple of days.

Answering to Cannon Robert Cotto, who suggested that " he was worried that the Church could turn into a sect, refusing to listen to the wisdom that was available in the outside world." Wright came responding to Cotto and others like him in the following statement: "that when the Church started to follow the dictates of contemporary society, it "would cease to be the Church" "

Wright's answer is the correct one, and he shouldn't be answering an ordained minister in that manner, since you would expect him that he had read James 4:⁴You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. And also I Corinthians 1:²¹For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. It seems that some have never cared about what the bible says, unless it's their pet subject, and even then, they twist the Bible to say what they want it to say.

Now, the Anglican Church, as many other denominations in the past, are trying to keep their denominations together, even when they take decisions that are totally against Scripture. I still remember when the Evangelical Church of America, ELCA, took the decision to accept practicing homosexuals to the ministry, and the conservatives walked out of the convention, and the presiding bishop, Mark Hanson, called out to them to "stay in the conversation" What conversation I ask?? The decision was taken, there's no going back.

And why I am talking about homosexuality and the ordination of women? Because they are issues that go hand in hand. As Grudem points this out in his book above mentioned, we can see how women are the ones that make the ordination of homosexuals an issue of justice, the same argument they took when dealing with their recognition to be ordained. One is just a stepping stone to the next.

I haven't touched on the biblical verses that clearly teach that women cannot be ordained, or that practicing, unrepentant homosexuals can be christians, let alone ordained. If people are so blind and don't take the bible seriously, well, that's their choice, but please, don't call yourself a christian, since that title applies to those who are willing to follow not just his teachings, but those of his followers as well. It is very difficult to argue against those who don't see the Bible as authoritative, but rather see the culture as their norm to follow.

With this entry, I just hope to point out some points that are not touched as often in conservative circles, and to show that in this debate, we can go beyond those passages usually cited, to give a stronger and more complete response to those who have rejected Scripture in all of its forms.

Luis A. Jovel

Homosexuality and the Bible -- The Rejectionist Approach

Luke Timothy Johnson thinks that the Christian crisis over homosexuality is not really about sex at all. Instead, it "has less to do with sex than with perceived threats to the authority of Scripture and the teaching authority of the church." In reality the crisis is about both sex and biblical authority, as Johnson himself makes clear.

Johnson serves as Robert R. Woodruff Professor of New Testament at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University. He is one of the most influential Roman Catholic scholars in the field of biblical studies. In "Scripture & Experience," published in Commonweal magazine, Professor Johnson presents what can only be described as a rejectionist approach to the Bible's teachings on homosexuality.

This rejectionist approach means that Professor Johnson directly rejects what the Bible teaches on this issue, and does so with a boldness shared by few others in this debate. He accepts that "the Bible nowhere speaks positively or even neutrally about same-sex love." Even as he argues that the church has "never lived in precise accord with the Scriptures," he suggests that Christians pick and choose which biblical commands they will take seriously. Nevertheless, he straightforwardly acknowledges that the Bible condemns same-sex sexual acts.

He claims that the authority of Scripture and the tradition of the church are "scarcely trivial," but criticizes those "who use the Bible as a buttress for rejecting forms of sexual love they fear or cannot understand." In other words, he argues that those who believe that the Bible's clear condemnations of homosexual behaviors are still authoritative for Christians do so only out of fear or a lack of understanding of homosexuality itself. As he explains later in his essay, he has grown by experience to overcome this fear and ignorance. He now believes that the Bible is simply wrong.

He demands intellectual honesty and says that he "has little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says." Thus, he dismisses "appeals to linguisitic or cultural subtleties" as intellectually dishonest.

This is refreshing in itself, as we grow tired of seeing revisionist scholars and homosexual advocates try to explain, for example, that Romans 1 does not condemn homosexual acts committed by homosexual persons as "against nature," but rather condemns homosexual acts undertaken by heterosexual persons. We should appreciate the fact that Professor Johnson, unlike so many others pushing for the normalization of homosexuality, does not suggest that the church has misread Scripture for two thousand years.

No, he directly rejects the Bible's commands:
I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us. By so doing, we explicitly reject as well the premises of the scriptural statements condemning homosexuality--namely, that it is a vice freely chosen, a symptom of human corruption, and disobedience to God's created order.

Well, that is about as straightforward a rejection of biblical authority as can be found. Professor Johnson argues that experience -- his own experience and the experiences of others -- represents an authority greater than that of the Scriptures.

He defends his position by arguing that opponents of slavery and the ordination of women found themselves in the same position. "We are fully aware of the weight of scriptural evidence pointing away from our position, yet place our trust in the power of the living God to reveal as powerfully through personal experience and testimony as through written texts."

This is where Professor Johnson turns to evasive argument. He offers no sustained intellectual argument on the issues he mentions for moral support (the abolition of slavery and the acceptance of "women's full and equal roles in church and society") and he never even asks the most obvious question to be addressed to his argument: If we are to trust human experience as an authority superior to that of the Bible, whose experience are we to trust? He can only mean his own experience and that of others whose experience he chooses to privilege.

In his own words:
By "experience" we do not mean every idiosyncratic or impulsive expression of human desire. We refer rather to those profound stories of bondage and freedom, longing and love, shared by thousands of persons over many centuries and across many cultures, that help define them as human.

What are we to make of this? Professor Johnson will trust his ability to judge the Bible against "profound stories of bondage and freedom, longing and love, shared by thousands of persons over many centuries and across many cultures?" Which stories? Which cultures? Who defines bondage and who defines freedom?

He explains:
For me this is no theoretical or academic position, but rather a passionate conviction. It is one many of us have come to through personal struggle, and for some, real suffering. In my case, I trusted that God was at work in the life of one of my four daughters, who struggled against bigotry to claim her sexual identity as a lesbian. I trusted God was at work in the life she shares with her partner--a long-lasting and fruitful marriage dedicated to the care of others, and one that has borne fruit in a wonderful little girl who is among my and my wife's dear grandchildren. I also trusted the many stories of students and friends whose life witnessed to a deep faith in God but whose bodies moved sexually in ways different from the way my own did. And finally I began to appreciate the ways in which my own former attitudes and language had helped to create a world where family, friends, and students were treated cruelly.

We should not doubt for a moment that Professor Johnson holds his position out of passionate conviction. That passion comes through every paragraph of his essay. There is no doubt that he is passionately and personally involved in this issue. There can also be no doubt where his argument leads.

His position is by no means unclear. He argues "if the letter of Scripture cannot find room for the activity of the living God in the transformation of human lives, then trust and obedience must be paid to the living God rather than to the words of Scripture."

Thus, the Bible cannot be the Word of God if God must oppose His own Word. We are no longer to submit our experience to the authority of the Bible but instead are to submit the Bible to the authority of experience. The "living God" is juxtaposed to the (presumably dead) "words of Scripture."

Professor Johnson's argument leads to disaster. Indeed, it is a disaster in itself, justifying what the Bible condemns as sinful. Nevertheless, his rejectionist approach to the authority of the Bible's commands is remarkably -- even breathtakingly -- honest. We could only wish that others would be equally honest.