The Dispy / Covenant debate has interested me for a while, and I have always been on the dispy side of the debate, but my certainty was never overwhelming. I believe this to be a secondary issue, so it's not something believers should divide over. Many of my favorite podcast sermons that I listen to weekly are from the covenant crowd, and I believe them to be strong Bible teachers. But I believe there are some very important implications that go along with the dispy / covenant debate, as far as trusting God and His promises. Let me illustrate:
If a dispy / covenant guy were dropped into the year 2009 and left to discuss the future, it would go something like this:
Dispy: I am looking forward to the return of Jesus Christ!
Covey: Me too!
Dispy: I don't know all the details, but I do know from the Scriptures that it will be preceded by a rapture of the Church, a 7 year Tribulation, and culminated with a 1,000 year Millennial Kingdom ...
Covey: Hold on! You are totally misinterpreting the Bible. You are assuming a wooden literal interpretation of passages that are not meant to be interpreted that way. This talk of a literal 7 year Tribulation and a literal 1,000 year Millennium is bordering on heresy. You are trusting God to deliver on promises that He never made. I'm looking for the return of Jesus, but the other details are just symbolic, and God did not intend for us to interpret them literally.
So, who is right? Just for kicks, let's drop these same two guys into the year 10 B.C.:
Dispy: I'm looking forward to the coming Messiah!
Covey: Me too!
Dispy: I don't know all the details, but I do know from the Scriptures that He will be born of a virgin, from the tribe of Judah, be born in Bethlehem, and also be a descendant of David ...
Covey: Hold on! You are totally misinterpreting the Bible. You are assuming a wooden literal interpretation of passages that are not meant to be interpreted that way. This talk of a literal "virgin" giving birth to the Messiah, and the literal genealogy and literal birthplace are bordering on heresy. You are trusting God to deliver on promises that He never made. I'm looking for the coming Messiah, but the other details are just symbolic, and God did not intend us to interpret them literally.
Now, let's drop our 2 friends into the year 28 A.D.:
Dispy: I am sorrowful for the upcoming crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, but I know that He will raise Himself from the dead, just like He has predicted.
Covey: Hold on! ..... (you see where this is going, don't you)
How about if we dropped them into the year 40 A.D. and let them discuss the future of the Jerusalem temple? ...... (More of the same).
So I'm left with the following observation: While the current debate has reputable scholars on both sides, I have to acknowledge that the Dispy position (trusting God to fulfil His promises exactly as He says He will) has always been the correct position, looking back at Biblical prophesy. The Covey position (that the promises God has made about His future coming and judgement are largely figurative, and that the unfulfilled promises He made to Israel can be satisfied by applying them to the Church) may seem logical, but there is no Biblical historical precedent to assume such.
So while I may be wrong (and only time will tell), I will choose to believe in God's promises, exactly as He makes them. If He later tells me that those promises were fulfilled in a different way, then I'll gladly accept that. But until then, I'm not going to put myself in the place of God to determine which of His promises He will really keep and which are just symbolic.
After all, if God would forgo the promises He made to Israel because they were unfaithful to Him, what hope to I have that God will keep His promises to me? Lord knows I'm unfaithful and unworthy, but by the blood of Jesus Christ alone.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
An Interesting Abortion Test
How would you respond in these situations?
1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?
2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?
3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?
4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s upset. Would you recommend abortion?
-------------
In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!
God is the author of life, and He has givenevery single individual supreme value. Each life—whether inside or outside the womb—should therefore be valued by us. God knows the plans He has for each individual and has written in His book all the days ordained for us before one of them came to be. When we presume to know better than God who should be given life, we are putting ourselves in the place of God and are guilty of idolatry.
(this test is borrowed from www.wayofthemaster.org)
1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?
2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?
3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?
4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s upset. Would you recommend abortion?
-------------
In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!
God is the author of life, and He has givenevery single individual supreme value. Each life—whether inside or outside the womb—should therefore be valued by us. God knows the plans He has for each individual and has written in His book all the days ordained for us before one of them came to be. When we presume to know better than God who should be given life, we are putting ourselves in the place of God and are guilty of idolatry.
(this test is borrowed from www.wayofthemaster.org)
The PERFECT Christmas Gift!
It's Christmas time! Yeah! As we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, will you spend a couple minutes and contemplate the following question:
Is this life the closest you will ever get to heaven, or is it the closest you will ever get to hell?
Jesus gave us the only PERFECT gift when He gave us Himself. We have all broken God's Law, but Jesus has stepped in to pay the fine that we owe. It's His free gift to us. By recieving that gift, we are promised an eternity with the Giver. But the gift is not automatic. We must ACCEPT it. If we choose NOT to accept it, He loves us enough to give us what we ask for, even if what we ask for is separation from Him.
Have you accepted Jesus's gift? Have you accepted His offer of eternity with Him in heaven?
*If your answer is "Yes!", can I ask you to do 2 things? #1) Be a blessing to me and others by telling of the perfect Gift of eternity with God through the work of Jesus Christ. And #2) Test yourself to be sure that you are in the faith. Do you see the promised fruit of the Holy Spirit working in and through you?
*If your answer is "No.", will you give me the gift of committing to spend one month reading a Bible (start with John, for instance) and praying to God that if He's real, that He will reveal Himself to you as you read His Word? Even if you think Christianity is a joke, will you make a commitment to spend just 1 month out of your life earnestly seeking the Truth, wherever that may lead you!
*If your answer is "I'm not sure", or "I hope so!", study God's Word and pray. Eternal life with God is promised and guaranteed to all who repent of their sin, confess Jesus Christ as Lord, and believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead.
Thanks for your time in reading this. I'd love to hear back from you if you either have accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord, or if you're willing to spend one month searching for the Truth, wherever that might lead. That would be a great Christmas gift to me!
God Bless you all! Merry Christmas!
Wayne Wyatt
Is this life the closest you will ever get to heaven, or is it the closest you will ever get to hell?
Jesus gave us the only PERFECT gift when He gave us Himself. We have all broken God's Law, but Jesus has stepped in to pay the fine that we owe. It's His free gift to us. By recieving that gift, we are promised an eternity with the Giver. But the gift is not automatic. We must ACCEPT it. If we choose NOT to accept it, He loves us enough to give us what we ask for, even if what we ask for is separation from Him.
Have you accepted Jesus's gift? Have you accepted His offer of eternity with Him in heaven?
*If your answer is "Yes!", can I ask you to do 2 things? #1) Be a blessing to me and others by telling of the perfect Gift of eternity with God through the work of Jesus Christ. And #2) Test yourself to be sure that you are in the faith. Do you see the promised fruit of the Holy Spirit working in and through you?
*If your answer is "No.", will you give me the gift of committing to spend one month reading a Bible (start with John, for instance) and praying to God that if He's real, that He will reveal Himself to you as you read His Word? Even if you think Christianity is a joke, will you make a commitment to spend just 1 month out of your life earnestly seeking the Truth, wherever that may lead you!
*If your answer is "I'm not sure", or "I hope so!", study God's Word and pray. Eternal life with God is promised and guaranteed to all who repent of their sin, confess Jesus Christ as Lord, and believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead.
Thanks for your time in reading this. I'd love to hear back from you if you either have accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord, or if you're willing to spend one month searching for the Truth, wherever that might lead. That would be a great Christmas gift to me!
God Bless you all! Merry Christmas!
Wayne Wyatt
Global Warming??
I find it interesting that Al Gore and the global warming crowd are out in force duiring August, but during the cold winter months, they go into hibernation! Let's look at global warming objectively for a moment.
When it comes to global warming, there are at least four separate questions that must be asked:
(1) Is the planet warming?
(2) If the planet is warming, is human activity (like CO2 emissions) causing it?
(3) If the planet is warming, is it bad overall?
(4) If the planet is warming, we’re causing it, and it’s bad, would the policies commonly advocated (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol, legislative restrictions on CO2 emissions) make any difference and, if so, would their cost exceed their benefit?
My answers to the above:
(1) Yes, the planet is warming. The average daily temperature is 1.2 degrees warmer in 2008 than it was in 1908.
(2) Human activity could be responsible for some of the increase. It is pure speculation as to how much of the 1.2 degree increase is due to human activity. To be safe, lets blame us for 1/2 of the increase, or .6 degrees. Scientific evidence shows that the earth undergoes a natural heating / cooling cycle that spans hundreds of years between cycles (like a longer version of our yearly seasons), so it's safe to say that this natural cycle is also responsible for at least 1/2 (if not much more!) of what we measure as a temperature increase compared to 100 years ago.
(3) However anyone answers this question is purely speculation. This is where the hype comes in. Scientific evidence would say that within minor variations, a slightly warmer climate is more beneficial for life than a slightly cooler environment. What is the ideal average daily temperature for our environment? Is it the temp of 1908? Is it the temp of 2008, which is 1.2 degrees warmer? Is it an even higher temp? Or is it an even lower temp? This is all hypothetical.
(4) Let the politics begin!! Does it make sense to build a hybrid car that gets slightly better fuel milage, all in the name of global warming, when building that car uses significantly higher amounts of energy and resources than a standard car? Does is make sense to punish the owner of a suburban with gas guzzler taxes, when that suburban might carry 9 family members around town, while a small car might be a daily commuter for a single person? This is the crazy, politically correct world we live in, where people have no interest in looking at the real evidence! ARRGGHH!
When it comes to global warming, there are at least four separate questions that must be asked:
(1) Is the planet warming?
(2) If the planet is warming, is human activity (like CO2 emissions) causing it?
(3) If the planet is warming, is it bad overall?
(4) If the planet is warming, we’re causing it, and it’s bad, would the policies commonly advocated (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol, legislative restrictions on CO2 emissions) make any difference and, if so, would their cost exceed their benefit?
My answers to the above:
(1) Yes, the planet is warming. The average daily temperature is 1.2 degrees warmer in 2008 than it was in 1908.
(2) Human activity could be responsible for some of the increase. It is pure speculation as to how much of the 1.2 degree increase is due to human activity. To be safe, lets blame us for 1/2 of the increase, or .6 degrees. Scientific evidence shows that the earth undergoes a natural heating / cooling cycle that spans hundreds of years between cycles (like a longer version of our yearly seasons), so it's safe to say that this natural cycle is also responsible for at least 1/2 (if not much more!) of what we measure as a temperature increase compared to 100 years ago.
(3) However anyone answers this question is purely speculation. This is where the hype comes in. Scientific evidence would say that within minor variations, a slightly warmer climate is more beneficial for life than a slightly cooler environment. What is the ideal average daily temperature for our environment? Is it the temp of 1908? Is it the temp of 2008, which is 1.2 degrees warmer? Is it an even higher temp? Or is it an even lower temp? This is all hypothetical.
(4) Let the politics begin!! Does it make sense to build a hybrid car that gets slightly better fuel milage, all in the name of global warming, when building that car uses significantly higher amounts of energy and resources than a standard car? Does is make sense to punish the owner of a suburban with gas guzzler taxes, when that suburban might carry 9 family members around town, while a small car might be a daily commuter for a single person? This is the crazy, politically correct world we live in, where people have no interest in looking at the real evidence! ARRGGHH!
Monday, November 17, 2008
Wayne weighs in on "The Shack"
Let me preface my comments on The Shack by saying that I love books that impact the world for Christ. I love books that help people grow in their faith or deal with the difficult problems we face in this life. With that said, I know that what I have to say about The Shack will probably not go over so well with many of my friends. Please understand that I am not judging the heart of William Young (the author) or his motives. I do feel the need, however, to test what he says in light of Scripture and hold fast to that which is true. So here we go...
I was very glad to hear my pastor say, from the pulpit, a few months ago, "If you haven't read The Shack, don't!". This echoes the sentiments of many mainstream evangelical pastors and theologians, including Albert Mohler(Southern Baptist Convention), Hank Hanegraaff (Bible Answer Man), and Mark Driscoll (Mars Hill Church in Seattle). These men call the book "dangerous", "heresy", "deeply subversive", and "Scripturally incorrect". However, many pastors are remaining silent on the issue, which has led to widespread reading of, discussion of, and study of, what the book teaches. So, with so many of my friends reading the book and singing its praises, I set out to see for myself what The Shack is all about. I had my discernment radar on, and red flags were up and waving from about Chapter 5 on through the end of the book.
The overall plot is interesting, and to see Mack work through tragedy in his life to come to a place of peace and comfort is what I believe has made this book such a success. However, the vast majority of the theological themes employed by the author are very dangerous, and if the reader is not very familiar with true Biblical theology, a warped view of God, Jesus, the Trinity, and the Bible will result.
If you haven't read the book yet, might I suggest something. Open to Chapter 6 and start reading. Without the emotional roller-coaster of the first 5 chapters to make you vulnerable to the erroneous doctrine to follow, my guess is that you will be shocked and disturbed by what you read. It reads like a bad Saturday Night Live skit, or somthing from a Bill Mahr movie. It comes complete with mockery of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Papa is a heavy, black woman with poor grammar and an odd sense of humor. Jesus is a clumsy but hard-working carpenter. Papa loves punk music. Sarayu (the Holy Spirit) is a mysterious asian woman. Papa loves being "surprised". Papa has nail scars on her hands. Young's version of the Trinity insults the Biblical portrayal of God and the Trinity.
(Hopefully just a few pages will be enough to make you put this book away and never read the whole thing.)
As I read through the pages of The Shack, time and time again I came across teachings about God that are in stark contrast to what I believe the Bible teaches. The most agregious of these errors are exemplified in the following direct quotes from The Shack:
(speaking about Jesus) "Although he is also fully God, he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything" (page 99).
"When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood." (page 99)
"Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone." (page 100)
I don't know what else to call those statements except blasphemy. I have not taken them out of their desired context. They are simply WRONG! Much more could be said about these and many, many other direct quotes from the book, but it would take a much longer blog!
Like I said, this is a brief review. For anyone wanting a more detailed, well-reasoned review of the actual theological errors of The Shack, I recommend the review by Christian book critic Tim Challies. He closely examines the following topics as they relate to The Shack and The Bible:
1) The Trinity
2) Submission
3) Free Will
4) Forgiveness
5) Scripture / Revelation
6) Salvation
Challies concludes his review with the following thought, which I agree with whole-heartedly: "Because of the sheer volume of error and because of the importance of the doctrines reinvented by the author, I would encourage Christians, and especially young Christians, to decline this invitation to meet with God in The Shack. It is not worth reading for the story and certainly not worth reading for the theology."
Now is it fair to criticize a fictional book based on what it teaches about theology? Maybe not. But this has grown into far more than just a fictional book. Mr. Young is now making the circuit in churches, teaching the very Shack theology discussed above. Even the nail scars on Papa's hands are part of Mr. Young's distorted teaching in churches. He even misquotes 2 Cor 5:19 to support this error! Read it for yourself, and use the verses around it to keep it in context. It doesn't take a theologian to see that the Father was reconciling the world to Himself THROUGH Christ, not by being physically IN Christ's body!
Unfortunately, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before full-fledged Bible studies will be based on The Shack. My prayer is for DISCERNMENT ... and BOLDNESS in our leaders to protect the flock from errant doctrine!
Thanks for listening! Feel free to comment!
--Wayne Wyatt
I was very glad to hear my pastor say, from the pulpit, a few months ago, "If you haven't read The Shack, don't!". This echoes the sentiments of many mainstream evangelical pastors and theologians, including Albert Mohler(Southern Baptist Convention), Hank Hanegraaff (Bible Answer Man), and Mark Driscoll (Mars Hill Church in Seattle). These men call the book "dangerous", "heresy", "deeply subversive", and "Scripturally incorrect". However, many pastors are remaining silent on the issue, which has led to widespread reading of, discussion of, and study of, what the book teaches. So, with so many of my friends reading the book and singing its praises, I set out to see for myself what The Shack is all about. I had my discernment radar on, and red flags were up and waving from about Chapter 5 on through the end of the book.
The overall plot is interesting, and to see Mack work through tragedy in his life to come to a place of peace and comfort is what I believe has made this book such a success. However, the vast majority of the theological themes employed by the author are very dangerous, and if the reader is not very familiar with true Biblical theology, a warped view of God, Jesus, the Trinity, and the Bible will result.
If you haven't read the book yet, might I suggest something. Open to Chapter 6 and start reading. Without the emotional roller-coaster of the first 5 chapters to make you vulnerable to the erroneous doctrine to follow, my guess is that you will be shocked and disturbed by what you read. It reads like a bad Saturday Night Live skit, or somthing from a Bill Mahr movie. It comes complete with mockery of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Papa is a heavy, black woman with poor grammar and an odd sense of humor. Jesus is a clumsy but hard-working carpenter. Papa loves punk music. Sarayu (the Holy Spirit) is a mysterious asian woman. Papa loves being "surprised". Papa has nail scars on her hands. Young's version of the Trinity insults the Biblical portrayal of God and the Trinity.
(Hopefully just a few pages will be enough to make you put this book away and never read the whole thing.)
As I read through the pages of The Shack, time and time again I came across teachings about God that are in stark contrast to what I believe the Bible teaches. The most agregious of these errors are exemplified in the following direct quotes from The Shack:
(speaking about Jesus) "Although he is also fully God, he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything" (page 99).
"When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood." (page 99)
"Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone." (page 100)
I don't know what else to call those statements except blasphemy. I have not taken them out of their desired context. They are simply WRONG! Much more could be said about these and many, many other direct quotes from the book, but it would take a much longer blog!
Like I said, this is a brief review. For anyone wanting a more detailed, well-reasoned review of the actual theological errors of The Shack, I recommend the review by Christian book critic Tim Challies. He closely examines the following topics as they relate to The Shack and The Bible:
1) The Trinity
2) Submission
3) Free Will
4) Forgiveness
5) Scripture / Revelation
6) Salvation
Challies concludes his review with the following thought, which I agree with whole-heartedly: "Because of the sheer volume of error and because of the importance of the doctrines reinvented by the author, I would encourage Christians, and especially young Christians, to decline this invitation to meet with God in The Shack. It is not worth reading for the story and certainly not worth reading for the theology."
Now is it fair to criticize a fictional book based on what it teaches about theology? Maybe not. But this has grown into far more than just a fictional book. Mr. Young is now making the circuit in churches, teaching the very Shack theology discussed above. Even the nail scars on Papa's hands are part of Mr. Young's distorted teaching in churches. He even misquotes 2 Cor 5:19 to support this error! Read it for yourself, and use the verses around it to keep it in context. It doesn't take a theologian to see that the Father was reconciling the world to Himself THROUGH Christ, not by being physically IN Christ's body!
Unfortunately, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before full-fledged Bible studies will be based on The Shack. My prayer is for DISCERNMENT ... and BOLDNESS in our leaders to protect the flock from errant doctrine!
Thanks for listening! Feel free to comment!
--Wayne Wyatt
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
