Evangelical gullibility fuels the flames of "fairy tales as truth"

It has happened to all of us. Some person with a so-called testimony akin to Paul's Damascus experience visits your church and tells you his story. The story is extremely well told, interspersed with tear-jerking sad stories and side-splitting funny anecdotes, with a smattering of heroics.

The person seems to be so nice that we just can't help ourselves liking and believing this person. If we don't believe him, then our subjective ideas of salvation to Christianity will not be confirmed. So, we believe, because it is so great that a satanist or a Muslim had come to Christ and now have such an awesome testimony for Christ! Surely, this is the person God had been waiting for to get those amazing in-roads among satanists and Muslims!

The truth and life

I have heard so many times that Christians would say that theology or doctrine has nothing to do with how we live. When finer points of doctrine are highlighted they would simply say: "That's just semantics!" Somehow there has arisen some kind of disconnect between doctrine and the way we live our lives.

Martin Downes has written a thought provoking blog post that addresses exactly this issue.

"Now, in reality, there is no gulf between truth and life because they never can be, and never are, divorced. The question is not whether we are living in the light of doctrines, but what doctrines are we living in the light of? What view of God, what view of the world, ourselves, sin, redemption, grace, the last things, are we being shaped by even when we are talking about separation between doctrine and life?"

Read Martin's post called Walking in the truth.

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,
a worker who has no need to be ashamed,
rightly handling the word of truth.
2 Tim 2:15 ESV

Thinking about what you preach and teach, and believe, can you honestly say that you are doing "your best to present yourself to God as one approved… , rightly handling the word of truth?" Or, are you are "a worker who [is] ashamed?"

This verse is not just a suggestion! "Do your best" is in the imperative mood, hence a command. Therefore, you must do your utmost to "present yourself to God as one approved" by "rightly handling the word of truth?" Of course, the lazy at heart will not take this to heart since it is hard work to comply with the command contained in this verse.

To start your road to recovery, if you haven't treated this command with the respect it deserves, visit:

Hermeneutics I: Need, tools and principles
Hermeneutics II: Different Genres

We must think and proclaim God's truth

"God's words are not simply true in the sense that they conform to some standard of truthfulness outside of God. Rather, they are truth itself; they are the final standard and definition of truth. So, Jesus can say to the Father, 'Your word is truth' (John 17:17). What can be said about the truthfulness of God's knowledge can also be said about God's words, for they are based on his perfect knowledge and accurately reflect that knowledge: God's words are 'truth' in the sense that they are the final standard by which truthfulness is to be judged: whatever conforms to God's own words is true, and what fails top conform to his words is not true...

"In fact, as we begin to think true thoughts about God and creation, thoughts that we learn from Scripture and from allowing Scripture to guide us in our observation and interpretation of the natural world, we begin to think God's own thoughts after him! We can exclaim with the psalmist, 'How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!' (Ps. 139:17)"
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, IVP, Leicester, England, 1994, p196

When you think of God's truth, what comes to mind? Is it something that you deem important, or is it something that you can set aside for the so-called "greater good?" Of course, you will have to ask yourself what the "greater good" is! If it is anything other than the glory of God, then the "greater good" is no good at all. If the "greater good" is anthropocentric, meaning that we have to make the church look good in the eyes of the world, then you see the "greater good" purely through uninformed human eyes!

The first question of the Westminister Shorter Catechism asks the question: "What is the chief end of man?" In plain modern English for those who don't know what this question means: "What is the ultimate purpose of man?" The answer? "Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever."

The greater good must always be to glorify God. We must always see glorifying God as the ultimate good. How does this relate to believing and proclaiming the truth?

When we disregard the truth of the gospel, we disregard the glory of God! The glory of God is inherent to who He is. The fact is that truth is also inherent to God. The way we handle God's truth says a lot about us.

Our faith and truth go hand in hand. If our faith is not based on truth, then we believe a lie and our faith is not based on the one true God! We can claim all kinds of relationships and warm fuzzy feelings, but it remains a lie!

God's truth is not something to be fudged to make it more accommodating to people. Where God's truth speaks of His love, we shouldn't make it look other than it is. On the other hand, where God's truth speaks of His wrath, we shouldn't make it easier than it really is. Where the gospel brings offense, we must not lighten the offense. The gospel is an offense to the world as it is. When we work to remove the offense of the gospel, we no longer have the gospel. God's truth diminished, is no truth at all!

As a result, we must hold to ALL God's truth, not just what we prefer to believe.

For more on the importance of truth to God, I have written enough to show how we need to resist error in the church and how we need to stand for the WHOLE truth of God.

Fighting error in the church

If I've heard it once, I have heard it a thousand times. We should just love other Christians. It doesn't really matter what they believe, as long as they are sincere. It has become a truly hackneyed response by those who just don't seem to care for the truth. To them, standing for the truth is an otiose effort in light of the fact that we must love God. They just don't like loving God with their minds, though!

Jay Adams, from the Institute for Nouthetic Studies wrote a short summary of how the NT sees fighting for the truth and standing against false teaching.

I think that one of the main problems we have with people who say that we should not point out error in the teachings of others, is that they love reading the Bible devotionally, yet they never actually STUDY the Bible. Perhaps if they spend the time and effort to study the Bible, and not just treating it as a 30-day devotional script, they will start realising how important standing for the truth and against false teaching really is in the NT!

Jesus bore witness to the truth!

For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice. (Jn. 18.37)

With the evanjellycal church in the state its in, it is difficult to imagine how the church still exists.

Many, if not most, of the evanjellycal church think that Jesus came to make them rich, to give them goose bumps, give them a good time and that The Shack is a great book for evanjellycal christians (lowercase 'c' intended) to read.

For these people truth is not all that important, as long as you are nice to people and tolerate them. To them, what we believe is not that important. It is what we do, they say!

However, the truth is so important to God, that He sent Jesus to bear witness to the - gasp - truth!

When Jesus said that He would not leave us alone to our own devices, what did He say about sending the Holy Spirit? He called the Holy Spirit the Spirit of truth!

16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. (Jn. 14.16-17)

But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. (Jn. 15.26)

13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (Jn. 16.13-14)

If you want to find out what is important to a person, just listen to what He prays for. This is true about Jesus too! Even while praying Jesus highlighted the importance of the truth of His Word.

17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word. (Jn 17.17-20)

If the truth of the God's Word is so important to Jesus, how is it that so many evanjellycals simply ignore it? It is God's truth that sanctifies us, not our own truth!

It is the great human disaster that drives people to assess their own truth as greater than God's, and then still to claim that it is God's truth all along! It is sin that drives them to it! If we ignore God's truth and do not deem it as important as God deems it, we're living in sin and need to repent. It simply means that we are then completely out of step with God!

If we hold our own ideas and 'truths' as more important than God's truth then we are idolaters!

Idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of God!

16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.
17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions,
21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Gal. 5.16-24)

Rick Warren shows lack of discernment

It happens to all of us. Somewhere along the line we meet people who claim to be Christians, and we accept that claim at face value. It usually happens to young Christians who have not studied the Bible enough to know what real Christians believe.

It happens to most of us. I remember, when I was but a young Christian with not much knowledge of others who claimed to be Christians, that I, together with my youth group here in South Africa, ran into the ZCCs (Zion Christian Church). To us it was very simple. "Look, it is a Christian church!" However,... these people have merged Christianity with their ancestor worship, and ended up with something that is not Christianity at all! How can you worship the ancestors and Christ together? That is an abomination. It is like worshipping the devil and Jesus while claiming that you are a Christian!

Now this is what I do not understand in Rick Warren's case. He wants mainline churches to reconcile with evangelical churches to stop their decline in membership.

According to Warren:
“100 years ago the phrase ‘social gospel’ first came out. Some people took that to mean only if we reform the social government and society and not personal faith in Christ Jesus – that is, if we make the world a better place – we don’t need personal redemption.”

Warren feels that the mainline churches went one way and evangelical churches went another. He continued:
“Who’s right? The fact is both are right. Somehow we got divided like Jesus didn’t care about society or members of society didn’t need Jesus. I think we need both.”

Warren's idea here is ignoratio elenchi. As "Seven of Nine" from Star Trek: Voyager would have said, "Irrelevant!" Warren's conclusion here is simply irrelevant. It may be right, but it is irrelevant. Sure, we need "personal redemption" and we need to be involved in society. However, Warren misses the point.

While speaking with the dean of the Washington National Cathedral, Samuel T. Lloyd III, Warren said, “The reconciliation is that in a pluralistic world…we (Christians) need to be on the same team because we share the same savior.” This is where many in evangelicalism differ with Warren. It is this very belief of Warren's that make his statement above ignoratio elenchi.

The fact is that among the mainline churches there is gross apostasy. They either deny all or some of the fundamentals of Christianity. From denying the virgin birth, to denying the death of Christ, to denying the resurrection of Christ, to denying that the Bible is the inerrant inspired Word of God, these people have walked away from what the Bible clearly teaches on almost every facet the Bible touches on, whether doctrinal or moral!

The fact is, contrary to what Mr. Warren has said, we do not "share the same savior." The fact is that these people cannot call themselves Christians when they deny the very faith they claim to hold onto.

Which brings me back to Rick Warren. Is this man so Biblically inept, that he will welcome anyone into the Christian fold? Who's next? The Mormons? The Jehovah's Witnesses? It seems to me that Warren wants to become all things to all people. Yet, contrary to the apostle Paul, it certainly is not to win some. He went to Iran... to pat Ahmedinejad on the back. He went to Jewish synagogues... to help them grow their membership. Now he goes to mainline churches... to reconcile with them. Based on what? That we have the same "savior." Think again!

How is that so many hold Warren in such high esteem (for some just below God Himself), yet he does not know why evangelicals parted ways with the mainline churches almost 100 years ago? Liberalism flooded what is now called the mainline churches. It came to be accepted in these churches to deny the fundamental doctrines of the faith and to basically become "social clubs" with the name of Christ somewhere close.

Evangelicalism did not part with mainline churches over something like community involvement. It was a doctrinal parting. The evangelical church continued with following the fundamentals of the faith and caring for the poor, etc. Several surveys over the years have concluded that evangelicals give and care more than mainline churches or the world do. Yet, people continue to hold onto the modern media caricature of evangelicals as uncaring. That is simply false!

Ingrid Schlueter wrote:
"Rick Warren’s presence in the pulpit of National Cathedral on January 27, and his call for 'reconciliation' with such churches should disgust every Christian who believes in the authority of Holy Scripture and who understands the critical importance of the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith. National Cathedral is a New Age pantheon to the gods of the world religions. That's why the church can feature goddess theology proponents teaching women how to dance in 'sacred circles', welcome the worship of Tibetan monks, teach Buddhist meditation techniques and introduce attendees to the Jewish Kabbalah. Where is Rick Warren's concern about the people who are on their way to hell in these churches that blaspheme the Lord Jesus Christ with goddess worship, homosexuality, a rejection of Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement, a denial of the authority of Scripture, and the promotion of the doctrines of anti-Christ?"

The point is that Rick Warren does not seem to exercise any discernment. How can this man want to merge truth and heresy? Truth and apostasy?

To read more on the essentials or fundamentals of the faith, read "What is the Gospel? What is the foundation to the Gospel?"

Some posts on the importance of truth and doctrine:
Without truth - empty, heartless gestures to God
The Relevancy of Doctrine
The Gospel: Diluted and non-Saving
Is the preacher a "reliable carrier" of God's truth?

Is the preacher a "reliable carrier" of God's truth?

Tullian Tchividjian brings us 5 questions on how to discern whether a teacher, preacher, or anyone else for that matter, is a "reliable carrier" of God's truth as revealed in the Bible. Of course, these questions are not the only questions that should be asked, but are merely a catalyst to think further on the issue!

I wonder how many pastors and teachers will pass the test on this one?

HT: Justin Taylor

Here are 25 more questions by Don Whitney, to see where a pastor or teacher stands.

Prophets for our profit?

It seems that the in-thing these days is to be known as a prophet! They are really coming out of the wood-work! I sometimes wonder if they listen to themselves at all?! If they had any theological savvy, they would come to realize that they speak a lot of nonsense most of the time.

With a little bit of Bible history they can avoid a lot of embarrassment!

In fact, churches that play up this type of nonsensical ministry might just avoid embarrassment for themselves!

Why do I say this? Well, a so-called prophet recognized by many as a prophet prophesied at church on Sunday. In his prophecy he spoke of the events of Joshua being 3000 years before Christ. Well, do you see the problem here?

The events surrounding Joshua's life are about 1400 years before Christ. To put it simply, either God was wrong in His words to this prophet, or this prophet did not hear God! We know God cannot be wrong; so, it is self-evident that this man did not hear from God and neither is he a prophet!

What is so amazing is that he gave his prophecy with this factual error intact and no-one even raised an eyebrow! Of course, I did! I immediately told my wife that this "prophecy" was in error.So, in fact, the whole church was duped!

It seems that prophets are not just hanging around our churches these days. They are setting up "shop" in suburban areas too where they advertise their services. Free, of course! There is a disclaimer! "The Lord cannot help those who fail to show appreciation to the prophets he sent to help them.”

The problem with many of these profits prophets, is that they think that because they are prophets, they do not need to study the Bible at all.

No REAL prophet of God will side-line the Bible like that!

Good sermon

The question on many people's minds is if the sermon on Sunday was a good one or not.

Was there enough shouting? Enough examples? Appropriate examples? Did it help me practically today? Was I bored? Did it get me excited? There are many more questions people would ask about the sermons they hear.

However, I would like to point out two very important aspects of a good sermon and our response to it.

First of all passion. A sermon without passion is like kissing a watermelon. Cold and sticky! It is simply impossible to be passionate about kissing a fruit! When there is no passion in preaching, it would seem that the preacher has no faith in the message either. Yet, what a South African or an American sees as passionate might seem completely over the top in England. So, passion could be relative. However, that should not excuse the preacher to be passionate about the message he preaches.

Now believe me, I do not believe that passion alone is good enough for the sustenance of the flock. Yet if there is no passion, it would be like stuffing your face with the driest of foods and yet not being able to swallow since there would not be anything to wash the dry stuff down with. Have you ever had food so dry in your mouth that your mouth could not generate enough saliva for you to safely swallow your food? It is then that you grab your drink to help the food down. Now that is a sermon without passion.

However, on the other hand it doesn't matter if you have all the passion in the world but the content of the sermon has falsehoods, errors or heresy in it. It is here that we have to look at the truth factor.

It is no use providing food to the flock with enough to drink (passion), but the food is laced with poison! The fact is that too many sermons out there are very passionate, yet they contain all manners of errors and heresies. There are preachers out there that are very passionate, but they are preaching a whole lot of heresies that the people in the pews do not even recognize! These are people like T.D. Jakes, Tommy Tenny, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, T.B. Joshua and a host of people like them!

The problem with today's Christian is that he has been influenced by the world and how it operates. The fact that the church is trying to operate like the world does not help either! Communication, and even the validation of truth, is tied up in sound bytes and who wins the argument at the end of the day. And how is the argument won? Basically, the one who can throw around the wittiest sound bytes, whether they are true or not, and who can interrupt the others the most and can get the most "airtime!"

This has been transferred into the church. Those in the pew no longer want the Scriptures to be explained to them through proper exegetical expositional preaching. No, they simply want to be told what to do with a couple of funny examples and then sent home!

In the end, these people want to be entertained. What they want is what I call preachetainment. They don't want the truth, because they "can't handle the truth."

Members of churches are no longer taught to search for the truth and to be like the Bereans who did not simply accept what Paul told them. The biggest problem here is that churches no longer equip their people to study the Bible correctly. This leads to haphazard Bible study that many times lead to error itself.

So, where truth is concerned, preachers can end up saying almost anything and the pew will simply say "amen!"

In the end a good sermon must have truth and passion. Truth to provide the spiritual nutrients and passion to make sure that the nutrients are edible.

The best way to package this truth is to put it in its proper theological setting. Many people are not good at systematizing information and therefore cannot see how different parts of Scripture fit together. It is for this very reason that exegetical expositional preaching would be best. The preacher can then show how the current passage fits in with the rest of Scripture and how we get to the theology we believe. It is here where the foundation for good theological preaching can be laid. If a pastor cannot do this, or he thinks that it is not necessary, he has no business being in the pulpit or the ministry! (Tit 1:9; 1 Tim 3:2).

Ok, I digressed a bit, but the point is, a good sermon will be the truth contained in the Scriptures and it will be preached with a holy passion for the things of God!

Do you know Greek?

Dan Phillips, from PyroManiacs and Biblical Christianity fame, has started a blog called Hellenisti ginoskeis: do you know Greek?

Just one quotation from his new blog:

"I am only writing this for people who can read Greek, whether pastors or not. That doesn't at all mean that non-Greekers are unwelcome! It just means I'll be aiming at those who already know (or are starting to know, or re-commencing to know) Greek. So I really won't be explaining it for those who don't.

"Being a pastor at heart (though not by employment, at the moment), I am likely to slant what I write towards preaching, teaching, communicating. But if you are learning the Greek New Testament, wherever you are in your studies, you will find something of profit in at least some of the posts to come.

"And just pardon one more word. There is no substitute for learning Greek. Interlinears, commentaries, concordances—none of these things teach you the Greek New Testament any more than looking up a few words in Webster's means that you understand any given English sentence."

So, if you are busy studying Greek, or you know it already, read this blog to enhance your understanding of the NT. Then, of course, if you are interested in starting to learn NT Greek, also fall in with Dan. It will enrich your life.

CashFlow Dollar

If you are a fan of CashFlow Dollar (Creflo Dollar), then you need to visit the archive on him at Pulpit Pimps!

If this page does not make you sit up and listen, and cringe, to what this man is teaching, then I am afraid, your understanding of Christian theology leaves much to be desired.

HT: Pulpit Pimps

For more on heretical teachers at Pulpit Pimps, follow the following links:
Benny Hinn
Kenneth Copeland
T.D. Jakes

Also read my series called Heresies in the church to read more about the Word-of-Faith/Prosperity heresy.

AGAPE and PHILEO: That much different?

Introduction

"When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love (agapao) me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord; you know that I love (phileo) you.' He said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' [16] He said to him a second time,'"Simon, son of John, do you love (agapao) me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord; you know that I love (phileo) you.' He said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' [17] He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love (phileo) me?' Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, 'Do you love (phileo) me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love (phileo) you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'" (John 21:15-17)

How many of us have not heard a sermon on this passage? Probably everyone reading this who has been a regular church attendee would have heard a sermon on this passage at least once in the last ten years.

I will do my best to remain objective at all times, even though objectivity is one of the most difficult frames of mind to keep and practise. We all have our rose-coloured glasses on, and that is how we look at the world.

The differences between these two words intrigued me ever since Bible college in the years between 1985 and 1989. I will be drawing from various resources, e.g. lexicons, e-mail discussion groups, and finally, the highest authority I could find on this subject, the Scriptures.

Before we carry on to execute our study, let me clarify my assumptions concerning the God kind of love, whether it be agape or not. Firstly, it must be unchangeable. Why? God is unchangeable. Any attribute of God has to be unchangeable if God is unchangeable. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Secondly, it has to be pure. Due to the holiness of God any attribute of His has to be holy and pure. No stench, or darkness can be associated with any attribute of God.

Word Meanings

The meanings I present here I have gleaned from several lexicons (dictionaries), and one theological dictionary. They are:

Strong's exhaustive concordance of the Bible found in the Online Bible, version 7.03;
The Expository dictionary of New Testament words by W.E. Vine, Seventeenth impression, 1966, Oliphants;
A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph Henry Thayer, Twenty-first Zondervan printing 1981, Zondervan;
Theological dictionary of the New Testament by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, reprinted, May 1986, William B. Eerdmans;
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains Volume 1 Introduction & Domains, Second impression, 1988, United Bible Societies;
Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (commonly known as BAGD), Second edition Revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from Walter Bauer's Fifth edition, 1958, published 1979, the University of Chicago press.

Agape

Agape means the following: to be fond of, to love dearly; to love, to be full of good-will, to have a preference for, regard the welfare of: . . . to take pleasure in the thing, prize it above other things, be unwilling to abandon it or do without it; a spontaneous feeling which impels to self-giving, the weak sense to be satisfied, to receive, to greet, to honor, or more inwardly, to seek after; to have love for someone or something, based on sincere appreciation and high regard.

". . . It would, however, be quite wrong to assume that [phileo and philia] refer only to human love, while [agapao and agape] refer to divine love. Both sets of terms are used for the total range of loving relations between people, between people and God, and between God and Jesus Christ."

Louw and Nida says this concerning agape and phileo: ". . . Though some persons have tried to assign certain significant differences of meaning between [agape and phileo] (25.33), it does not seem possible to insist upon a contrast of meaning in any and all contexts. For example, the usage in Jn, 21:15-17 seems to reflect simply a rhetorical alternation designed to avoid undue repetition. There is, however, one significant clue to possible meaningful differences in at least some contexts, namely, the fact that people are never commanded to love with [phileo], but only with [agape]. Though the meanings of these terms overlap considerably in many contexts, there are probably some significant differences in certain contexts; that is to say, [phileo and philia] are likely to focus upon love or affection based on interpersonal association, while [agapao and agape] focus upon love or affection based on deep appreciation and high regard.

BAGD adds that agape and phileo "seem to be used interchangeably here; cf. the freq. interchange of synonyms elsewh. in the same chapter [boskein - poimanein, arnia - probatia, elkuein - surein]."

Phileo

Phileo means the following: friendship, to be friendly to one; phileo more nearly represents tender affection; To love; to be friendly to one, to treat somebody as one of one's own people; to have love or affection for someone or something based on association; love, have affection for, like.

Kittel says, "In the LXX phileo, which is less common than agapao, is mostly used for 'hb. In meaning it is very similar to agapao. . . . Like the LXX, the NT prefers agapao to phileo. . . . Alternation between agapao and phileo occurs in Jn. 21:15ff. Some exegetes think that Peter is grieved because Jesus uses phileo the third time (21:17), but the words are mostly synonymous in John, and Peter is more likely grieved because Jesus asks for a third time. . . ."

We have now seen what the lexicons have to say concerning agape and phileo. Even so, the best way of finding out what is meant by a word is to see how that word is used in a certain context.

How are these words used in the Scriptures?
Lets look at agape
1. Loving the unlovable

In Mt. 5:43-46, and Lk. 6:27-35 we are exhorted by Jesus to love our enemies and not just those who love us, and are kind to us. Verse 46 puts a twist on this love. "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" If agape is the God kind of love, then how is it that a hated tax collector could also love with agape? The very idea of agape - as proclaimed by many - as a special God kind of love is made redundant if a hated tax collector can also love with this kind of love. Our very idea of sinners makes it impossible for us to believe that a sinner can possess this kind of love. Romans 3:10-11 has this to say concerning the condition of mankind without the salvation that Christ bought for us, "None is righteous, no, not one; [11] no one understands; no one seeks for God.". This makes it clear to me that the unsaved sinner does not have the capacity to love like God does.

John Calvin (one of the greatest theologians of the sixteenth century) expresses the condition of man so well, "For our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle. Those who term it concupiscence [lust] use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were added, (this, however, many will by no means concede,) that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else than concupiscence." (Institutes, Vol. I, Bk. II, Chap. 1, Para. 8; A New Translation, by Henry Beveridge, Esq). Now, if this is the condition of unsaved man, how on earth can he love like God (agape)?

2. Levels of love

If we think of our first assumption concerning God's love, that it is unchangeable, then we have to conclude that it cannot have different levels. In Mt. 24:12 agape is portrayed as growing cold, "And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold." We know that Godly love cannot change, and therefore, we have to conclude that agape cannot be construed as a higher love such as Godly love. If God's love grew cold, surely, we all would have been in hell by now.

In Lk. 7:42 Jesus asked this question, "When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?" In this passage from verse 42 to 47 Jesus explains that if someone has been forgiven little he will agape little, and if someone has been forgiven much he will agape much. If agape is the God kind of love then it follows that either you agape or you do not. Does God have different levels of love? I dare to say, no! "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." God's love was complete from the beginning, and that can be seen in the depth of love He showed us in the death of His Son!

Paul writes to the Corinthians in 2 Co. 12:15 and tells them that he loves them more, "I will most gladly spend and be spent for your souls. If I love you more, am I to be loved less?" Paul's love for the Corinthians is growing more and more. Our premise at the beginning says that God does not change, and therefore His love cannot change. If we therefore have the love of God in our hearts, surely that love cannot change then either.

In his epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul writes in the first book, chapter 3 verse 12, "and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you." We have handled this type of love in the above paragraph, how Godly love cannot grow to become more.

Jude 1:2, "May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you." Can God's love be multiplied? No! God's love is already infinite!

3. Loving things

Jesus is speaking out condemnation over the Pharisees who have been living out their religion just to be seen. In Lk. 11:42-43 Jesus says, "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. [43] Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces." Would a God kind of love, love the chief seats like these Pharisees did? Our second assumption has it that the God kind of love has to be pure, just as God is pure. Following from the above passage we have to conclude that if agape is used in such a defiling way, that it cannot be the God kind of love. Jesus would not have acted this way.

Based on our second premise Jn. 3:19 proves to us that agape cannot be claimed as the God kind of love. This God kind of love cannot love the darkness. If one reads the section on Loving the unlovable it will be seen that mere man without Jesus in his life cannot express the God kind of love. Yet, in this passage agape is used as love for the darkness. We also find in John 12:43 that these unrepentant people loved the approval, or praise of men rather than that of God. Would a God kind of love, love the approval of men, rather than that of God? Would the God kind of love, love this present world as against what God desires? (2 Tim. 4:10) Would the God kind of love, love the wages or money of unrighteousness? (2 Pet. 2:15) Would the God kind of love, love the world and the things of this world? (1 Jn. 2:15) The love of God cannot be in us if the love of the world is in us. Agape is used 3 times in this verse. Once referring to loving the world. Can this be the God kind of love?

What about phileo?
1. Loving things

It is amazing how similar passages are between the agape and phileo counterparts. When looking at Mt. 6:5, it seems so similar to what Jesus told the people in Lk. 11:43 where agape is used. The cross-reference for the Lk. 11:43 passage can be found in Mt. 23:6. Guess what word it uses? Phileo! Here we have two passages by two different writers about the same words that Jesus said. Yet, two different words are used by these writers for our one word, "love"! In one passage agape is used, and in the other phileo. It seems to me that in the Scriptures we can almost see these two words as synonyms. We have the same kind of idea in Lk. 20:46.

2. Levels of love

In Mt. 10:37 we see that even with phileo there are different levels, or intensities of love, "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." We have seen that there are different levels, or intensities of agape, and now we find the same of phileo. It seems to me that there are no real differences between the two words.

John 21:15-17

Probably the one passage that has caused the most controversy in the agape vs phileo debate, has been Jn. 21:15-17. Just about every preacher has preached on it some time or another in his career. Many have their ideas on this passage, and many staunchly so. I have always been taught that the two different words in this passage are two almost diametrically opposing words, with almost completely different meanings.

According to Kenneth S. Wuest in Wuest's Word Studies From the Greek New Testament For the English Reader, Volume Three, Bypaths In the Greek New Testament (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted, January 1979, p. 109) there are four words for love in the Greek language. Stergein, which "is a love that has its basis in one's own nature. It speaks of the constitutional efflux of natural affection." Eran, which "is a love that has its basis in passion, and its expression takes the form of a blind impulse produced by passion." Filein, which "is a love that has its basis in pleasurableness, and is the glow of the heart kindled the perception of that in the object loved which affords one pleasure." Agapan, which "is a love that has its basis in preciousness, a love called out of one's heart by an awakened sense of value in the object loved causes one to prize it."

In Wuest's Word Studies From the Greek New Testament For the English Reader, Volume Three, Golden Nuggets From the Greek New Testament (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted, January 1979, p. 63) Wuest has this to say, "In John 21 : our Lord uses 'agapao' in verses 15 and 16, 'phileo' in 17. Peter uses 'phileo' three times. Our Lord uses the noblest word in the Greek language the first two times and changes to Peter's word the third time, but assures Peter that his coming martyrdom speaks of the fact that his future love for his Lord will be based not only upon his delight in his Lord but upon his apprehension of His preciousness."

In contrast to Wuest, BAGD, on p. 4 has this to say concerning the uses of agape, and phileo, "a. and phileo seem to be used interchangeably here; cf. the freq. interchange of synonyms elsewhere. in the same chapter [boskein - poimanein, arnia - probatia, elkuein - surein]." These are the meanings of the above synonyms. boskein - actively of shepherds to feed or tend the sheep. Passively of livestock to graze or feed. Poimanein - herd, tend, (lead to) pasture. Arnia - sheep, lamb. Probatia - sheep. Elkuein - drag, draw. Surein - drag, pull, draw. From John's multiple uses of synonyms in this passage, it is reasonable to assume that agape, and phileo are also synonyms.

Some other passages to point to agape, and phileo as synonyms, are Mt. 23:6 (phileo) and Lk 11:43 (agape) - where Jesus is speaking of the Pharisees as loving the chief seats in important places, and Jn 13:23 (agape) and Jn 20:2 (phileo) - where it mentions the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Don Wilkins, one of the translators of the New American Standard Bible (Updated Edition) - regarded as one of the most accurate translations of the Bible today - has this to say about this passage (while discussing it with other Greek scholars on the B-GREEK e-mail discussion list), "On the more specific question of PHILEO/AGAPAO, I would like to suggest that PHILEO is a higher form of love than AGAPAO. AGAPAO seems to be a 'charitable' love in that one provides for another's needs, without developing a relationship as a friend to the other person (i.e. no personal ties). PHILEO, on the other hand, implies the close connection between friends and the related obligations that were so important in the ancient world. By this interpretation, then, Jesus twice asks Peter if he is committed to him at the lower level of love, and Peter responds by raising the commitment to the higher level of a true friend. The third time, Jesus questions whether Peter is really committed to him at this higher level, or perhaps whether Peter really understands what such commitment really entails, and this would explain Peter's hurt feelings. So it is not that Jesus asks him the question three times, it is rather (as I think the Greek implies) the fact that Jesus uses PHILEO the third time. Some people object to the notion that AGAPAO would not include the bonds of friendship, but in every passage where the objection would be raised, I think there is a reasonable answer--sometimes that friendship is not being denied, but that it is just not the focus of AGAPAO." He also has this to say, "As to my view that FILH is a higher form of love than AGAPE, I suppose that you can interpret 'higher' in various ways. I stand by my original comments, at least until proved otherwise. Carl's explanation of FILH seems consistent with my own; I think it implies a relationship between people while AGAPE does not, and in either case there is a willingness to do good to the other person. We can see AGAPE expressed in charitable activity, without the personal relationship. However I would not argue for a natural/unnatural (and certainly not 'divine') distinction."

Trench says this (as quoted on the B-GREEK list), "agapasthai ... expresses a more reasoning attachment, of choice and selection ..., from a seeing in the object upon whom it is bestowed that which is worthy of regard; or else from a sense that such is due toward the person so regarded, as being a benefactor, or the like; while [phileisthai],without being necessarily an unreasoning attachment, does yet give less account of itself to itself; is more instinctive, is more of the feelings or natural affections, implies more passion" (Trench, Syn., sect. xii)

Yet another participant on this list had this to add, "To be sure, etymologically and apparently originally the root FIL- seen in the adjective FILOS,-H,-ON, the noun PHILIA, and the verb PHILEO referred to the affection of kindred persons (or things?) Odysseus, according to Homer, repeatedly spoke PROS hON FILON HTOR (which we translated gleefully as under graduates, 'to his own dear liver' but now more appropriately we render 'to himself'), i.e. to HIS OWN (hON is the reflexive pronominal adjective) KINDRED (belonging to himself) HEART (the liver being the seat of affections?). So PHILIA is the affection of those who recognize a kindred affinity with each other and express kindred affection for each other (PHILEO may mean 'kiss'): call it 'familial love,' if you like. Is it more 'personal?' Perhaps it needs to be studied again, but I'm not convinced that the usage is clearly distinct in the NT to suggest it is a 'superior' kind of love."

Another one also adds, "I repeat that I fail to find any evidence in the NT that any distinction is preserved between the words AGAPAO and PHILEO."

Conclusion

I guess that for many this is a difficult question to answer. Yet, we have to consider that both agape, and phileo are used to describe the Father's love for Jesus and mankind; man's love for God and his fellow Christians. We also have to take into account the parallel passages where agape, and phileo are used interchangeably. Lastly, we also have to consider the synonyms used in the passage of John 21:15ff. The vast usage of agape as opposed to the relatively little use of phileo is striking. With agape used approximately 320 times, and phileo approximately 45 times, makes me think that agape is more a general word for love whereas the other Greek words for love are the detailed words for love.

In today's English we have lost the meaning of love, and it has become a general word for love. We say things like, "I love this ice-cream", etc. It is almost like saying "I love you" the one day and the next day you say "I am crazy about you." The second phrase ("I am crazy about you") in today's usage of the language has a greater force behind it. It almost puts detail to the first phrase ("I love you"). I believe that agape is used in this sense in the New Testament. According to Wuest in Wuest's Word Studies From the Greek New Testament For the English Reader, Volume Three, Bypaths In the Greek New Testament (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted, January 1979, p. 113), ". . . when Attic Greek was spread over the world by the conquering armies of Alexander the Great, and remained in its simplified and modified form as the international language of the period between Alexander and Constantine, agapan suddenly sprang into the ascendancy. Because it was the common word for 'love' during these centuries, the New Testament writers naturally found it not only desirable but necessary to use it. It became the general word for love in the New Testament."

Still, everyone has to be convinced in his own mind as to the validity of this post and what it has to say. There are groups from both sides who would die rather than change their minds. After all the evidence, I have decided that I was wrong all those years to believe in agape as a God kind of love. I just pray that this study was helpful, maybe just to make you think along different lines.

Theology through Majority

The way some Christians speak about the truth of their so-called theology or doctrine, one would think that the truth of a theological system was based on how many people adhered to that system!

Right off the bat, I would like to stress that I am what is called a "Reformed Charismatic." I do not really like the term charismatic, however, we have to live with it since it has become the term used by all. Read these articles to find out why I do not like that term! I would prefer to be called a Reformed non-Cessationist, but that would not make sense to many people out there!

Whenever there is some debate on the pros and cons of non-cessationism or that of cessationism, the non-cessationists (those that believe that the spiritual gifts continue today) would make the claim that they just had to be right, since it is growing faster across the world than the cessationists.

It is true that the charismatic/pentecostal branch of the church is growing faster than its cessationist cousin; yet, since when do we validate truth by the number of people that believe it?

Truth has no democratic process by which it can be validated. Something is either true, or it isn't!

When it comes to the truth of the Scriptures, no-one can claim their version of the truth as the real truth by the number of people holding to that truth!

A spiritual movement, no matter which one, must be scrutinized by its proper adherence to the Scriptures. And,... that adherence to the Scriptures MUST be according to correct principles of Biblical interpretation (hermeneutics).

Therefore, do not think that the Kingdom of God is run by democratic voting for systems of truth!

Truth comes from the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone!

A slip of the tongue!

I was listening to a sermon last year at a prominent charismatic church in the city where I live.

In the sermon the pastor said the following:

"After all, God took a chance on us! Isn't it true? Jesus died for you and me and expressed His love with NO guarantee of a positive response from us. He didn't know what we would do! And many, many people reject His love. [He] still loved them."

Because I respect the pastor in this case, I wrote a letter to him querying him on the statement, "He didn't know what we would do!" In his reply to my letter, he said:

"Thank you for raising your concern with me. I am positive that it must have been a slip of the tongue – I would like to affirm that I definitely believe in God’s foreknowledge. I share your concern to uphold the truth and endeavour to do so at all times."

This got me thinking about the so-called "slip of the tongue."

Preachers should take utmost care not to say things that they do not mean. A "slip of the tongue" could have dire consequences!

Basically, a "slip of the tongue," such as this, can be caused by many things, I guess. However, I want to look at three possible causes:

1. Lack of Theological Depth
"Slips" such as these most often happen to those who do not have the proper theological grounding or understanding. I agree that "slips" occur more frequently than we would like to admit. Yet, "slips" more frequently occur with subjects that we are not very proficient at.

Once we have mastered a subject, it becomes that much more difficult to experience lapses of thought regarding those subjects. On the other hand, these lapses may point to the fact that one hasn't reached a thorough understanding of the subject at hand.

Preachers should hardly ever experience such lapses, since they are supposed to be thoroughly grounded in the Word of God and they should have a strong understanding of theological constructs in the Bible! The problem with many charismatic preachers today is that they hardly ever have a solid theological foundation!

Quoting a couple of verses merely means that one has a good memory. Having a solid theological understanding of those verses; now that is what should be aimed at! Many of these preachamatics (charismatic preachers) are very good at quoting verses while preaching. Yet, very few of them actually have a Biblical understanding of the verses they quote.

I remember, way back in the mid-80s, when I was still into the Word-of-Faith heresy, I attended a conference at which Kenneth Copeland was speaking. One of the verses in his sermon was Amos 4:6, "'I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and lack of bread in all your places, yet you did not return to me,' declares the LORD." Copeland used this verse to preach about how God would bless us if only we believed. We would be so blessed that we would even have clean teeth! Funny, this verse does not say that at all. In fact, God was chastising the Isrealites at the time by keeping food from them, and as a result their teeth were clean from not having anything to eat!

But, I digress!

One of the big problems among preachamatics, is that they are not interested in reading and studying theology. As a result, they continue with their own brand of suspect theology.

Of course, a good place to start reading good theology, is with the prince of theologians himself, John Calvin. His Institutes of the Christian Religion is available free online. He has also written many commentaries which can also be found free online.

The problem with such a lack of theological depth, which cannot be denied, especially at this church where I heard this sermon, is that they sell the books and teaching videos/tapes of known heretics. They sell stuff by men such as T.D. Jakes (more on Jakes here) and Tommy Tenney who do not teach the Trinitarian God of the Bible! They further sell goods by many Word-of-Faith teachers such as Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Joyce Meyers, Fred Price, Charles Capps and Benny Hinn.

2. Topical Preaching
Another problem that can lead to a "slip of the tongue" is this incessant need in the modern church for topical preaching. I am not saying that topical preaching is bad all the time. The problem I have with churches where they only hear topical preaching is that they hardly ever get the whole counsel of God. Most topical preachers jump from verse to verse and as a result never show their people how the Scriptures fit together!

Another issue with topical preaching is that preachers using this method of preaching almost invariably think that they know the topic at hand well enough to preach off the cuff! Can you see the problem? This is exactly where the "slip of the tongue" comes in!

The best solution for this is to start preaching expository sermons (preaching through a book of the Bible). Not that expository preaching is the be-all and end-all! This can be messed up too! Yet, this method of preaching demands more from the preacher. More study and more concentration! The preacher will then have to do proper hermeneutics on the book he is preaching through in order to teach the passage in question accurately.

But, I guess, that will be too much work for our preachamatics!

3. Insufficient Sermon Notes
Finally, as has been suggested before, most of these preachamatics are topical sermon preachers. Since, as has also been suggested under point 2, these preachers are mostly into topical sermons, they have this over-confident attitude that they know the topic at hand very well, and as a result they have very short, to no sermon notes that they preach from.

It makes me wonder how they can preach the whole counsel of God at all!

They claim to flow with the Spirit! If they claim to be flowing with the Spirit, why do they have these "slips of the tongue?" Or, perhaps the Spirit has given them new revelation that should be added to the Bible? But, this is not what they claim! At least not the new revelation part!

The problem with many of these preachamatics is that they do claim to be led by the Spirit and so they have become so arrogant, and they treat the content of the very Word of God so flippantly, that they do not bother with preaching the whole counsel of God at all.

They would rather claim to be led by the Spirit and preach all kinds of nonsense (a "slip of the tongue"), than honour God by preaching His Word and only His Word.

If they really honoured God in their preaching, they would do everything in their power to ensure that they preach only the Word of God. That would mean spending hours before God in prayer and sermon preparation, studying the Word of God to ensure that the passage at hand is interpreted correctly. However, I guess hermeneutics is a lost art among the preachamatics! Further, proper notes will be taken to the pulpit to ensure that such a "slip of the tongue" does not occur.

In conclusion, many of these charismatic churches that claim to be led by the Spirit of God allow the merchandise of heretics (such as those mentioned under point 1) to be sold in their bookstores. Why is the Spirit not telling them to get rid of the wolves in sheep's clothing from their midst? Is it perhaps, as I maintain, that they are not so-called led by the Spirit as much as they claim to be?

On this topic, of divining the leading of the Lord, it may be good to go over to the PyroManiacs to read the post by Dan Phillips called "Misreading God." Perhaps the preachamatics will say that Dan Phillips is wrong, because the spirit told them so!

The Gospel: Diluted and non-Saving

di·lute

1. to make (a liquid) thinner or weaker by the addition of water or the like.
2. to make fainter, as a color.
3. to reduce the strength, force, or efficiency of by admixture. –verb (used without object)
4. to become diluted. –adjective
5. reduced in strength, as a chemical by admixture; weak: a dilute solution.
   

This is what the western, modern church is doing to the gospel. It is making the gospel weaker, fainter, inefficient and easy!

I was reading a post by the Calvinist Gadfly and thought to myself: "That is exactly what I want to say!"

The gospel that is preached today in many churches is more about self-help programs than the Biblical gospel itself! What can be heard in churches today are sermons like: "5 Steps to a happy marriage," "8 Steps to becoming a prayer warrior," "How to become a successful leader," "How to raise good children" and many more...

In my post, Reformation Needed Today, I wrote the following:

"The world around us is falling apart and still, many pastors want so much for people to like them in order to draw the crowds. In order for people to like them, these pastors must as a consequence get rid of all the offensive material in the gospel, and end up drawing the crowds with nothing but the elements of the world itself. In the end, what are these people getting saved towards? Definitely not the gospel and Jesus Christ! These preachers simply attract people to 'all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions,' which 'is not from the Father but is from the world' (1 Jn 2:16 ESV)."

Gadfly wrote it much more succinct than I did: "What you win them with is what you win them to."

The point is, if you preach a diluted, weak gospel, devoid of the truth of the Biblical gospel, then your converts will be diluted, weak, devoid of the truth.

The fact that preachers think they could preach a watered down gospel in order to get people, show 3 things at least:

1. The preacher does not believe in the God of the Bible.
   
2. The preacher is concerned with the numbers of the church more than with the real salvation of the people in the church.
3. The preacher is concerned with the size of his salary.

Imagine the gospel Jesus preached! How horrific His gospel is according to the experts of today! With all the psycho-analytical-babble today, it is recommended that we stroke people's egos and not to condemn them. We are supposed to soften them up until they are ready to accept what we say!

Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, [26] "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. [27] Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. (Luk 14:25-27)

Perhaps Jesus did not know of the psychological advances made since Freud and Jung?! Or, maybe, just maybe, He gave us an example of how to preach the gospel! Yet, when many modern preachers deliver their sermons, they appeal to what Gadfly calls "creaturely-centeredness." It is this self-centered gospel that leads its adherents to believe that they could manipulate God like some pagan god with the correct mantras and rituals. This gospel contains no sense of self-denial!

What these preachers do is to give good advice toward self-help and self-esteem programs. However, it leads to deception and in the end, I am sad to say, no-one is saved! If people are won over by self-help and self-esteem programs, that would be what their salvation turns out to be. This is not the salvation promised by Jesus!

The modern church has made the gospel all about us. It is for that reason that many people see their own testimonies as the gospel itself. They have forgotten that the gospel is about the One that made salvation available. It is for this very reason that when preachers dilute the gospel that they once again show their unbelief in the very One that provided the gospel!

Maybe next time we think about the power of the gospel we should rather think about the power to take up our cross than think about some self-centered reason why we should have more in this life to make us feel better!