Charismatic Snake Oil?

I come from a very strong charismaniac background, and I must admit, charismaniacs can get up to the weirdest things.

Of course, to make more money, charismaniacs will do almost anything, even selling Snake Oil!

Like Drew wrote at his blog, The Sign of Jonah, charismaniacs don't like putting God in a box. However, a bottle will do!

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.

Whoever believes?

Before continuing to read this post, please read my post called Salvation for the world! A study on some of the universalistic passages of salvation first!

I was listening to James White of Alpha & Omega fame on his program, the Dividing Line, that was aired on 26 Dec 2006.

In this program, James White let us listen how Chuck Smith from Calvary Chapel totally misrepresented Calvinism, and how Chuck harped on the phrase, "whosoever believeth" (KJV), in John 3:16.

"For God so loved the world,
that he gave his only Son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

John 3:16, of course, is widely used by Arminians to prove that God does not elect people to salvation and that we all can choose to believe in Christ!

James White made a statement concerning Chuck Smith's favourite words, "whosoever believeth." It all has to do with the Greek in this case. I must say I never looked at the Greek in this case!

The phrase, "that whoever believes" is "ina paV o pisteuwn" (hina pas ho pisteuwn).

"pisteuwn" is a present active first person masculine singular participle.

In this case the translation of hina pas ho pisteuwn is as follows: in order that each believing one. Hence, the translation is as follows:

"For God so loved the world,
that he gave his only Son,
in order that each believing one in him should not perish but have eternal life."

It is clear from looking at the Greek here, that the intention of John 3:16 is not some kind of universalism in which anyone that simply wants to, could walk into the Kingdom of God by choice. There simply is no universalism here. Instead, this verse rather makes it clear that only the believing ones will have eternal life!

On the one hand, it says that God so loved the world, but on the other hand a clear delimitation is positioned by this verse based on the believing ones. So, this verse precludes any universal ability in man and simply concentrates on those that do believe. It simply does not say how they came to their believing state!

The problem with the word whoever that appears in many translations here, is that it creates a false sense in the reader that it means to communicate to us a meaning of "all without distinction in a particular group."[1] People like Chuck Smith and Dave Hunt use this meaning of whoever when reading the term world in this verse. The fact is that the construct of the Greek simply does not allow that. It clearly makes a separation between world and the believing ones.

So, as we can see, John 3:16 cannot be used in any universalistic sense, but rather in a particular sense. It is not the whoever that will be saved, but rather each believing one will be saved. Instead of a sense of the whoever that will be saved, it should rather be the only that will be saved. It is not a case of whoever that will be saved, but rather, only the believing ones will be saved. As a result, it is not whoever in the world that will be saved, but rather, only the believing ones in the world will be saved.

[1] Hunt, Dave and White, James, Debating Calvinism: five points, two views, Multnomah Publishers, Sisters, Oregon, 2004, p378. This is a short quote from James White.

The Master's Seminary on NCT

Steve Lehrer of In-Depth Studies (IDS) started commenting on the The Master's Seminary's new series on NCT (New Covenant Theology), at the IDS blog.

Steve has written down some thoughts on:
Lecture #1 by Dennis Swanson
Lecture #2 by Bill Barrick

Hollywood sings about God's judgement!

Somehow Johnny Cash got a whole bunch of famous stars to appear in the video of his song called, "God's gonna cut you down." It tells the story of God's wrath on sinners.

Some of those I recognized are: Chris Rock, Kris Kristofferson, Justin Timberlake, Kate Moss, Sheryl Crow, Woody Harrelson, Dixie Chicks, Sharon Stone, Bono, Lisa Presley, Kid Rock, the ugliest guy from the Rolling Stones, Johnny Depp, Whoopi Goldberg and Owen Wilson.




HT: Irish Calvinist

Desiring God "Conference for Pastors" messages online

Desiring God has started putting the messages of their Pastor's Conference, with The Holiness of God as theme, online!

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.

Is the church going "nuts?"

The church is not just getting weirder by the day, it is now becoming just like the world, claiming to want to win the world.

Read what I have said about similar situations here!

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!

My dictionary of words

The w-dictionary has moved and is now called the wictionary!

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!

Top 10 Irish Calvinist posts

The Irish Calvinist lists his 10 most visited blog posts of 2006.

His post is called "Top Blog Posts of 2006."

HT: Justin Taylor

Give and Take

"God gives and Satan takes away!"

I am sure you heard that before. Of course, it is true!

You do not believe me? Well, just ask the myriads of so-called evangelicals who teach that almost every Sunday in church!

There are so many preachers claiming to be evangelical, that teach their people from the pulpit that God is not sovereign! They will teach that God gives us all the good things in life, but Satan comes to take it all away!

However, we read about Job saying, "The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away..."

Of course, these preachers will immediately reply by saying, "Yea! But that is what Job said, not what God said!"

The fact is that in this passage of Job 1, verse 22 clearly says, "In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong."

Reading about this first tragedy in Job's life, one is immediately faced with the question of God's sovereignty!

What did Satan tell God about where he had come from? "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it." (v7)

What amazes me is God's answer to Satan's "coming and going" on the earth! "Have you considered my servant Job...?" What was Satan doing on the earth, "coming and going?" "Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." (1 Pet 5:8) This is what Satan does while he is "coming and going" on the earth. Seeking "someone to devour!" The Lord knew about this. He knew that Satan was looking for someone to devour!

Yet, it was the Lord who asked Satan to consider Job. Did the Lord ask Satan to consider Job simply to think about Job? Or, did God ask Satan to consider Job as his next subject for testing and "devouring?"

The fact is that God gave Satan his limits in his attack upon Job. (v12) In one day, Job lost all his children, his servants and all his livestock. That is a tragedy beyond imagination!

Of course, if this happened to the modern evangelical, who would be blamed for the tragedy? Satan, of course! As if God was totally unable to limit Satan's actions!

Yet, Job understood God's sovereignty when he said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." (v21)

Job knew that God is the Almighty Sovereign of the universe and nothing, but nothing, could happen on this planet without God's signature on the triplicate application! In fact, it is God Himself who suggested Job to Satan. Why would it be any different for you and me?

The problem is that many today think of God and Satan as co-equals! Sometimes they even include themselves as God's co-equal! They do not understand, nor believe that God is sovereign and that ALL comes to pass by God's sovereign decree!