How To Overspiritualize Everything

I read this at Challies dot com. The link. This is a comic.

Heresy: A Word Thrown Around Much Too Often

“Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in on attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth itself.” Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.2

According to carm.org,:

The word “heresy” comes from the Greek hairesis which means “choosing,” or “faction.” At first, the term heresy did not carry the negative meaning it does now. But, as the early church grew in its scope and influence throughout the Mediterranean area, various teachers proposed controversial ideas about Christ, God, salvation, and other biblical themes. It became necessary for the church to determine what was and was not true according to the Bible. For example, Arius of Alexandar (320 AD) taught that Jesus was a creation. Was this true? Was this important? Other errors arose. The Docetists taught that Jesus wasn’t human. The Modalists denied the Trinity. The Gnostics denied the incarnation of Christ. Out of necessity, the church was forced to deal with these heresies by proclaiming orthodoxy. And in so doing, condemnation upon these heresies and the heretics became a reality.

However, it seems that the word heresies is being used as a tool for disagreement. When all other arguments fail, throw the word heresy in and you have instant victory. Call anything you disagree with heresy, or label someone a heretic, and there is no need for further discussion, no reason to give a Biblical argument. After all, what more is there to say? But is that Biblical, is that right?

Recently Matt Svoboda and Denny Burk each posted articles that label the Egalitarian view heresy. After years of discussion, both egalitarians and complementarians giving passages of scripture to support their view, the ultimate conversation stopper has happened, but I disagree. I have read the arguments and find them wanting.

*Update: Matt Svoboda has commented that at the end of his post he has written his disagreement that Egalitarians cannot hold this view and be evangelical. He agrees that the word heresy is thrown around too much. I apologize for my misreading and thank Matt for correcting me.*

Denny Burk begins his post:

S. M. Hutchens is not known for pulling his punches when it comes to egalitarianism.

Pulls no punches, that is an interesting set of words considering S.M. Hutchens wrote in Touchstone blog:

I have closed the comments on the Sanctified Incoherence posting, but as I leave it, I wish to make something clear. It is alleged in those comments I have said Touchstone leads dissenters on egalitarianism firmly away into a side room. I believe nothing of the sort. It is a far more serious business than that–there is no question of a “side room” at all. I should hope that by now I have made it clear that the egalitarian who believes in his creed has placed himself outside the house entirely, at fundamental variance with Christian teaching:

. . . ἔξω οἱ κύνες καὶ οἱ φάρμακοι καὶ οἱ πόρνοι καὶ οἱ φονεῖς καὶ οἱ εἰδωλολάτραι καὶ πᾶς φιλῶν καὶ ποιῶν ψεῦδος.

This is Revelation 22.15. All “lovers and makers of lies” are Outside. I believe egalitarian teaching to be a lie, with all that follows from that.

Denny Burk agrees with this statement. But is it? To me it’s simply ending a long debate the easy way. I’m right, your wrong, here is the scripture. End of discussion. Yet too many other passages of scripture are left out. Remember, scripture interprets scripture. The Bible does not contradict itself.

I wrote a post a week or so ago on being tired of the debating over gender roles. It simply shows me that that the endless debates, the long discussions, are sometimes fodder for a good fight. But to end the discussion with the label of heresy, I believe is wrong. Once again, those who read and interpret the Bible differently are being shoved out of the church. In the good ole days, they would have been killed for disagreeing.

Matt De Hann of Radio Bible Class, has written, what I think is a thoughtful, Biblical, approach to this subject. I encourage the reading of it, as well as his most recent article on labeling Conservative and liberals, a subject I will write on in my next post.

I conclude this post by “not pulling any punches”. I fear we are getting further and further away from Christ and scripture, instead molding scripture to what we believe rather than molding our beliefs around scripture. Many Christians are taking teachings that they have been taught, and instead of looking at these teachings critically, like a good fight, or out of the need to control, leave no room that they could possibly be in error. This is excluding good Conservative Christians, again. In this case, women.

I will be open and honest in saying that I could be in error, but do I believe egalitarians are heretics? No. I, myself am a little complementarian, and a little egalitarian (It reminds me of the Donny and Marie song, “I’m A Little Bit Country, I’m A Little Bit Rock n’ Roll”). I see both in scripture, yet I see both as having it’s problems when put next to scripture. I agree with Mart De Haan who wrote in Been Thinking About Men, Women, and the Bible:

Seems to me that with the right attitudes (i.e. mutual love and respect) the issues of “authority,” “power,” and “control” become very small. On the other hand where individuals (men or women) combine the strengths they’ve been given with self-centered, abusive attitudes, and an unwillingness to be held accountable– the best kinds of organization in the home, church, or business ultimately fail.

Amen.

CBMW On Kids And What They Wear Pt. 2

Here is the second part of Timothy Paul Jones’ series on clothing our children wear and how that relates to building character.

I agree with Dr. Jones on this subject, and the attitude in which he writes. It’s important that we guide our children to being people of character. That is our main job as parents, to parent children into becoming responsible adults.

Prostitutes Go In Before Priests By John Piper

The last reference to John the Baptist in our four Gospels is in the final week of Jesus’ life. Jesus mentioned him to explain this astonishing statement to the chief priests and elders:

Truly , I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. (Matthew 21:31)

How in the world can a prostitute enter heaven before a priest?

Jesus explains:

For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. (Matthew 21:32)

The reason prostitutes are entering heaven before priests is that they believed John.

If you are a prostitute or a financial cheater, you may go into heaven before some priests, pastors, and TV preachers. The way in is— Believe what John the Baptist said:

Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world…. This is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” (John 1:33, 36)

Posted in its entirety with permission
John Piper
Desiring God Ministry Blog
Copyright 2008

Itching Ears Pt. 29: So Which View Is Correct?

I have presented several views which Christians hold. These are not views from a cult, but from solid Christian churches. However, if anyone will look through the history of the church, none of these views are exactly in line with what the church fathers believed, although several, if not all, claim the church fathers when giving an account of each held view.

Each view seems to change with time. Even Dispensationalism, which most of our Bibles are printed under, has changed with each passing year. Some, such as Dispensationalism, postmillennialism, fade away as history and time continue to march on. Other long held views rise up to take their place. There are new views that pop up, such as Pre-Wrath, which I don’t think we can trust.

So which view is correct? I’m not sure we can say with 100% accuracy. It’s the reason that Charles Spurgeon, for example, rarely preached on the future events, believing there was enough to preach on the present to last a lifetime. Teaching passages that the Bible was clear on. I agree.

But some argue, the end times are in the Bible, they are important since they are scripture. I agree with this as well. But, I disagree that the Bible is clear on this subject. It’s obvious just from the fact that there are so many views, some close to each other in doctrine, some completely opposite of each other, all held by good solid Christians, who believe the Bible to be God’s Word, whose desire it is to stay true to the scriptures.

I have presented all the differing views in order to point out that some base the spiritual growth of others, even questioning their salvation, based on the agreement of one particular end time view at the exclusion of the others. The word heresy has been thrown at the other views, and the doctrine of eschatology raised to a level that almost excludes other parts of the Bible.

I have named this series Itching Ears, based on the passage in 2 Timothy 4:3, which has been used to point to other doctrines, such as the doctrine of grace, yet I believe could be applied here, for the simple fact that certain eschatological views titilate people, they love to hear of the end of the world, or some Anti-Christ, what happens during the tribulation rather than other parts of the Bible or the Gospel. Eschatology tickles their ears. I have seen it in the first 30 years of my church going. They listen to every tape, message, read every book, visit every website, or have one of their own, that deals with eschatology, even using eschatology to replace the gospel when witnessing to the lost. Yet some sadly, have no idea what other parts of scripture say. This concerns me.

Men, such as Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, Jack Van Impe, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, have dedicated their lives, their ministries, to end time doctrine. Not only these men, but too many Christian churches, ministers, parishioners have too. Everything is seen through end time eyes. We’ve had week long revival meetings which have focused on end times, our tracts on the gospel are mostly a message of our particular end time view, our Bibles are printed with cliff notes, separating verses that were never meant to be separated with captions devoted to a mostly Dispensational view.

Sunday School classes, Wednesday and Sunday nights devote months to the topic of eschatology.  Websites are created, books are written, year after year on the subject of the end of the world, Israel, political scenarios that supposedly point to the end being near, guesses on who the Anti-Christ is. All claiming to be Biblically correct. Churches have split and separated from those who do not hold their particular view. Lives are lived, events viewed, through eschatology. Is this healthy for the church? I don’t think so.

What do you think? How important is eschatology? Can we know what the correct view is or should we be like those who believe it will all pan out in the end? Should we separate from those who believe differently than we do on this particular doctrine? What are some thoughts concerning the views I have presented? Your input as always is valuable, even if you disagree with me.

I agree with Gary DeMar who uses a scripture interprets scripture approach in reaching a conclusion on Revelation, Daniel etc. Scripture speaks for itself, and to study how words, even phrases, are used in other parts of scripture, is useful when interpreting other passages.The Bible never contradicts itself. All the Bible points to Christ. Knowing this will aid in coming to a Biblical conclusion on end times. It will also change how you will study the rest of the Bible. But just because something is in the Bible, does that mean that we will understand end times in this life time? Is it important that we do so? Should we always be willing to change our theology as we mature in our faith, and as the Holy Spirit enlightens?