A new blog for Christian women who seek to honor the Lord within their marriages. Much needed these days. Check it out!
Abomination, apostasy, Biblical Authority, Christian, christianity, Disobedience, Doctrine, false-prophets, God's Word, Jesus Christ, Knowledge, Last Days, Lies, Solid Scripture, theology, Truth, Word of God
By John MacArthur
we have the great privilege I think of looking at a subject that is important to all of us. I’m not gonna be dealing with the specific text, although we’ll cover a number of texts before we’re through tonight. But I wanna carry on our special study of Charismatic chaos looking and evaluating the Charismatic movement from the Word of God by focusing on the issue of interpreting the Bible. One of the things that allows for the Charismatic movement to continue to move ahead is that it is engaged in misinterpretation of Scripture. I know that’s a strong thing to say, but it’s true. The movement continues really at an amazing pace, not only in America but around the world. And as it moves and catapults itself along, it does so at the expense of Scripture. There is in my judgment, very little understanding in the Charismatic movement a proper Bible interpretation. Much of what exists in the Charismatic movement could be eliminated with just some very simple, straightforward, basic understanding of how to properly interpret the Bible. It falls technically under the title hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a theologian’s word to explain the science of Bible interpretation, and hermeneutics is a crucial building block in discerning theology. In fact, the absence of hermeneutics or misunderstanding of it feeds the Charismatic movement. Pentecostals and Charismatics tend to base much of their teaching on poor principles of Bible interpretation.
One of their own, a Pentecostal by the name of Gordon Fee has written this, “Pentecostals, in spite of some of their excesses, are frequently praised for recapturing for the church, her joyful radiance, missionary enthusiasm and life in the Spirit. But they are at the same time, noted for bad hermeneutics. First, their attitude toward Scripture regularly has included a general disregard for a scientific exegesis and carefully thought out hermeneutics. In fact, hermeneutics has simply not been a Pentecostal thing. Scripture is the Word of God and is to be obeyed. In place of scientific hermeneutics, there developed a kind of pragmatic hermeneutics. Obey what should be taken literally. Spiritualize, allegorize, or devotionalize the rest.
Secondly, it is probably fair and important to note that in general, the Pentecostal’s experience has preceded their hermeneutics. In a sense, the Pentecostal tends to exegete his experience.” This is not as I said, the appraisal of someone hostile to the movement, but the appraisal of one who is himself a Pentecostal. His assessment is right on. You only have to watch the typical Charismatic television program to see exactly what he’s talking about. You might of watched along with some of us in horror. Sometime back if you happened to be watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network, they were interviewing a guest on one of their talk shows, and he was explaining the Biblical basis of his ministry of possibility thinking. This is a quote, “My ministry is based entirely on my life verse, Matthew 19:26, ‘With God, all things are possible.’ God gave me that verse, Matthew 19:26, because I was born in 1926.”
Obviously intrigued by that method of obtaining a life verse, the host grabbed a Bible and began thumbing through it excitedly. “I was born in 1934,” he said. “My life verse must Matthew 19:34. What does it say?” Then he discovered that Matthew 19 has only 30 verses. Undeterred, he flipped to Luke and read Luke 19:34, and they said, “The Lord hath need of him.” Thrilled, he exclaimed, “The Lord has need of me, the Lord has need of me. What a wonderful life verse. I’ve never had a life verse before, but now the Lord has given me one. Thank you, Jesus, Hallelujah,” and the studio audience began to applaud. At that moment, however, the talk show host’s wife who had also turned to Luke 19 said, “Wait a minute, you can’t use this. This verse is talking about a donkey.”
That incident, while being absolutely ludicrous and bizarre, gives you some idea of the willy-nilly way that some Charismatics approach Scripture. Some of them, looking for a word from the Lord, play a sort of Bible roulette. They spin the Bible at random looking for something that might seem applicable to whatever trial or need they are facing and they find a verse and say, “Well, the Lord gave me that verse.” And then the Lord supposedly gave them the interpretation of it.
These are silly and foolish ways to approach the study of the Bible. Perhaps you’ve heard the familiar story of the man who wanted guidance about a major decision. Started to close his eyes and not knowing where to look, wanted God to answer him. In the dilemma, he opened his Bible, put his finger down to get guidance from whatever verse his finger happened to land on. His first try brought him to Matthew 27:5, “Judas went out and hanged himself.” Thinking that verse was really not much help, he determined to try again. This time his finger landed on Luke 10:37, “Go thou and do likewise.” Still undeterred and not ready to give up, he tried it a third time and his finger landed on John 13:27, “What thou doest, do quickly.”
Now, I certainly don’t wanna vouch for the authenticity of that particular account, but it does make an important point. Looking for meaning in Scripture through some mystical process is a way to get an ill-gotten theology. Looking for meaning in Scripture beyond the historical, grammatical, logical understanding of the context is unwise and dangerous. It’s possible, of course, to substantiate almost any idea or any teaching from Scripture if you take it out of its context and twist it around. I remember hearing about the preacher who didn’t think women should have their hair up on their head because a woman’s hair should be down, so he preached against what used to be called bobbed hair, women having their hair up on their heads. His text was top not come down, taken from Matthew 24 where it says, “Let those on the housetop not come down.” So, if you just pull out, if you just pull out exactly what you want, you can probably get it. We laugh at that because it sounds so bizarre, but that is precisely the process that many are using to substantiate their experiences or to invent their theology.
Now the task of hermeneutics is to realize, first of all, that there is a God given meaning in Scripture, apart from you or me or anybody else. Scripture means something if means nothing to me, understood? It means something if it means nothing to you. It means something if it means nothing to anybody. It means something in itself, and that meaning is determined by God, the Author, not by one who is going through some kind of mystical experience. The interpreter’s task then is to discern that meaning. To discover the meaning of the text in its proper setting, to draw the meaning out of the Scripture, rather than to read one’s meaning into it. The importance of careful, Biblical interpretation can hardly be overstated. We spend three or four years at the master seminary trying to teach men how to do this because it is the heart and soul of effective ministry. In fact, I would go so far as to say misinterpreting the Bible is ultimately no better than disbelieving it. So what do you mean by that?
Well, what good does it do to believe that the Bible is God’s final and complete word if you misinterpret it? Either way you miss the truth, right? It is equally serious along with disbelieving the Bible to misinterpret it. Interpreting Scripture to make it say what it was never intended to say is a sure road to division, to error, to heresy and to apostasy. In spite of all of the dangers of misinterpreting the Scripture, today we have these casual people who approach the Scripture whimsically without any understanding of the science of interpretation and make it say whatever they would like it to say. Perhaps you’ve been in one those Bible studies where you go around the room and everybody tells you what they think the verse means? Or worse than that, “Well, to me this verse means,” so-and-so. In the end, what you get is a pooling of ignorance, unless somebody knows what it means apart from them. The truth is it doesn’t matter what a verse means to me, it doesn’t matter what it means to you, it doesn’t matter what it means to anybody else, it doesn’t matter if it means anything to anybody else. All that matters is what does it mean? What did God intend to say? Every verse has intrinsic meaning apart from any of us and the task of Bible study is to discern the true meaning of Scripture. That’s why I can come to you week after week, month after month, year after year and explain to you the meaning of the Word of God, apart from any personal experience I’m having. That’s irrelevant.
The task of the interpreter is to discern the meaning of Scripture. In 2 Timothy 2:15 it says, “Be diligent,” or study, “present yourself approved to God as a workman who doesn’t need to be ashamed because he’s handling accurately the Word of Truth.” If you don’t handle it accurately, you oughta be ashamed of yourself. And if you’re gonna handle it accurately, you have to be diligent, you have to work hard at it. Clearly handling Scripture involves both of those things, hard work and diligence. It must be interpreted accurately, and those who fail to do that have reason to be ashamed.
Now, there’s so much to say about this that I can’t give you a whole course on hermeneutics. I teach some of that in the seminary as well as other professors and I’m not intending to give you a seminary course, but let me just suggest three errors that need to be avoided that are not always avoided in contemporary interpretation. One, and they’re very simple, do not make a point at the price of a proper interpretation. It’s like the preacher who said, “I have a good sermon, if I could just find a verse to go with it.” Do not prescribe your theology and then try to make the Bible fit it. You might have a good thought, good idea. It even might be that the principle that you have in mind is true, but do not allow yourself to make the point at the price of a proper interpretation.
Remember reading years ago, a good illustration of this found in the Jewish Talmud. One Rabbi was trying to convince his people that the primary issue in life is concern for other human beings. That’s good, good point. We oughta be concerned about other human beings, but he wanted to illustrate it and so he took ’em to the Tower of Babel and he told them that the stones of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, the building of that through the carrying of those stones illustrated his point. He said that the builders of the tower were frustrated because they put material things first and people last. Now where is that in Genesis? “Well,” he said, “as the tower grew taller, it took a hod carrier or a stone carrier many hours to carry a load of stones up. The higher it got, the longer the walk.” And he said, “If a man fell off the tower on the way down, nobody cared because you only lost a man, not the bricks. But if he fell off on the way up, they mourned because the bricks were lost. And that,” said the Rabbi, “is why God confused their language, because they failed to give priority to human beings over bricks.” Now, none of that can be found in Genesis 11, none of that can be found in the Bible. In fact, it totally skews the meaning of Genesis 11. It is true, people are more important than bricks, but that is not the point of the Tower of Babel. Genesis 11 says absolutely nothing about the importance of people or bricks. The point is God is more important than idols, and God will judge idolatry.
I remember being at a Bible conference in Wisconsin one time. And I got into the Bible conference with another well known preacher, and we were preaching every night, and one day we were eating lunch, and I said, “What are you gonna preach on tonight?” He said, “I’m gonna preach on the rapture of the church.” I said, “Really? The rapture of the church, great. What’s your text?” He said, “John 11.” I said, “What?” He said, “John 11.” I said, “John 11, the rapture of the church isn’t in John 11.” He said, “You wait and see tonight.” I said, “Fine, fine.” That night he preached on the rapture from John 11. That’s the resurrection of Lazarus. He allegorized it, Lazarus was the church, Martha was the Old Testament saints and Mary was the tribulation saints and he got this thing goin’. And the people were just sitting there saying, “Deep, deep.” You know, they were just thinkin’ this is the profoundest thing. They couldn’t find it anywhere. They thought he was goin’ deeper than they had capability to go. And afterwards he said to me, “Have you ever seen that in John 11?” To which I replied as kindly as I could, “No one has ever see that in John 11.” And he took it as a compliment. The next night he said, “John MacArthur told me that no one but me had ever seen that in John 11.”
Now, I don’t wanna argue with the rapture of the church, but I will argue that the rapture of the church is not in John 11, and if you’re gonna make John 11 say something that is true, then you’re just as likely to make John 11 say something that what? That isn’t true. That is not the way you approach Scripture.
God has not hidden His truth from us, but its meaning is not always instantly clear. It demands hard work. That’s why in 1 Timothy 5:17 it says that, “Those elders who labor in the Word and doctrine are worth of double honor,” because it’s hard work. That’s why God has given teachers to the church so that we can work hard and understanding God’s Word correctly, instructing people in the Scriptures through persistent, conscientious labor in the Word.
Now, today we have, frankly, a lack of respect for the work of gifted theologians, a lack of respect for the hard work of gifted expositors who have spent years studying and interpreting Scripture. In fact, that lack of respect tends to be somewhat charismatically characteristic. They tend to sort of look at all of us that way. I think I read you of the letter from the lady who said, “Your problem is you’re too much into the Bible. Throw away your Bible,” remember that, “and stop studying.” You see, Charismatics place more emphasis on letting people in the congregation say whatever they think Jesus is telling them the verse means, and to listen to what one writer calls, “Airy fairy theologians.” There’s a vast difference, by the way, between the whimsical kitchen table interpretations of laymen, the teaching of skilled men who work very hard to rightly divide the Word.
I heard a radio interview with a Charismatic woman pastor. She was asked how she got her sermons up? She replied, “I don’t get ’em up, I get ’em down. God delivers them to me.” That’s an all too familiar thing. I can promise you that God has never delivered one to me. I haven’t gotten them down. I’ve had to ’em up. Some people even believe it’s unspiritual to study. After all, some say, taking another verse out of context, didn’t Jesus say, “For the Holy Spirit will teach you and that very hour what you want to say,” so you just go into the pulpit and whatever comes into your mind, you say? And that’s why they invent their theology as they speak because they have no idea what’s going to be said until they hear it. We should be greatly concerned about this ad lib approach. You never ever make a point true or false at the price of a proper interpretation. Otherwise, you are the final authority and not the Word of God.
Secondly, don’t spiritualize or allegorize the text. Some people think the Bible is a fable to teach whatever you wanna get across. A myriad of illustrations of this. I remember back when Jerry Mitchell was on our staff and a young couple came into him for counseling, marriage counseling. He began to talk with them and after about 30 minutes, he said he’d been married only six months and you’re already on the edge of a divorce? Why did you ever get married? You’re miles apart. “Oh,” said the husband, “it was a sermon the pastor preached in our church.” “What was the sermon?” “Well, he preached on the walls of Jericho.” “Jericho? What does that have to do with marriage?” “Well,” he said, “God’s people claimed the city marched around it seven times and the walls fell down.” And he said, “If a young man believed God had given him a certain girl, he could claim her, march around her seven times and the walls of her hear would fall down. That’s what I did and we got married.” “That can’t be true,” he said. “You’re kidding, aren’t you?” I remember him sayin’ that. “You gotta be kidding.” “No, it’s true. And there were many other couples that got married because of the same sermon.” Some people believe their marriages were made in Heaven. That was made in an allegory and a bad one at that. That’s the kind of interpretation that has gone on since the early days of the church, continues today, especially in the Charismatic movement.
Remember listening to a series on the book of Nehemiah. The whole purpose of the book of Nehemiah by this Charismatic preacher was to teach Charismatic doctrine. Jerusalem’s walls were in ruin and that was representative of the broken down walls of human personality. Nehemiah was the Holy Spirit, the king’s pool was the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the mortar between the bricks was tongues. And what Nehemiah’s teaching is the Holy Spirit wants to come rebuild your broken walls through the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. I had an opportunity to talk to that preacher about that and we had an interesting conversation. I tried to show him that that was nothing but the invention of his own imagination, read from the New Testament back into the Old, but never the intention of Nehemiah, to which he agreed. That kind of preaching is a form of hucksterism, and as I said, “You may come up with the truth that you teach, but if you spiritualize the text to do it, then you legitimize spiritualization of any text which leaves you with any fanciful conclusion.”
Well, the correct approach you probably need to go to Jesus and remember that when He was walking on the road to Emmaus, He said, Luke did, the beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in the Scriptures. The Word explained is hermeneual from which we get hermeneutics. He carefully interpreted the Old Testament. He used hermeneutics. He’s a model of a teacher, used sound interpretive methods.
So, when we teach the Word of God, when we come to the conclusions that we come to, we wanna be certain that we don’t make severe errors, one, by making points at the price of proper interpretation, two, by somehow concocting or spiritualizing something that isn’t there, and three, and I’ve already talked about this, by superficial study. Superficial study is equally disastrous. But I’ve said enough about that not to have to say more.
Now, if that’s the case, if we are to avoid doing that, how do we then interpret the Scripture? Let me give ya five sound principles, alright? If you work through these, you’ll be on the way to rightly dividing the Word. Principle number one we’ll call the literal principle, the literal one. When we go to the Bible, this is so basic, we assume that God is talking to us in normal speech, k? Normal language, normal, common, everyday communication. In fact, the theologians used to call it usisloquindi in the Latin, meaning the words of Scripture are to be interpreted the same way words are understood in ordinary daily use. If it says horse, it means horse, if it says he went somewhere, he went somewhere. If it says house, it means house, if it says man, it means man, and not everything is to be extrapolated off into some mystical spiritualization, allegorization or whatever. He is literal.
We understand Scripture then in the literal sense of language. Now there are figures of speech, there are simile, metaphor, hyperbole, onomatopoeia, whatever else, ellipses. All of the figures of speech will be there. There may even be sarcasm. There may even be exaggeration as a device. There may be symbolism such as the symbolism in the prophetic literature which is obviously symbolic, clearly symbolic. But it is in the normal language of speech. We use symbols in our language. We say, “That man is as straight as a pine tree,” or “that man is as strong as an ox.” Well, we’re using a symbol to make a literal point or statement. So then, when we interpret the Bible, we’re not hunting for some extrapolated, mystical experience.
Now the Rabbis really got into this. They started to look for this long centuries ago. In fact, they used to say, some of them said that Abraham had 318 servants. Nothing in the Bible says that, but they said the secret meaning of the word Abraham is in the Hebrew there’s only three consonants in Abraham’s name: ba, ra, m. All the rest are vowels or breathing points. So, if you take ba, ra, m, in his name, they had numerical equivalents in the Hebrew language and add ’em up you get 318, so the secret meaning is he had 318 servants. Now they were into all that kind of stuff and even got more bizarre than that.
There was occasionally of course, figurative language in Scripture as I said, but they’re quite evident to us in the normal course of understanding language. Scripture was not written to puzzle people. It was not written to confuse them. It was written to make things clear to them. Even parables are nothing more than illustrations. They’re not riddles. They’re illustrations, and in most cases, Jesus explained their meaning. And in all cases, He said that the meaning would be revealed to those who belong to Him by the Holy Spirit. So, we can’t abandon literal interpretation and favor of mystical, allegorical, metaphorical kinds of interpretation to discard all hope of achieving accuracy and coherence, and throw us into some imaginary field. I would venture to say that most Charismatic preaching is imagination run wild, proof texted. They have, at least the popular part of it. I don’t know whether most is a fair thing to say, but the popular part of it that I hear has much imagination and very little hermeneutics. When you do not take the time to discern the literal meaning, you are not serving Scripture by trying to understand it, then you are making Scripture your slave by molding it into whatever you want it to say. So, we start with a literal principle. It’s literal language.
Secondly, an historical principle. Now, when the Scripture was written, they understood what was said, clearly. Just like the Constitution, when it was written everybody understood what they meant. Here we are a few hundred years later tryin’ to figure out what they meant. Why? Because history’s different. Time has past, culture has changes, circumstances have changed, and even language has changed, modes of expressions have changed, patterns of life have changed. And so we’re trying to get in touch with an old document and reconstruct what it must have meant to them when it was written. Same is true of the Bible, only it’s much older than the Constitution. Any ancient document demands interpretation. And so what do we have to do then to interpret it? We have to reset it in its historical context.
I’m always amazed when I hear someone say, “John 3 must be goin’ to the water and the Spirit means must be born physically, and you must be born spiritually.” Have you heard that? When a woman has a baby, there’s water, we say, “The water breaks and the baby’s born, that’s born of the water, and spiritually, you’re born of the Spirit.” The problem is that in the Jewish context, that wouldn’t have been said because the Jews didn’t say, “The water breaks.” So, what you’ve done is taken an American colloquialism and read it into an ancient book that would mean absolutely nothing to those people. The question is when He said, “You must be born of the water and the Spirit,” what water would they think about, right? What water was in the historical setting? The only water and spirit they would think about in their Jewish context, particularly Nicodemus, would be that of Ezekiel who said, “The day is coming when God’s gonna wash you with clean water and put His Spirit within you,” and he would have put it that context, the context of the new covenant, not some colloquial American expression for human birth.
We must then understand the need for the historical principle. When Jesus walks in, for example, to the temple courtyard and said, “I am the Light of the world.” Why did he say that? Did He just go around saying strange things at strange moments? “I’m the Light of the world,” and somebody would say, “What did He say that for?” Well, why would He say, “I am the Water of Life. Whoever drinks of this water, out of his belly shall flow rivers of _____?” What is He talking about? Why does He outburst with these obtuse remarks? No, when He said in John 8, “I am the Light of the world,” He was standing in the temple courtyard and there was a huge candelabra that had been lit for eight straight days in the feast of lights, and it had just gone out the day before, and He walks in to that very setting and says in effect, this thing has gone out, but I’m the Light of the world and I never go out. And when He said, “I’m the Water of Life,” they were going to the hallels and they were celebrating the water that came out of the rock in the wilderness, and He said, “There was water then, but it was temporary, I am the Water, and you drink this water, you’ll never thirst, but you’ll be a gushing well of water.” Always the context gives the meaning.
We’ve got to go back, what are the historical features? What is the characteristic of the city in which the believers lived who heard this? What was going on there? What were the politics? Who was ruling? What were the social pressures? What were the tensions, problems and crises that they were going through? What was the culture of the day? What was life like? What were customs like? I spend a great amount of my time researching all of that information so that when I get in the pulpit, I can make something clearer, and I’m always amazed, in fact, it happened a couple times this morning. People came to me and said, “You know, that passage is so clear. It’s so clear. I wonder why I’ve never seen it before?” The reason it was clear, the reason you understood it is because I fed you the context in which it had its significance. It seemed simple and clear to you, a lot simpler than you know. It is simple to the one who was there and heard it the first time, but it is more complex to me as I have to discern what they heard and how they heard it. That’s part of the process. To answer the cultural, historical question, you use Bible dictionaries and books on history and Bible handbooks, and commentaries, and books about Bible customs and so forth and so on.
Third principle, grammatical principle. You go to a text of Scripture and you have to approach it grammatically. This is called syntax, S-Y-N-T-A-X. Lexicography is the study of words, syntax is the study of the relationship of words. You have to learn about verbs and adverbs and adjectives, and you have to learn about infinitives and participles, and you have to learn about prepositions. You have to learn about conjugating verbs and you have to learn about cases for nouns and substantives, ablative and genitive and all of that and accusative, nominative. You learn all the structure of language. You have to learn about antecedents about relationships. You have to learn about conditional and non conditional clauses.
You know what makes this really difficult now in seminary? The latest statistics that I’ve seen regarding our seminary, we get the cream of the crop, we get the finest young men coming out of the universities of our nation. One out of four of the men coming into the master seminary, one out of four can pass the basic English exam, one out of four. They can all talk English, they can all read English, they just don’t understand the structure of language, and because they don’t understand the structure of language, you can’t teach them a foreign language until they do. We have people today who will never be able to understand the structure of the foreign languages Hebrew and Greek because they don’t even understand the structure of English trying to interpret the Bible. Now, grammar’s not anybody’s favorite subject. Sorry, those of you who teach English. Grammar is just grammar, it’s just there and you have to learn it. But it is essential in interpreting the Word of God.
People say to me, “What’s the first thing you do when you prepare a message?” The first thing I do is study the Biblical text in the original language and learn the grammar and understand all the word relationships, go over sentence structure and grammar so I know exactly what is being said, what modifies what and how it all fits together. In fact, more often than not, when I preach to you, the main idea that I’m trying to get across to you is contained in the main verb and the supporting ideas are contained in the participles that modify the main verb. Now, you can do this for yourself by reading commentaries which will help you in the process, by doing inductive Bible study, breaking down into diagramming sentences. Remember that terrible thing you used to have to do that nobody does anymore? But that’s all a part of discerning grammatical construction.
And another principle, let’s call it the synthesis principle, the synthesis principle. The old reformers use the expression scriptura scripturum interpretator. What that means is Scripture is its own interpreter, and you use the synthesis principle. What does that mean? That I always interpret a given passage in the Bible in the light of the rest of the Bible, right? I don’t come across a passage and say, “Wow, this is a new doctrine taught nowhere else in the Bible.” Wait a minute. If you think that passage is teaching a doctrine that is taught nowhere else in the Bible and appears contradictory to other things taught in the Bible, you’ve misinterpreted it, right? Because Scripture will be consistent with itself, why? One perfect author wrote it all. Who’s that? God. Scripture will interpret Scripture. The Holy Spirit won’t disagree with Himself, and you can interpret the Word of God by the Word of God. That is a very, very essential thing.
And then, one more principle, fifthly, the practical principle, the practical principle. The final question you ask, you go through this whole process starting out, alright, what’s the literal meaning here? Then you move to what’s the historical background, the context. What are all the grammatical components here? How does this synthesize with the rest of Scripture. You hear me do that, don’t you? I make a point and then I show you other verses where that point exists in order to see that this is the Scripture teaching and elucidating on its own truth. And then, the last question you ask is so what? What does it mean to me? What does it have to do with me? How does it apply to my life? But you never ask that question until you’ve gone through all the other steps, right? Most people today read the Bible and then say, “Alright, what does this mean to me,” and they skip all the stuff in the middle. By the way, I would recommend to you a helpful little book. If you wanna good tool that’s excellent for you, that’s Dick Mahew’s book, How to Interpret the Bible. It’s a paperback, it’ll be a tremendous tool for you. I know we have it in our bookstore and you can go in and buy ’em all out tonight.
Now, in the process of this, one more thing I need to say. And these five principles of interpreting Scripture, there’s another component and that’s the principle of the Holy Spirit and illumination. Even when I have taken it literally and worked through the grammar and reconstructed the history, and when I have delved into all the terms and the words and synthesized it with all of Scripture, all of that effort would come up empty if it weren’t for the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit because He alone knows the things that are coming from God, 1 Corinthians 2 says. And He is the One who teaches them to us. He is the anointing, in 1 John 2:27, that teaches us all things. Remember that verse, 1 John 2:27? John says, “The anointing which you have received from Him abides in you. You have no need for anyone to teach you, but as His anointing teaches you about all things and is true and not a lie, just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.” It’s not telling us we don’t need teachers and it’s not telling us we don’t need those who guide us because He’s given to the church apostles, prophets, evangelists, teaching pastors, and even teachers to teach us. And he’s given us some the gifts of teaching and preaching so that we can be taught. But it is an assurance that we can know the difference between the heresy that is being discussed in 1 John 2, and the truth regarding the Gospel of Christ because we possess the Spirit. It doesn’t guarantee that we’re gonna have the correct interpretation of every verse in the Bible even though we do nothing. It doesn’t mean we don’t need human teachers. It just means, regarding the Gospel, regarding the basic truth of Christ, we can discern by the Holy Spirit’s leading truth from error.
Now, in closing, just a suggestion, four texts are commonly misinterpreted by Charismatics. And I’ll just apply what we’ve learned tonight to those four very briefly to help you understand how easily they could be rightly understood. The first one, I want you to turn to it. We’re not gonna do all that we could do because you can buy my commentary or get the tape on the passage and go through it in detail, but Matthew 12 is a good starting point because they use this quite often to intimidate Christians. In Matthew 12, you have the record of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and you’ll remember that Jesus said, “Anything could be forgiven you, anything said against the Son of Man, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven you.” If we had the time, we could read from verse 22 all the way on, but just go down to verse 31. Jesus says, “Therefore, I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.” Now, what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Well, if you listen to two very, very popular Charismatics by the name of Charles and Francis Hunter, well known husband and wife team who’ve written numbers of books and speak on the road all the time, this is what they say. They say that anyone who questions tongues, and this is pretty much what you hear from the Charismatic movement, anyone who questions tongues or any other aspect of the Charismatic movement is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. They imply that any critics of the Charismatic movement are perilously close to being condemned by Christ for such blasphemy. Is that what this is teaching? They use this verse to support that. Does a challenge to Charismatic error equal blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? When someone denies that tongues are for today or that the baptism of the Spirit is a post salvation experience, has that person committed the unpardonable sin? Not according to this passage. In this text, remember, a demon possessed man was born blind and dumb, brought to Jesus and He healed him? The Pharisees heard it, they said Jesus cast out demons by Satan, remember that? By Beelzebub, which was their name for the lord of the flies, the Philistine satan, the prince of evil spirits, they were saying Jesus does what He does by the power of Satan.
Now, according to the principles and interpretation which we’ve just learned, the first thing to do would be to look at the literal meaning of the passage. The Pharisees were literally saying Jesus Christ got His power from Satan, alright? We understand that. Let’s move to the historical principle. Jesus’ ministry had been going on for two years, and during that time He performed numerous miracles that proved to everyone really, should have proved to everyone, that He was God, He was the Messiah. The conclusion should have been He is God. Their conclusion was He functions under the power of Satan. They concluded the exact opposite.
Using the synthesis principle, we’ll go a step further. We check other parts of the Bible and we find that at His baptism, Jesus received the Holy Spirit, and after being baptized, the Spirit of God descended as a dove, came upon Him. And then we learned that when Jesus went out and performed His miracles, it was the Spirit working through Him. He had yielded Himself up to the Holy Spirit. And so, it was the Holy Spirit working in Him, casting out demons by the Spirit’s power. They were coming along and saying He did by Satan’s power. Blasphemy then against the Holy Spirit was attributing the works of Christ done by the Spirit of God to Satan. That’s what blasphemed the Holy Spirit. It was being exposed to the full revelation of Christ’s deity, seeing His miracles, hearing His teaching and concluding He’s satanic. For that you can’t be forgiven. Why? Because if you have seen it all and heard it all and you conclude that He’s satanic, you can’t get saved, right? Because you’ve concluded exactly the opposite about Christ. That’s the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in Matthew 12, doesn’t say anything about tongues, doesn’t say anything about the contemporary Charismatic movement.
We know that all of us, as sinners, resist the Holy Spirit. All of us who are convicted by the Holy Spirit and fight back at that conviction are resisting and in one way or another, blaspheming Him, but still we can be saved. The only way you can blaspheme to the degree where you couldn’t be saved is if you had had all the revelation and you concluded the opposite of the truth. You’re unsavable because in order to be saved, you have to acknowledge Jesus as God, right? First of all, the sin against the Holy Spirit referred to there as an historical event. And secondly, if there was some application to us, it would simply be rejecting Christ when you have full knowledge.
Look at another one, Hebrews 13:8. This is a very brief one, but again, it’s a classic illustration of the way they work. Almost every Pentecostal church you’ll go into, certainly in the past this was true, will have a verse in the front of the church, the back of the church on a plaque somewhere. It’ll be Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today forever.” Have you ever been into a Pentecostal church and seen that? It is in most all of them or was. “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today and forever.” Now, why is that important? This is what they say. If Jesus baptized with the evidence of speaking in tongues yesterday, then surely He’s doing it today and He’ll be doing it tomorrow. And so they use that to say whatever Jesus did in the past, He’s doing now, He’ll be doing in the future. The silliness of that interpretation is the tongues never started until Acts 2, so though Jesus is the same yesterday, throughout all the yesterday of His eternal existence, He didn’t do that. You see how obvious that is? Then you say, “Now, wait a minute. In the yesterday He did miracles.” No, no, no, not in the yesterday of His eternal existence. Before the world began, He wasn’t doing miracles, and before the world He wasn’t sending the Spirit in clove and tongues of fire. You see, what you have here is a statement about the eternal, immutable essence of Christ. That He is eternal yesterday, today and forever and unchanging in His essence, not that He has always is and will always do everything the same way.
Well, we don’t have time to look at the other Scriptures. One favorite they like says that these signs will follow those that believe. They’ll cast out demons, speak with new tongues. They love to emphasize that. They’re not so hot on picking up snakes and drinking deadly poison. And then it says it’ll not hurt them if they drink it and they’ll lay hands on the sick and they’ll recover. They say, “See, we can heal the sick,” and “See, we can speak in tongues,” and “See, we can cast out demons.” But they don’t advocate picking up poisonous snakes and drinking deadly poison. It’s just, in fact, how they handle that is, I need to just tell ya how they handle it. The hunters, for example, say, “Well, that only counts if you pick up the snake accidentally.” Is that what it says in Mark’s gospel, if you happen to pick up a snake accidentally? Or it only matters if you drink the poison accidentally. In fact, they write do you notice the Bible says, “If we drink anything poisonous,” it means, “Accidentally it won’t hurt us. Hallelujah, best insurance policy we know of.”
The problem with their interpretation is it’s not literal. There’s no accidentally there. Furthermore, historically he’s talking about the apostolic age and those who responded to the ministry of the apostles. They even go so far as to make the silly remark, and of course, we all know that the biggest snake is Satan, and when he bites us, God delivers us from his deadly poison which just allegorizes the thing, spiritualizes it. They play fast and loose.
The concern that I have is to share with you just the sense that there’s an awful lot of irresponsibility in dealing with these texts and for your sake and mine, we need not, listen carefully to me, we need not just to criticize the movement. We need to be able to go beneath and to show where the critical flaws lie.
One text in closing, and you know it very well, 2 Timothy 2:15, just to remind you so you’re armed if you get into any conversation with folks like this. “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who doesn’t need to be ashamed,” then the last phrase, “handling accurately the Word of Truth.” Beloved, this is where we must lay down the law. We must protect the integrity of Scripture by demanding a proper interpretation. That phrase, “handling accurately,” means cutting it straight. Paul was a tentmaker, in order to make a tent, he had to cut a lot of pieces of material, either hide or woven hair. If he didn’t cut the parts right, like making a dress or a shirt, that the hole didn’t fit together. You cut the parts right, you sew ’em together, it works. And he’s saying if you don’t cut the pieces right, the whole theology doesn’t fit together, and what you’ve got is people hackin’ up the pieces and putting together an obtuse bizarre theology that does not make sense, is not coherent. We must know how to rightly divide the Word of Truth because if we don’t, mishandling the Scripture and not interpreting it properly just feeds endless confusion. And that is why there is so much Charismatic chaos.
Father, thank you for our time tonight and looking over these sayings and considering some of the basics of Bible interpretation, make us faithful, and Lord, help us again to realize that many people in this movement love You and are victimized. They’re victimized by these foolish interpretations that are given to them very authoritatively by people who sound convincing. We pray that Your Spirit will give them great discernment. We know that Your Spirit will grant them to discern if they’re true believers, between heresy about the Gospel and the truth of the Gospel, and we can only ask that somehow Your Spirit will lead them to true teachers who will teach them the right interpretation of Scripture so that they will not be confused, and thus, miss the privilege and opportunity of spiritual growth and giving You glory You deserve. Lord, thank You for giving us exposure to those who rightly divided the Word so that we can follow in their stead. Make us faithful to that Word which rightly understood must be applied, and all for Your glory, in Christ’s Name, Amen.
For more information on proper biblical interpretation and the chaos created by the false charismatic theology: http://www.gty.org/resources/sermon-series/219/charismatic-chaos
And just my own two cents, while God is speaking to Israel, His message is applicable to this and other false prophets and those who come in His name today claiming special revelation from a closed canon. As God says “In the latter days you will understand it clearly.” And those who are His clearly do.~AGM†
Jeremiah 23, ESV
1“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the Lord.2Therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: “You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the Lord.3Then I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply.4I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, declares the Lord.
5“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land.6In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’
7“Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when they shall no longer say, ‘As the Lord lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt,’8but ‘As the Lord lives who brought up and led the offspring of the house of Israel out of the north country and out of all the countries where hea had driven them.’ Then they shall dwell in their own land.”
9Concerning the prophets:
My heart is broken within me; all my bones shake; I am like a drunken man, like a man overcome by wine, because of the Lord and because of his holy words. 10 For the land is full of adulterers; because of the curse the land mourns, and the pastures of the wilderness are dried up. Their course is evil, and their might is not right. 11 “Both prophet and priest are ungodly; even in my house I have found their evil, declares the Lord.
12 Therefore their way shall be to them like slippery paths in the darkness, into which they shall be driven and fall, for I will bring disaster upon them in the year of their punishment, declares the Lord. 13 In the prophets of Samaria I saw an unsavory thing: they prophesied by Baal and led my people Israel astray. 14 But in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing: they commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his evil; all of them have become like Sodom to me, and its inhabitants like Gomorrah.” 15 Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts concerning the prophets: “Behold, I will feed them with bitter food and give them poisoned water to drink, for from the prophets of Jerusalem ungodliness has gone out into all the land.”
16Thus says the Lord of hosts: “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord.17They say continually to those who despise the word of the Lord, ‘It shall be well with you’; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, ‘No disaster shall come upon you.’”
18 For who among them has stood in the council of the Lord to see and to hear his word, or who has paid attention to his word and listened? 19 Behold, the storm of the Lord! Wrath has gone forth, a whirling tempest; it will burst upon the head of the wicked. 20 The anger of the Lord will not turn back until he has executed and accomplished the intents of his heart. In the latter days you will understand it clearly.
21 “I did not send the prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied. 22 But if they had stood in my council, then they would have proclaimed my words to my people, and they would have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their deeds.
23“Am I a God at hand, declares the Lord, and not a God far away?24Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord.25I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in my name, saying, ‘I have dreamed, I have dreamed!’26How long shall there be lies in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies, and who prophesy the deceit of their own heart,27who think to make my people forget my name by their dreams that they tell one another, even as their fathers forgot my name for Baal?28Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? declares the Lord.29Is not my word like fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?30Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who steal my words from one another.31Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who use their tongues and declare, ‘declares the Lord.’32Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the Lord, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the Lord.
33“When one of this people, or a prophet or a priest asks you, ‘What is the burden of the Lord?’ you shall say to them, ‘You are the burden,b and I will cast you off, declares the Lord.’34And as for the prophet, priest, or one of the people who says, ‘The burden of the Lord,’ I will punish that man and his household.35Thus shall you say, every one to his neighbor and every one to his brother, ‘What has the Lord answered?’ or ‘What has the Lord spoken?’36But ‘the burden of the Lord’ you shall mention no more, for the burden is every man’s own word, and you pervert the words of the living God, the Lord of hosts, our God.37Thus you shall say to the prophet, ‘What has the Lord answered you?’ or ‘What has the Lord spoken?’38But if you say, ‘The burden of the Lord,’ thus says the Lord, ‘Because you have said these words, “The burden of the Lord,” when I sent to you, saying, “You shall not say, ‘The burden of the Lord,’”39therefore, behold, I will surely lift you up and cast you away from my presence, you and the city that I gave to you and your fathers.40And I will bring upon you everlasting reproach and perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten.’”
“On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”
“As the crowds increased, Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.”
“For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.”
From The Valley of Vision:
My dear Lord, I can but tell Thee that Thou knowest I long for nothing but Thyself, nothing but holiness, nothing but union with Thy will. Thou hast given me these desires, and thou alone canst give me the thing desired. My soul longs for communion with Thee, for mortification of indwelling corruption, especially spiritual pride. How precious it is to have a tender sense and clear apprehension of the mystery of godliness, of true holiness! What a blessedness to be like Thee as much as it is possible for a creature to be like its creator! Lord, give me more of Thy likeness; enlarge my soul to contain fullness of holiness; engage me to live more for Thee. Help me to be less pleased with my spiritual experiences, and when I feel at ease after sweet communings, teach me it is far too little I know and do. Blessed Lord, let me climb up near to Thee, and love, and long, and plead, and wrestle with Thee, and pant for deliverance from the body of sin, for my heart is wandering and lifeless, and my soul mourns to think it should ever lose sight of its beloved. Wrap my life in divine love, and keep me ever desiring Thee, always humble and resigned to Thy will, more fixed on Thyself, that I may be more fitted for doing and-suffering.
May it be so Lord! May it be!
apologetics, Bible, Biblical Authority, Blessed, Christ, Christian, christianity, christians, church, Death, Disobedience, Doctrine, eternity, false converts, False Gospel, false repentance, Genuine repentance, God, God's Word, Haughty, Heart is deceitful, Hell, Jesus Christ, Knowledge, Lies, Only Son of God, Salvation, Scripture, Self appraisal, Sin, Solid Scripture, Test yourself, Truth, Word of God
by John MacArthur
What kind of evidence substantiates authentic repentance? When the crowds asked that question of John the Baptist in Luke 3:10, he told them to share with their needy neighbors (v. 11). To tax collectors he said, “Collect no more than what you have been ordered to” (v. 13). To soldiers he said, “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages” (v. 14).
In each case, he was calling for a selfless attitude and kindness to one’s neighbors. That short list doesn’t exhaust all the possible fruits of repentance, of course, but it demonstrates that genuine repentance ought to produce the kind of character change that results in a qualitative difference in the way we live. James wrote, “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). In a similar way, repentance that doesn’t produce works is barren and useless. A person who has genuinely repented is never left unchanged.
The apostle Paul likewise looked for proof of repentance. “I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision,” he said, “but kept declaring… to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance” (Acts 26:19-20, emphasis added).
The emphasis on self-examination is consistent throughout Scripture. Because true repentance is one of the first indications of salvation, believers can and should look to the fruit of repentance for assurance. As Paul said, “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Corinthians 5:17).
Scripture presents self-examination as an essential prerequisite for authentic assurance (2 Corinthians 13:5). The evidences of true salvation cited in Scripture include the fruits of one’s behavior (1 John 3:18-19), pattern of life (1 John 3:24), and way of thinking (1 John 5:1-2).
Don’t be misled: salvation is in no way merited by our works, and therefore true assurance is not ultimately grounded in our performance. Self-examination can destroy false assurance, but you’ll never find settled assurance merely by looking at yourself. In the end, we have to look away from ourselves and rest in the objective promises of God’s Word. True, lasting assurance is anchored in the promise of salvation to all who believe. That promise is as true as God Himself and needs no empirical verification.
Still, self-examination is a necessary and biblical aspect of gaining assurance. It is the process by which we evaluate the quality of our own faith. And the fruits of repentance are the evidence we must seek.
This is especially crucial in the contemporary evangelical environment. Multitudes believe they are saved merely because someone told them so after a cursory conversation, the simple reciting of a canned prayer, the raising of a hand in a public meeting, or sometimes even less. People have not been challenged to examine themselves. Rarely do they test their assurance by God’s Word. As a matter of fact, many have been taught that doubts about their salvation can only be detrimental to spiritual health and growth.
But Scripture demands self-examination. In fact, we’re supposed to examine ourselves regularly, every time we partake of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:28). Paul’s famous challenge to the believers at Corinth clearly has the doctrine of assurance in view: “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?” (2 Corinthians 13:5 emphasis added). And Hebrews 10:22 indicates that “full assurance of faith” comes from “having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience.”
So we need to examine ourselves in the process of coming to grips with assurance. Nowhere is this made more plain in Scripture than 1 John, one of the key passages of Scripture on the subject of assurance. In fact, the epistle was written with the express purpose of building the assurance of true believers. John wrote, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13). His aim is to deepen the assurance of genuine Christians—those “who believe in the name of the Son of God.” He’s not trying to provoke doubts in the presence of authentic faith; he is giving us a basis to “assure our heart before Him” (3:19).
Notice again, however, that our faith in Christ is the ultimate ground and foundation of true assurance. Self-examination is simply the process by which we examine whether our faith is genuine and our repentance real.
True believers should not be unnerved by the biblical call to self-examination. Unbelievers and mere hearers of the Word, on the other hand, need to have their self-confidence shaken. So the apostle John names several practical tests that may be used to determine the authenticity of faith—including such things as obedience (2:3-6; 3:1-10), sound doctrine (2:21-28; 4:1-6), and love for the brethren (3:14-19; 4:7-11). Those are fruits of true repentance.
If you judge yourself by your own estimation, you will always see what you are loooking for, you will always be what you want to be….But not what you truly are according to the word of God.~AGM†
A wonderful response to my last article (“Are You a New Creation in Christ?”) from a sister that I dearly love. I’m posting her message to me in it’s entirety (sans closing). Please check out her blog, if you will. And keep her in prayer. She is such a blessing to the Kingdom, and personally to me. I love you Lyn. ~AGM†
“This post is so VERY MUCH needed at this hour; this is from A. W. Pink…
“Three Kinds of “Christians”
Broadly speaking there are three kinds of “Christians”: preacher-made, self-made, and God-made ones. In the former are included not only those who were “sprinkled” in infancy and thereby made members of a “church” (though not admitted to all its privileges), but those who have reached the age of accountability and are induced by some high-pressure “evangelist” to “make a profession.” This high pressure business is in different forms and in varying degrees, from appeals to the emotions to mass hypnotism whereby crowds are induced to “come forward.” Under it countless thousands whose consciences were never searched and who had no sense of their lost condition before God were persuaded to “do the manly thing,” “enlist under the banner of Christ,” “unite with God’s people in their crusade against the devil.” Such converts are like mushrooms: they spring up in a night and survive but a short time, having no root. Similar too are the vast majority produced under what is called “personal work,” which consists of a species of individual “buttonholing,” and is conducted along the lines used by commercial travelers seeking to make a “forced sale.”
The “self-made” class is made up of those who have been warned against what has just been described above, and fearful of being deluded by such religious hucksters they determined to “settle the matter” directly with God in the privacy of their own room or some secluded spot. They had been given to understand that God loves everybody, that Christ died for the whole human race, and that nothing is required of them but faith in the gospel. By saving faith they suppose that a mere intellectual assent to, or acceptance of, such statements as are found in John 3:16 and Romans 10:13 is all that is intended. It matters not that John 2:23, 24 declares that “many believed in his name but Jesus did not commit himself unto them,” that “many believed on him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him lest they be put out of the synagogue, for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God,” which shows how much their “believing” was worth. Imagining that the natural man is capable of “receiving Christ as personal Saviour” they make the attempt, doubt not their success, go on their way rejoicing, and none can shake their assurance that they are now real Christians!
“No man can come unto me except the Father which has sent me draw him” (John 6:44). Here is a declaration of Christ which has not received even mental assent by the vast majority in Christendom. It is far too flesh-abasing to meet with acceptance from those who wish to think that the settling of a man’s eternal destiny lies entirely within his own power. That fallen man is wholly at the disposal of God is thoroughly unpalatable to an unhumbled heart. To come to Christ is a spiritual act and not a natural one, and since the unregenerate are dead in sins they are quite incapable of any spiritual exercises. Coming to Christ is the effect of the soul’s being made to feel its desperate need of Him, of the understanding’s being enlightened to perceive His suitability for a lost sinner, of the affections being drawn out so as to desire Him. But how can one whose natural mind is “enmity against God” have any desire for His Son?” ~ Pink, from http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Spiritual_Growth/growth_02.htm
There seems to be a “theme”….Are you truly saved?? It is THE most important question you will ever need to honestly answer…..and one that I pray many will. If you find that you are not, and there are many who honestly are not….you can be for certain! It is not the end of the world for you, just the end of your pride in your false regeneration. The remedy is simple….genuinely see your sins for what they are, according to GOD (and not to you), truly repent, and surrender to Christ as LORD. And then live for HIM, and obey HIM, and fear and honor HIM….don’t let a false sense of security that may be founded only in knowledge and/or pride keep you from actually BEING HIS. That would just be downright foolish. And there is nothing to have pride in in that, now is there? 😉 ❤
Too many think that if they just believe in God, or say a “Sinner’s Prayer”, then they are saved. Here’s what I think about that.
You know, it’s not enough *just* to believe in God/Jesus.
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” James 2:19
If it’s enough just to believe in God and be saved (go to heaven), then logically speaking, it means that the devils (demons) will also be saved and go to heaven, because they believe in God. (They know how real and powerful He is because they tremble at Him.)
That’s why I say that it’s not enough just to believe.
Here is more proof that not everyone who just believes in God will get a free pass to heaven.
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he…
View original post 319 more words
This post is for Mr and Miss Talksalot….all talk but no visible fruit of regeneration. Is that you? No…seriously…IS IT? Or are you the only one who cannot see the truth of your true condition? Because my friend, others can when they really get to know you or ask your family. You are in very real peril of your eternal soul. Stop being a fool. There is no salvation in having faith in faith or in being able to parrot the old dead guys theology or cite scripture. If there is no biblical FRUIT, then the truth is that you are not saved. you have not been reborn. No matter how much you convince yourself that you have. And even if no one else could discern the truth of your condition…God most certainly does. If you were reborn, you would have a right fear of that fact. So for you and for those who know and love and live with or around the “you’s”….this sermon by Paul Washer is solid truth that needs to be heeded.~AGM†
The reason for every trial, every hardship, every rough wind in your life, is to show you your inability, your weakness, and to chase you back to God.
By Paul M. Elliott
There has been a loss of discernment concerning the nature of Roman Catholicism, what it means to be a Protestant, and the need to be vigorously Protestant. Today too few Christians really understand why the Reformation took place and what is at stake if it is reversed – and the Reformation isbeing reversed in our time. This loss of discernment is the direct result of the loss of discernment regarding church history.
Because of this, most Christians do not understand that the spread of false teachings such as Federal Vision theology, the Purpose-Driven Church philosophy, and the Emergent Church philosophy means the reversal of the Reformation and the return to a spiritual Dark Age. Allowed to spread, and carried to their logical ends, these anti-Scriptural agendas will wipe out all that was recovered by the Reformers in the sixteenth century. False teachers, and many Evangelicals generally, increasingly shun the name Protestant. Brian McLaren, a principal spokesman for the Emergent Church movement, has invented a revisionist definition of “Protestantism” that allows even Roman Catholics to come under a “Protestant” umbrella.
Most nominal Protestants do not realize that Rome’s centuries-old position, which is diametrically opposed to authentic Biblical Christianity on the central issues of Scripture and salvation, remains unchanged – as these passages from contemporary Catholic writings demonstrate:
[From The Catholic Encyclopedia] Protestants claim the following three qualities for justification: certainty, equality, the impossibility of ever losing it. Diametrically opposed to these qualities are those defended by the Council of Trent:
- uncertainty [no one can be sure he is justified]
- inequality [some are more justified than others]
- amissibility [justification can be lost].
Since these qualities of justification are also qualities of sanctifying grace, see [the entry on] Grace.1
[And so, from The Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on “Grace”] Every adult soul stained.with original sin…must, in order to arrive at the state of justification, pass through a short or long process of justification, which may be likened to the gradual development of the child in its mother’s womb..
The Catholic idea maintains that the formal cause of justification does not consist in an exterior imputation of the justice of Christ but in a real, interior sanctification.. Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification, nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness.2
The reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in this, that without a special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions that are necessary for achieving justification.3
.[O]ver and above faith other acts are necessary for justification, such as fear, and hope, charity, penance with contrition, almsgiving.. Faith alone does not justify.
The “justification by faith alone” theory was by Luther styled the article of the standing and falling [of the] church (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae), and by his followers was regarded as the material principle of Protestantism, just as the sufficiency of the Bible without tradition was considered its formal principle. Both of these principles are un-Biblical.4
The range of false teachings on Scripture and salvation plaguing the Evangelical church today are essentially those of Rome above. Men from across the ecclesiastical spectrum including Norman Shepherd, N. T. Wright, Chuck Colson, J. I. Packer, Rick Warren, and Brian McLaren all readily admit that they seek to reunite Evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Since justification by faith alone and the authority of Scripture over church tradition were the basis of the sixteenth century break, it is their view that Evangelicals and Catholics must reach an understanding on these points that will facilitate re-union.
But Antichristian Rome is patiently intransigent while Evangelicals are increasingly eager suitors; the ever more one-sided “compromises” in theEvangelicals and Catholics Together documents demonstrate this clearly. Reaching an “understanding” with Rome by definition means the surrender of authentic Biblical Christianity recovered at the Reformation, and Rome will not be satisfied until the surrender is complete. Thus the displacement of Protestantism in Reformed and Evangelical churches is a most welcome development to the Papists. The conditions that Martyn Lloyd-Jones observed in the United Kingdom forty-five years ago are the conditions in much of the Reformed church around the world today:
What of the state of the church?…We are going back to the pre-Reformation position.
What about the state of doctrine in the church? Before the Reformation, there was confusion. Is there anything more characteristic of the church today than doctrinal confusion, doctrinal indifference – a lack of concern and a lack of interest? And then perhaps the most alarming of all, the increase in the power, influence, and numbers of the Church of Rome, and the Romanizing tendencies that are coming into and being extolled in the Protestant church! There is no question about this. This is a mere matter of fact and observation. There is an obvious tendency to return to the pre-Reformation position; ceremonies and ritual are increasing and the Word of God is being preached less and less, sermons are becoming shorter and shorter. There is an indifference to true doctrine, a loss of authority, and a consequent declension..
I wonder, Christian people, whether I am exaggerating when I suggest that at the present time we are really engaged in a great struggle for the very life of the Christian church, for the essence of the Christian faith? As I see the situation, it is nothing less alarming than that.5
Five watchwords – the five solas – summarized the great truths reclaimed at the Protestant Reformation. If these are lost, all that was recovered at the Reformation is lost:
- Sola Scriptura: Our doctrine is from Scripture alone.
- Solus Christus: We are saved by Christ’s work alone.
- Sola Gratia: Salvation is by grace alone.
- Sola Fide: Justification is by faith alone.
- Soli Deo Gloria: The glory belongs to God alone.
Today, both Reformed and Evangelical churches frequently deny them all – if not in words, most certainly in deeds.
The church exchanges Sola Scriptura for man’s fallible perspectives on Scripture; neo-liberals place their elastic interpretations of confessional standards above Scripture.
It exchanges Solus Christus for Christ-plus-works; the sufficiency of the imputation of His righteousness to sinners is not taught, or openly denied.
It exchanges Sola Gratia for a view of “grace” which denies that God’s favor will, in the end, be unmerited except through the merits of Christ.
It exchanges Sola Fide for justification by man’s faithfulness.
Thus the church in practice denies Soli Deo Gloria: It removes Christ from His throne; it removes Scripture from the place of sole authority; human works and human wisdom are in the ascendant. Increasingly the Evangelical church suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, exchanging the truth of God for the lie (Romans 1:18, 25).
True Christians must oppose these developments with all their being. They must learn once again what it means to be truly and vigorously Protestant. James R. White declares:
It is my firm conviction that “Protestant” means absolutely, positively nothing unless the one wearing the term believes, breathes, lives, and loves the uncompromised, offensive-to-the-natural-man message of justification by God’s free grace by faith in Jesus Christ alone. As the term has become institutionalized, it has lost its meaning. In the vast majority of instances today a Protestant has no idea what the word itself denotes, what the historical background behind it was, nor why he should really care. And a label that has been divorced from its significance no longer functions in a meaningful fashion. We need a Reformation in our day that will again draw the line clearly between those who embrace the gospel of God’s grace in Christ and those who do not. And how one answers the question “How is a man made right with God?” determines whether one embraces that gospel or not.6
The Holy Spirit calls us to be Protestants. Scripture commands us in the most unequivocal terms to be true to the unalloyed Gospel and the unique authority of Scripture, both long veiled in darkness by Rome but brought back into the light at great cost by the Reformers.
For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light.
Therefore He says: “Awake, you who sleep, arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light.” See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil [Ephesians 5:8-16].
1. “Justification” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8,http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm. See also Dr. Ludwig Ott,Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, (Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books, 1974), pages 261-263. The cover describes this book as “A one-volume encyclopedia of the doctrines of the Catholic Church, showing their sources in Scripture and Tradition and their definition by Popes and Councils.” The book bears the imprimatur (mark of official approval) of Rome.
2. “Sanctifying Grace” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, reproduced athttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm. See also Ott, pages 250-252.
3. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 262.
4. Catholic Encyclopedia, entry on “Sanctifying Grace.” See also Ott,Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pages 5-6, 253-254, 272-291.
5. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, “Remembering the Reformation,” in Knowing the Times: Addresses Delivered on Various Occasions 1942-1977 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1989), page 94.
6. James R. White, The God Who Justifies (Bloomington, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 2001), page 26. Emphasis in the original.
A confounding and misleading message is being bandied about at will by many authors and theologians who regard themselves as being of the reformed faith. It is based on a misappropriation of the phrase ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda. What is often understood from the context in which they commonly apply the abridged version, being simply semper reformanda, is that the church itself should constantly be seeking ways to reform, or actively pursuing new or better avenues in an effort to retain or advance its reformed position.
There is not a single reference in Scripture to support this approach; in fact, there are explicit warnings against our trying to perform this type of enhancement to Christ’s work and His church. Nowhere in the Word of God are Christians commissioned, mandated or yoked with doing that which God alone can do. Christians do not have a calling to conform to the teachings, creeds, confessions, hypotheses or traditions of the reformation per se, however, that is not implying that most of what the reformers stood for was wrong, unnecessary or not based on Scripture. Indeed, the fives solas and emphasis on the sovereign grace of God, are summarizations of that which the reformers stood for, are truths and tools of significant value.
Christians do not have the ability to reform Christ’s possession and are under no obligation to do so. Followers of Christ have no duty to reform the church, which they might perform according to their individual abilities, or choose to neglect to perform by reason of their disobedience. True Christians are by nature of their standing before God, reformed by God’s Holy Spirit, not by any value or effort toward that reformation on their part. Christ’s church is reformed by nature of God’s work, not by the enthusiastic efforts or contributions of man. The truth concerning semper reformanda, is that God does the reforming, as He has done and will continue to do in eternity and not only for the last five centuries. Semper reformanda is not an instruction to men to always be reforming the church, it is an inevitability of Gods will that His church is always being reformed.
By A. Craig Troxel
The Latin phrase semper reformanda–usually translated “always reforming”–is the widely known slogan of the Reformed tradition. It has become quite popular. Authors conjure it. Theologians cite it. Trendsetters love it. But I have become suspicious. And my suspicions stem from seeing the phrase appear at all too convenient times for a person’s point or agenda. My fear is that it is now regularly used as an excuse for novelty and innovation.
Let me illustrate my concern grammatically. The word reformanda in the phrase semper reformanda is what Latinists refer to as “gerundive.” This grammatical designation refers to the future passive of a word and is frequently signaled by the combination of letters “nd”, both in Latin and English. For example, whereas an “agent” is someone or something through which an action takes place, the “agenda” (“things to be done”) is the object upon which the action(s) will fall or take place. An agent is active, but an agenda is passive. Words like memoranda (“things to be remembered”) and propaganda (“ideas to be spread”) also illustrate the point.
The upshot of this is that the passive of the Latin phrase semper reformanda implies more the idea of my being changed, than my doing the changing. I am the object and in the passive, “always being changed,” more than I am the subject and in the active or aggressive role of “always changing” things around me, or seeking out changes to make. Hence, my preference for rendering the phrase “always being reformed” or “always being changed” over “always reforming” or “always changing.”
The difference is rich with implications. When a Reformed Christian says semper reformanda, we understand that a higher authority, the Lord, is changing us. In the back of our mind is another Reformed principle called, sola Scriptura, ”Scripture alone.” This principle commits us to God’s revelation in Scripture as authoritative and sufficient for the Christian in faith and life. We believe that the reforming in our lives is driven by Scripture’s agenda, not ours. We are subservient to the Lordship of our Sovereign king. We are in the passive role, sitting under the authority of God’s Word. The ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda is “the reformed church” that is “always being reformed” by the Word of God.
However, what I see and hear increasingly looks quite dissimilar. I hear semper reformanda being used as a convenient slogan to excuse innovation. For example, some post-modern evangelicals might be willing to assert that we must be “always reforming according to the Word of God,” but then they quickly also add that we do so in order to preach the gospel “in the context of an ever-changing world characterized by a variety of cultural settings…” True, our changing world and times demand keen sensitivity if we are to proclaim the Gospel effectively. But it is quite another thing to believe that Christian doctrine should be revised as it navigates the world’s numerous changing social and historical settings. As Brian McLaren has put it, with the constant challenges confronting the church, Christian leaders must “create new forms, new methods, new structures–and it requires them to find new content, new ideas, new truths… “ This is semper reformanda?!? Yes, says McLaren, because these new dimensions of the Gospel message “are examples of the Spirit of truth doing what Jesus promised he would do: continuing to guide them into new, previously unknown truth, truth that had been hidden in Christ all along, but had not yet been bearable, needed, seen, or discovered. I can’t see church history in any other way, except this: semper reformanda, continually being led and taught and guided by the Spirit into new truth.”
Semper reformanda is not a slogan to excuse our changing the message or discovering new truth because we are taking our cues from the culture. It is a principle that provokes us to modify our confession because we are taking our cues form the Word of God. As some have noted, there is a huge difference between the Reformation and the EmergentChurch at this very point. It wants to hitch its wagon to Reformed mules when it is convenient, but it is not really in it for the long haul. This reflects how opportunistic, superficial and eclectic evangelicalism can be.
But it is also intellectually weak to claim for a slogan what has been an important and sober principle for Reformed believers. It reminds me of a guy I heard of in the Army National Guard who thought it was no big deal to stitch an “Airborne” patch on his uniform until he ran into some bona fide ex-Jumpers who failed to appreciate his shallow regard for the real deal and expressed their displeasure quite tangibly. The Reformers earned their stripes–some with blood–by being faithful and humbly submissive to the Word of God, not by trying to discern the changing winds of culture. Semper reformanda does not mean, “always seeking innovation” when it suits the times or my fancy. It speaks of our “always being reformed” or changed because the authority of Scripture and the Lordship of Christ require it. That is not novelty or innovation; it is the obedience of a servant.
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in the Nicotine Theological Journal, and is used here with permssion and gratitude.
The author speaks of Latinists in the third person. He is not a Latin expert, nor has he ever been accused of being one.
John Franke, “Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics,’Westminster Theological Journal 65 (2003), 1.
Brian D. McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy (Zondervan, 2004), 192.
Brian D. McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy (Zondervan, 2004), 193.
E.g., D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant With the EmergentChurch (Zondervan, 2005), 42-43.
I am including some helpful links for those who want to actually know more about false teachers and what they really teach. I pray that most of you do:
Reblogged from a wonderful new blog I just found….I’m lovin’ this sister! So…are you too careful? Many times we convince ourselves that we are exercising self control (ah, the heart is deceitful!), but really it is the conceited worry that people will not think as highly of us as we want them to. Lovely painful truth there, isn’t it? It is if you are honest with yourself (surely your heart is not so deceitful that you cannot do that!). Some who know me may find it ironic that I am posting this article, because I tend to be a bit blunt in my speech and I am known to share whatever is going on with me, good, bad or ugly….to those I gotta say…You’d be surprised how much I DON’T say! And why. Mostly it DOES come back to this issue, well defined by Ruth….and that is just as bad as not filtering at all…..If we are careful it should be biblically defined…not “heart” defined or self defined. It should actually be because the Lord has taught us some self discipline. It should be…how about you? If you are completely honest, no pious sounding words to impress those around you or in church….are you too careful? And why?
The links to Beautifully Rooted and Grace Laced blogs are found at the bottom of this article…go check them out!~AGM†
I hang up the phone and begin analyzing. Did she understand what I was trying to say? Did I offend her? Maybe I should have said this, but not that. What if…?
Some of us struggle with fear more than others. Sometimes we’re so careful to say enough, but not say too much. Love, but not blubber too vulnerably. Give, but not lose it all. Controlled and orchestrated feels safe to us; not being able to control what someone else thinks of you…is not.
Being careful is a result of fear. Fear of man, fear of failure, fear of making a wrong move, fear that someone will be upset with you, will misunderstand, or misjudge. Fear that forgiveness is not real. Fear that recklessness will be too costly.
The only way to ensure that you will never be misunderstood is to not be known at all. Most of my life has been lived out publicly–even if only within my community. I was a pastor’s daughter from my teen years, then a ministry leader, a pastor’s wife, a blogger, and now as a wife of a Headmaster. In a life that is accessible and publicly viewed, where relationships are at the core of all effort…you can only be careful for so long, and only to a certain extent. You simply can’t say everything to everyone’s liking or live for everyone’s approval. You will fail. You will disappoint. You will experience conflict. Public or not, that is at the heart of every relationship. The deeper the relationship, the greater the potential to reveal yourself as the weak and sinful person you really are. And, frankly, I just don’t really like that.
But I do like deep relationships. In fact, I thrive on them.
And so, there is no way around it…I must walk straight into the beautiful, tender, vulnerable, grace-giving, grace-receiving, pruning, weeding, brick-laying, edge-sharpening, soul-satisfying arena that is community.
Is it possible that our carefulness, our well-controlled responses, our resistance to vulnerability, has less to do with the wisdom of self-control, and more to do with a conceited worry of wanting others to think more highly of us? Could it be that we are motivated by fearful rivalry?
Here’s the good news: God didn’t call us to a life of carefulness, but rather a life of faith in the midst of utter failure.He’s called us to humility. The life we live is to be lived out void of fear and guilt; it is to be lived out in forgiveness. The fellowship we are meant to have with brothers and sisters in Christ was intended to be messy (on account of sin), but possible in rebirth. It is based on grace, not perfection.
It is not reckless to be in genuine relationship with others when we are tethered to Christ. What freedom we have, therefor, to abandon the caution, the guardedness–the carefulness–and to embrace deep and meaningful relationships with joy and confidence.