Twisting The Scriptures

Here's one of the goofier things being taught in churches today.

There's a big move to reinstate Apostles and Prophets as key leaders in church government. You gotta wonder, what's wrong with the "old" apostles and prophets? Well, according to the proponents of the New Apostolic/Prophetic Movement (C. Peter Wagner among others), the Church is missing the mark on two accounts - It is nothing like the Church found in the Book of Acts, and It is resisting the leading of the Holy Spirit to become the glorious Church of the Latter Rain to usher in the return of Jesus the King. This movement is said to be setting everything to rights again.

Okay, well if this is the claim, they must have some very profound hermeneutics to support this view. It would have to be as important as Luther's rediscovery of "the just shall live by faith." And they feel they have this support, namely in 1 Kings 18:44, which refers to a little cloud as a man's hand. Don't miss this folks, this is a key scripture in the foundation for this new move. The cloud was the size of a man's hand, but these new prophets have misconstrued the text to say 'shaped as a man's hand', in other words, having 5 fingers. And what is the other key scripture? Ephesians 4:11, the 5-Fold Ministry. 5 fingers, 5-fold ministry, get it?

Now go back and read 1 Kings 18. There is no way you can read this chapter and get "5-Fold Ministry". But somehow the higher-ups in this movement say they have gleaned this meaning by the Holy Spirit, that the scripture has contained this treasure all along, waiting for someone of discernment to find it.

This is a very important point in their exegesis, that scripture has this underlying "secret meaning" which has to be discovered. Every scripture has this secret level of meaning, and it is the job of those who are spiritual leaders to discover and communicate these mysteries.

So it doesn't matter what the text actually says, the truth for us today is found somewhere beneath the surface, but we laity who lack the 'spiritual discernment to understand' must put our faith in this new self-appointed priesthood to mete out this new revelation to us, and we must as good followers not question this teaching in any way, or else we are classed as infidels and enemies of God. How dare we question their teachings based on what is obviously written in the Bible?

Look up the word "occult" in the dictionary and you will find something like:

oc·cult

adj.

1. Of, relating to, or dealing with supernatural influences, agencies, or phenomena.

2. Beyond the realm of human comprehension; inscrutable.

3. Available only to the initiate; secret: occult lore. See Synonyms at mysterious.

4. Hidden from view; concealed.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/occult

Does it seem at all odd to you that the Church today is promoting occult mysteries rather than the actual plain reading and meaning of the Bible? One of the most important rules in hermeneutics is not to read something into the text, that the text can never mean something that it was never intended to mean. And yet that is precisely the thing which is being neglected today.

The diametric position of the New Apostolic Movement can best be described as follows: ask a new Apostle what is the shape of things to come and he will say 'a glorious move of God', ask Jesus the same question and He will repeat what He said in Matthew 18 & Mark 13.

2 Thess. 2:3 

Metaphysical Inevitabilities

The Skeptic maintains a naturalistic mindset, but how successful is he at maintaining this? For instance, he laughs and scoffs, "What evidence do you have for the existence of God? He cannot be detected by natural processes so He must not exist." And so the Believer begins down yet another road of answering the same age old questions, variations of "God made everything, well who made God?" and "Is God so all-powerful that He could make a rock that He couldn't lift?" and "If all things are possible with God, can He lie?" And it seems that as many answers as you provide, there seems to be an endless list of questions, always with the pretense that if someone can answer them all, that the person will consider believing in God.

But there seems to be a point where the Skeptic has had a reasonable number of these big questions answered. (Sidenote: most of these big questions have been answered hundreds of years ago, so I wonder if skeptics have ever really gone out in search of the answers for themselves? I'm sure that many honest skeptics have, but therefore why hold on to the questions when the answers are there?) With the big questions answered, the Skeptic finds himself in an odd position: What reasons do I have for maintaining a skeptic's viewpoint? In the face of evidence, do I reconsider my position or blindly hope for a better overall answer that might support my skepticism?

If all the big questions are answered, and the Skeptic is presented every logical and coherent argument for the existence of God (and the validity of the Christian faith), then what prevent s the Skeptic from believing? Can it be said, therefore that the Skeptic also relies on something beyond the naturalistic worldview that he supposedly espouses? Is there a kind of faith at work in the heart of the Skeptic, a hint of the metaphysical in the tenacity with which he clutches to naturalism? A dogmatic line which he draws in the sand, "I don't care how many good answers I get for these questions, I will simply choose not to believe." Does anyone besides me see the glaring hypocrisy in this untenable position? Christians and theists have been accused of believing in a "god of the gaps," yet the naturalist has no problem postulating beyond his understanding with some sort of "science of the gaps" explanation. "Why do I love my wife? I don't know, but one day Science will even be able to answer that question."

But just for a moment, I would like the Skeptic to consider: If your naturalistic position can be maintained above and beyond every rational explanation counter to your position, then you are operating on a metaphysical level - therefore there is something else out there beyond the physical universe - and what is religion if it is not our attempts to answer the issues of life that stem from this unseen and yet very real part of life?

It could even be argued at this point that questioning the existence of God is in itself evidence for the existence of God, or at the very least for the existence of a metaphysical reality.

On Modern Heresies

I just want to mention one thing which is very important in the issue of confronting aberrant teachings and heresies - The early church since the time of Acts 2 was in a constant state of refuting error and defending the teachings of Jesus. They circulated letters publicly denouncing these errors, and we have these letters as the canon of the New Testament. The NT seems to be solely committed to reinforcing what exactly Jesus did and did not teach. We have no problem with the writers of the NT speaking up against aberrations of Christian doctrine, but somehow we lose sight of this when we criticize those who quote the NT to speak up against similar if not the same heresies being taught in churches today. We are being taught in churches to have faith in our faith (Hagin, Copeland) and unity for the sake of unity (Wagner, Joyner) and that we are little gods creating our own futures by our words (Hinn, Copeland, The Secret). We have lost sight of what the Bible actually says about this stuff, and we castigate the ones who quote scripture to show us that we are off-base. What Jesus prophesied is coming true in this day, that men will call good evil and evil good. 30 years ago, apologists were defending the Church against forces from without - Today they are having to defend the Church against forces from within.

Church Wake Up!

Faith Is The Rational Response

I've heard it said that Atheism is the default position (via Brian Sapient and RRS). Babies don't believe in a god, as the argument is asserted. I personally have no problem agreeing with this statement, we are after all born in sin so this would make sense, but that's as far in this line of logic that would be rational for me to go, because I think that we are here in this life on this earth to "grow up" from this default position to see the evidence for the Biblical God in creation and more so to embrace a relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. And faith begins as a process of rational discovery. When you observe a baby becoming aware of his surroundings, you see this process at work. Trial and error can be seen in these humble beginnings as the foundation of further discovery on the road from dependence to independence to interdependence with an experiential knowledge of what one can and cannot place one's faith in: the parents' love encourages trust, painful experiences produce caution, some things will hold one's weight and some will not. And the questions that arise in the heart of a child serve to propel him to answers, not to wallow in ignorance. As we grow, this process becomes more "second nature" and our sphere of exploration grows in turn. And faith grows in us, we begin to understand the things which are trustworthy or not. Life is our schoolroom, and the wise among us learn every lesson. Ultimately, we are confronted with the great lessons of life. Can we learn to trust again after being betrayed? Do we believe that we have all the answers? Does God exist? Where do I fit in? Do I always need to fit in? What about Jesus? (Try not to dismiss this one - no matter what you believe or don't believe, you will eventually have to face this question, or in absence of the preaching of the Gospel - Is there a moral ideal?) And when the claims of Jesus Christ are made, we have an opportunity to rationally weigh these claims, just as we rationally assess any new idea. Is this logical? Is this possible? And we decide these issues as we have always done, we put them to the test of everything we know to be true. Some say that faith is a blind leap, but I see faith as something we all invest with eyes wide open. The only question that remains is, In what have we placed our faith?

I have placed my faith in Jesus Christ. This has been for me a rational decision. And I have found God to be wholly trustworthy, truly Our Father in Heaven.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18)

Rational Response?

Considering that they call themselves "RATIONAL Response Squad" you would expect them to make more rational statements in response to theism. But their many irrational and juvenile statements only serve to contradict their title. If they make these outrageous statements they need to back this up with evidence - this would be rational. In many debates and dialogues they similarly pile assertion upon assertion, assuming that this is enough to raise questions in the mind of the theist regarding the veracity of faith. If they could provide evidence they might succeed. They insist on evidence from their opponents but somehow feel they are exempt of the same. How rational is that?

Introduction - The Story So Far...

I moved to Calgary with my young family in '02 with great expectations and a few trepidations. It has been for the most part a breath of fresh air to be living in the Canadian Bible Belt. It has also been one of the most intense times of soul-searching that I have ever experienced. I felt the peace of God leading me here, but I had no idea that unlike the "pillar of fire leading me to the promised land" experience that I was expecting, it would be more like "being led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil."

More to come...