Romans 9:22-25 and predestination

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

NAR Dominionist Calls for the Church to Conquer the Workplace, Seriously - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------

The choleric Rev. Wade expends nearly 1800 words without explaining anything. As is typical, he simply asserts, contradicts, and mocks. He makes several claims about the Bible, but hardly quotes it.

Today a favorite target, Joseph Mattera, is back in Rev. Wade's sights. Rev. Wade is certain that this man is a dominionist and a false teacher, but never bothers to tell us why, or how he knows this.

There is a limit to our tolerance of Rev. Wade's verbal spewing. We shall attempt to endure to the end, but we offer no guarantees.

As an aside, we should note that Mattera never uses the word "conquer," even though Rev. Wade uses it several times. So Rev. Wade's fundamental premise is built on a false assumption.

--------------

Unction and Preaching - BY WES BREDENHOF

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

The author appears to be grappling with a conflict in his thinking. On one hand, he is repelled by the charismatic perspective regarding the Holy Spirit, but on the other hand cannot ignore the testimony of Scripture regarding the necessity of being filled with the Holy Spirit. 

Ultimately, his position is that the anointing is impossible to determine, at least by a third party listening to a teacher deliver a sermon. Thus he sets himself up for a conundrum, that the anointing is real and necessary, but "faithfulness and clarity" have priority.

In actual fact, a teacher filled with the Holy Spirit is going to be faithful and clear. A teacher who speaks from his cleverness, intellect, and the ability to logically explain will appeal to those things in the listeners. But a teacher who speaks from the anointing will not only be clear, but his words will convey the power of the Spirit to the listener, who then responds spiritually, if the listener is also filled with the Spirit.

-----------------

Cody Carnes’ Firm Foundation: A Biblical Review - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------

The nameless author promises us a biblical review of this song. The reader might be fooled into thinking that the author is going to explain from the Bible the errors of the song's lyrics.

Nope.

The author will begin by talking about himself. Then, he will complain about how the song is focused on self. Ironic, and frankly, embarrassing.

The thing is, there are some pretty egregious "worship" songs out there, and the author could have selected any one of those. Here are some somewhat mild offenders:

• Show Me Your Glory - by Brandon Lake and Leeland Mooring
• Closer - by Amanda Cook
• Met By Love - by Brandon Hampton, Brock Human, Michael Ketterer, and Will Reagan
• Spirit Lead Me - Michael Barkulis | Melody Noel | Graham Moore | Michael Ketterer | Whitney Medina | Gabriel Wilson

While these are not terrible, we would consider them worse than the author's subject. The reader may be interested in our critiques of bad worship songs.

We should note that our intent is not to defend Cody Carnes or Bethel church. Our intent is to point out the numerous shortcomings of the author's presentation.

------------------

Explaining prophecy, the Word, and the Scriptures

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

Rejoice, grace, forgive, the spiritual gifts, and joy - Sermon text

Introduction

Today I want talk with you about certain biblical words we use all the time, words that are part of the Christian vocabulary, words that we are so familiar with that we probably don't give them a second thought. 

We think we know what they mean, and we assume that others know what they mean when we use them. When we use these words, we use them in the context of our way of thinking, they are viewed through the lens of how we understand doctrine, church, and God. 

Generally speaking, we think they mean what we've been told they mean.

Our ways of thinking and understanding are a product of our culture, education, and various traditions that we accept as true. We live a western cultural environment, which has particular ways of viewing the world. It is a world view that values logic, reason, and systematic linear thought. Its processes come down to us from what is known as Greek philosophy, primarily influenced by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. 

Aristotle tutored Alexander the Great, who went on to conquer most of the known world. This is how this system of thought called Greek philosophy was spread throughout the the nations. It comes down through history to us, so much so that Greek philosophy is the underlying basis of belief for systems, cultural values, and legal codes all around the world. For us, it is the way of thinking called western culture.

But it's not the only way people process what they understand. A great example is the "First Nations Version" of the Bible, put together by a Native American by the name of Terry M. Wildman. Pastor Wildman wanted a Bible that addressed the Native American ways of thinking, their culture, and their ways of expression. He said of his translation,

We ...used words and concepts more relevant to a traditional Native worldview. “Temple” became “Sacred Lodge”; “sin” became “bad hearts” or “broken ways,” depending on the context. “Angel” became “spirit-messenger,” “apostle” became “message bearer,” Jesus becomes “Creator Sets Free” and “Christ” became “Chosen One.” 

Let's quote a couple of Scriptures from this translation: 

The Great Spirit loves this world of human beings so deeply he gave us his Son – the only Son who fully represents him. All who trust in him and his way will not come to a bad end, but will have the life of the world to come that never fades away, full of beauty and harmony. Creator did not send his Son to decide against the people of this world, but to set them free from the worthless ways of the world. John 3:16-17

I am not ashamed of this good story, for to all who trust in its message it has Creator's power to set free and make whole. This is true, first for our Tribal People, and then to all the Outside Nations! For this good story tells about Creator's great faithfulness to do what is good and right. It is the story of faithfulness and trust from beginning to end. It is written in our Sacred Teachings, "The ones in good  standing will find life by trusting in what the Great Spirit has done for them." Ro. 1:16-17

Do these jangle your nerves, or, do you find a certain elegance in these translations? What it causes me to do is to get reinvigorated. Scriptures that have become so familiar over the years that I tended to just gloss right over them are now alive again.

Another quick example, African theology. Did you know there is an entire system of theology called African theology? In many ways, Africans think differently about doctrine and faith. If we went to an African church we would probably think they're from another planet. Their beliefs and practices are greatly influenced by their culture. Just like us.

The late Ghanaian theologian Kwame Bediako said this to an American questioner:

“Well, Christianity is thriving where we are, and it’s waning where you are, so maybe there is something we have that could be helpful to you all.”

Maybe there is something to this, that our way of thinking about the faith is not necessarily the only way or even the best way. Maybe we should consider rethinking how we approach this thing we call Christianity.

That's a process I've begun to engage over the last few years. I write a blog, and in my blog I call it "rethink."

Rethink

I'm not a theologian, of course, but I don't think a Christian has to be a theologian in order to understand the great Gospel truths. Holy Spirit enlightens our minds and our spirits, He speaks truth to us.

Jn. 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

I want to know that truth. And, I want to abandon un-truth. But rethinking something is hard for me, probably because I'm also a product of Western Culture, or maybe I'm just hard-headed and stubborn. Rethinking can also be threatening. I know that I don't like to be told I might be wrong. 

And of course, I might be wrong about what I'm about to tell you. This means you should always seek out for yourself to see if what I'm saying is true. Trust but verify, as President Reagan said.

There are a lot of things I've discovered in my rethink. As I mentioned, it reinvigorates me as I study the Scriptures. Almost always it results in wonder at the richness of God's holy word, His greatness, and His matchless glory. My faith rises, and sometimes in these moments I am reduced to a puddle of worship.

Unfortunately, this also means that what I've been taught about the Scriptures is not always what the Scriptures actually say. Which means that these things that challenged my thinking are possibly going to challenge yours. In fact, I hope they do.

Jesus, the Word, prophecy, and Scripture

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.
-----------------

The Holy Spirit, the godhead, and the nature of God

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.
-----------------

Dominionist Myopia Confusing Supreme Court Ruling for Football Coach as "Victory" - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

Before we begin, we ask the reader to consider the coming paragraphs without knowledge of the author's background or religious persuasion. What would your conclusion about the beliefs and politics of the author?

Our conviction is Rev. Wade is a Leftist agitator. He never has uttered a single negative word about Democrats, socialists, or liberals. He only unleashes his verbal incontinence towards Conservatives, politically involved Christians, or those who want the laws changed to non-liberal outcomes.

Rev. Wade rarely has a cogent thought, and today's article is no exception. In fact, it may be a particularly bad example of his typically bad writing. Wild rabbit trails, faulty assumptions, irrelevant details, unjustified conclusions, and blatant hypocrisy... It's all there.

Plus, he doesn't get a single fact correct.

A proper view of heresy

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

-----------------

The "doctrinal Police"

The word "heresy" is a familiar word in the Church. It's usually employed by Christians as an invective directed towards those who they think teach false doctrine. We call them the "doctrinal police." 

One of their most pointed claims is that false teachers are, well, false. That is, through and through they are false. Not saved, not entitled to grace, respectful correction, or the restoration prescribed in the Bible. Not even entitled to our prayers! That is, false teachers are despicable wolves, liars and deceivers, deemed beyond redemption.

Thus we note that the ire of the "Doctrinal Police" exceeds the level of mere disagreement. Merely setting the biblical record straight is not sufficient, though ironically they rarely even do that. No, for them, false teachers deserve only mocking, derision, and attack.

Our complaint is not that the "Doctrinal Police" are defending the truth, it's that they tend to view even the smallest doctrinal difference as false teaching. Perfect doctrine is the highest goal for them, and any deviation is false teaching, and by inference, is a matter of salvation.

The doctrinal hairsplitting gets to ridiculous levels, which means for them that the category of false teachers is extremely large. This has the effect of branding every sort of doctrinal deviation as "them," which means they are not "us."

This is cultic thinking.

False Doctrine vs. Doctrinal Variety

Contrary to what some of the "Doctrinal Police" profess, however, not every doctrinal difference is a critical error or false teaching. There are central doctrines we must believe if we are saved, but salvation isn't dependent on doctrines. When we get saved we are doctrinally ignorant, but through God's sanctifying work in us by His Holy Spirit, by the ministry of the brethren, and by our own study of the Scriptures, we are brought to maturity of faith. That's how we learn important truths, like how we got saved, who God is, and what our holy response to Him should be as we live our lives.

These truths form the basis of our doctrines. Doctrines come from truths found in the Bible. Doctrines are developed from what the Bible says. The Bible is not interpreted through doctrines, the Bible is interpreted to yield doctrines.

Doctrines are the product of Bible scholars, cultural influences, understanding what Greek and Hebrew words mean, denominational preferences, and historic streams of thought. We would hope that the Holy Spirit enlightens our minds to understand the truths of the Bible and thus produce accurate doctrines.

Nevertheless, there are a variety of interpretations of doctrines. Over the centuries honest and faithful people have studied the Scriptures and came to different conclusions. 

These varieties are not necessarily heresy.

In Romans chapter 14, Paul explains that people believe different things, and some of those things are "disputable matters:"

Ro. 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

The whole chapter is devoted to people with different ideas of things, including what food can be eaten and what days are regarded sacred. Paul concludes that its a matter of personal conviction:

Ro. 14:5 Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

Paul also touches on this with the Colossian church:

Col. 2:16-17 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

There are things we just don't divide over or dispute about. They simply aren't important enough.

The problem is, everyone has an idea of what constitutes an important doctrine. As mentioned, if perfect doctrine is your goal, any deviation from that is considered heresy. But of course, the Bible doesn't support such a notion.

Perfect doctrine will not save anyone. There is no Scripture that tells us that God will judge us or commend us regarding our doctrinal excellence. We are to hold to the truth, but that is only a part of a persevering faith:

1Jn. 2:24 See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.

1Th. 5:21 Test everything. Hold on to the good.

He. 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.

Unity

Jared Wilson provides a useful framework for dealing with doctrinal issues:

“First-order” doctrines, things that every genuine Christian ought to affirm to be a Christian. This includes things like the Trinity, the Incarnation, justification by faith, etc.

“Second-order” doctrines would include things that provide boundaries for Christian fellowship—meaning, we would have to agree on these teachings to be able to covenant together in a local church. This would include things like views on baptism, church governance, roles of women in the church, and in some cases perhaps views on the charismatic gifts. Thus, I can’t share church membership with my Presbyterian or Anglican friends, mainly because we differ on who is an appropriate recipient of baptism, but I can still cheerfully affirm their Christianity, just as I hope they can mine.

“Third-order” doctrines would be teachings you and I could disagree on but still be in fellowship in the same church.

We would expand and conflate second and third order doctrines to some degree, partly because Jesus calls the Church to the unity:

Jn. 17:23 May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

This is not the product of standardless ecumenicism, it is the product of the Holy Spirit working in His people to bring about a love for each other that isn't possible for the natural man. Thus we should be a able to worship and serve together as brothers despite having what might be substantial doctrinal differences.

Our personal list of "first order" doctrines (that is, doctrines crucial to be a Christian) would include:

God is the Creator, He is holy, merciful, all-powerful, and all-knowing.

Every person has sinned, and sin is death.

Jesus, the only son of God, fully God, became a man. He led a sinless life and died on the cross, all according to God's purpose.

Salvation from sin is necessary and cannot be achieved by good works. Only God can save, and this is accomplished only by faith in Jesus, whose death washes away all sin.

When we repent and believe we receive forgiveness from our sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit, fully God.

The Holy Spirit makes us alive and empowers us to live a holy life.

Though there are many other doctrines, these are the ones we consider crucial. Everything else is not a salvation issue in our view.

What is Heresy?

The traditional use of the word is applied towards those who believe unbiblical doctrines, but the Greek word means something else. The word is hairesis, which is defined as a sect. 

The first instance is found here ("members"): 

Ac. 5:17 Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy.

Paul notes that his own faith is known as a sect:

Ac. 24:14 However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect.

So the actual biblical use of the word to this point simply describes those who are parts of groups, without a "value judgment" as to the propriety of those groups. 

But Paul does use the word hairesis in a context that points out the Corinthian church's hairesis was causing division.

1Co. 11:18-19 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions (schisma) among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences (hairesis) among you to show which of you have God’s approval.

So the issue was that the church's groups (hairesis) were causing divisions (schisma). Hairesis wasn't the problem, schisma was.

We also find the word here:

Ga. 5:19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions (dichostasia, "separately standing"), factions (hairesis)...

Paul provides a list of unholy behaviors, many of which descend from hairesis causing dichostasia. In other words, having groups or different ideas isn't the problem, but they can cause problems.

The last use of the word is here:

2Pe. 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies (apóleia hairesis), even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them — bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Finally we have a verse that talks about false teaching, which is actually a matter apart from hairesis. False teaching causes "destructive heresies" (division to eternal ruin), i.e., division in the church that causes eternal harm to the church (2Pe. 2:3). False teachers are arrogant (2Pe. 2:10), publicly immoral (2Pe. 2:13), reveling in their filth. These are not people who simply have a doctrinal position or are part of a group, they are open and persistent sinners (2Pe. 2:14).

Division and factions create strife and arguments. These break down the church and create enmity between believers. Sometimes these are honest disagreements, but other times they are deliberately intended to destroy the church:

1 Tim 6:3-5 If anyone teaches a different doctrine (heterodidaskaleó, a different teaching) and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension (eris, quarrel, strife, contention), slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. 

And the last verse to consider:

Tit. 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

This verse uses a related word, hairetikos, a factious person, specializing in half-truths and misimpressions "to win others over" to their personal opinion (misguided zeal) – while creating harmful divisions... Such a person causes division, with the intent to cause problems. 

Conclusion

In they Bible they are not called heretics, they are called false teachers (2Pe. 2:1) or even false apostles (2Co. 11:13) or teachers of false doctrine (1Ti. 1:3, 1Ti. 6:3). Theologians and church tradition have rebranded these as heresy.

But the word doesn't mean "false teaching." The primary use of the word is related to the formation of groups, which can lead to factions and dissension. When we understand this, we can better understand Pauls' counsel:

Ep. 4:3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

RESEARCH: HERESY - BY MARSHA WEST

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

The author manages to quote Scripture, which is more than these self-styled Bible teachers tend to do.

In the discussion below, the issue is traditional use of the word "heresy" vs. what the actual Greek word means. The author prefers the traditional use, which we think is in error, as we will explain.

We also note the author does not want any portion of her presentation used. Of course, this isn't possible, because it is intended to be read and to inform. Those are uses. Thus we will "use" her article to explore whether or not she has accurately related to us biblical truth. If such a "use" is prohibited, we apologize.

---------------

Abortion Involves Killing–and That’s OK! By Sophie Lewis

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------

This rather astonishing presentation is full of twisted logic, euphemisms, and false equivalencies, coupled with moral posturing and false premises.

The author wants to shift the way pro-choicers express their arguments buy suggesting they concede that something is actually dying. However, she will do her level best to de-humanize the unborn baby by refusing to call it a baby. In addition, she will frequently refer to pregnancy as gestation, and pregnant mothers as gestators. These terms are designed to separate out the emotional aspect of pregnancy and birth, which neutralizes any attachment to the baby.

One might think the author is talking about the movie Alien and not unborn babies.

Despite the author's "concession," nothing would really change in the rhetoric. Which mean the logical and moral inconsistencies of the pro-choice position remain.

-----------------