| About Us |
| RUnderground is a Christian-based blogizine (blog/online magazine) run by current and former Radford University students. |
| What We Do |
| To properly touch all bases of student interest, RUnderground allows its writers to write about whatever they feel. These topics can range from faith-based, news-related, sports-related, technology-related, entertainment-related or some other topic they so choose. |
| Our Readership |
| Reader opinion is important to RUnderground. However, we request that comments be professional. RUnderground reserves the right to censor any comment for the following reasons: language, grammar, vulgarity or any reason where it is felt that a comment censoring is needed. |
| Disclaimer |
| The views expressed at this site reflect the views of the authors alone, and do not reflect the views or policies of those who write for RUnderground or Radford University, its students and its employees. |
| Stay Up-To-Date! |
Unlike some magazines that publish one day every week, RUnderground publishes whenever a writer publishes a post. Since this means that posts may be up at anytime, feel free to bookmark us so that you stay up-to-date with the latest at RUnderground. Or, for those who want to receive updates via email, we are now offering an email subscription service provided by FeedBlitz.
If you want to receive email updates, please enter you email address below and hit "Subscribe Me!":
|
|
|
| Monday, July 30, 2007 |
There is, in my opinion, a growing problem in America today. This problem is the misrepresentation of God, and it extends from the most opinionated ‘fundamentalist’ to the most charismatic, ‘seeker-friendly’ pastor or preacher. Before I really start this, let me make a few clarifying statements. By definition, I am a fundamentalist. A Christian fundamentalist is one who holds true the following:
1st - The Inspiration and Authority of the Scripture
2nd - The Deity of Jesus Christ
3rd – His Virgin Birth and Miracles
4th – Christ’s Blood Atonement For Sin
5th – Christ’s Bodily Resurrection
6th – Christ’s Personal Return
These views are completely Biblical and orthodox. However, today’s society has hijacked the terms fundamentalism and fundamentalist to describe a person or persons holding to radical religious beliefs, be it “right-wing Christian fundamentalists” or “Islamic fundamentalists”. In other words, the term is now applicable across various religions. An Islamic fundamentalist is the guy blowing himself up in a car traveling through a crowd. A Christian fundamentalist is the guy on stage with a comb-over who likes to shout and spit and tell you that you’re going to Hell for watching TV or having internet access. That’s not who I am, and that’s not what I’m about. So when you hear me say complimentary things about fundamentalism from here on, please refer to the above definition of such.
At this point you might be wondering why I’m so adamantly defending the term while denouncing its bearer in my opening statement. Well, it’s simple. We’re not perfect, and I believe that although Christian fundamentalism may have the best of intentions, there are proponents within the movement that could use improvement. These are the guys that are nothing but “fire and brimstone”. Most every sermon out of their mouth is about Hell, sin, and the wrath of God (which are all Biblical, do not get me wrong). The rest of their sermons are spent explaining why the King James Version is “God’s Bible” and every other English translation is “the Devil’s Bible”, why women shouldn’t wear pants, and why contemporary Christian music is straight out of the pits of Hell.
Again, I need to clarify my own position in light of this. I am a KJV guy. I believe that the majority and masoretic texts contain an accurate replication of the original autographs of the Scriptures. I also believe that the KJV is the best translation of these texts based on their translation method, scholarship, and available resources. However, I won’t hesitate to use a NKJV, 21CKJV, MKJV, or the HCSB, which are all also based on the same texts and use the same literal equivalency translation procedure. There are some cases where it’s simply more efficient to use a verse that is more easily understood in another translation than it would be to explain why the KJV is using a word that is out of date with today’s terminology. So while I have issues with guys that proclaim the KJV to be the “only” Bible, I do myself unequivocally use the KJV.
The pants and woman issue is one that I can summarize quickly. God’s Word is crystal clear on the dress standards of females. Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 2:9 that women “are to dress themselves in modest clothing, with decency and good sense” (HCSB). I personally believe that modesty can be achieved in pants, shorts, skirts, and dresses. Likewise, immodesty can also be achieved in any type of apparel. The deciding factors would be style, fit, and length. Would it be simpler for a Godly woman to wear a dress and avoid the whole issue? Of course, but I can’t scripturally tell my sister or mom that their conservative pant-suit is sinful. Likewise, I don’t believe that the blanket statement “women shouldn’t wear pants” is Biblical. I’ve heard some very well supported arguments against pants, and I respect anyone’s opinion about apparel. I just don’t feel that the Bible specifically condemns pant-wear and, as such, the issue falls back into that “gray area” I last wrote about.
Likewise, the Bible does not specifically condemn Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). Introducing CCM into a traditional Church opens up a can of worms that can offend people, divide friends, and even split churches. On this principle alone I do feel that CCM should be avoided, if it causes that. In a non-traditional church where everyone enjoys new music though, I believe that as long as the song is performed to God’s glory and not ours, and as long as the lyrics are indicative of a doctrinally sound, heart-felt spirit, than there is no harm in using a guitar or to sing something with a beat to it. Again, this lies in the gray area land of opinion. Here are some lyrics from Lecrae, one of the best Christian rappers on the market:
Hey yo, I don’t catch the spirit, I’m all filled upI can’t lose it either, I’m all sealed upAnd you can bet your life that I’ma rep for Christ, one taste he’ll get you rightFolks is thinking they Christian but when they sinning they don’t feel the conviction that the spirit is giving and theyKeep living life like, that’s cool with meY’all people ain’t fooling me
This song is about a Spirit-filled, eternally secure, representative of Christ that is speaking out against ‘christian’ posers who have no convictions from the Spirit while they’re living like the world and are fine with it. There is more doctrine and Biblicity in this one verse than there are in many traditional hymns. Again guys, it’s about opinion vs. Scripture. One you share, the other you preach. Too many of my fundamentalist brothers in Christ spend too much time preaching nothing but opinion and anger from the pulpit. Not all, mind you…but many. And if anyone reading this disagrees with me, I welcome all conversation, provided it is done with an open Bible and an open mind.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have in Christendom a smattering of pastors who have no theological backbone in their body. Their catchphrase is “Doctrine divides!” and they hesitate to tell you what the Bible truly says about a given issue that the Bible clearly addresses. A perfect example would be Joel Osteen’s unwillingness to use John 14:6 to refute the idea that atheists and Muslims are going to Heaven. Rather than quote Christ and declare Jesus to be “the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by me”, he instead say that he couldn’t see a man’s heart, and that it was up to God to determine ‘who gets in and who doesn’t’.
This lack of “Bible-thumping” is seen within the walls of what is termed ‘neo-evangelicism’, which popped up in response to the fundamentalist movement. While I have already noted the extremes within that movement, it’s also important to note that there are also extremists within this one, too. There are preachers and pastors in this movement that give no true authority to the Bible (in any translation), a rejection of Biblical truths such as creation (vs. evolution), and the acceptance of un-Biblical subjective psychological experiences, such as using charismatic ‘gifts’ like tongue-speaking, healing, etc.
Campus Crusade for Christ is a well-known college organization that espouses the positions and ideologies of the neo-evangelical movement. I’d like to say, though, that some of the most Godly people I’ve met were on staff with CCC. I do not wish to say that everyone in the movement is wrong, because a lot of what they do is in opposition to the opinions (not doctrine) coming from the fundamentalist’s corner. However, there are many speakers who preach on only the ‘good parts’ of the Bible. They talk of God’s love, His grace, His free gift of salvation. They will tell you that as long as you “believe in Jesus”, than your lifestyle doesn’t matter. Deathly afraid of being legalists (like us fundamentalists, in their opinion), they wouldn’t dream of questioning a person’s salvation despite their hellish lifestyle. I guess the words of Christ (“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them”, Matthew 7:20) are falling on deaf ears here. Moreover, they seem to lack the courage to stand fast on many important doctrines.
I realize that I’m already getting long-winded without making much of a point here, but I’m trying to paint a picture of the range of theological/philosophical/methodological perspectives prevalent within all corners of American Christianity. At one end of the spectrum is your guy saying that owning a TV will send you to Hell because God hates TV and respects only the KJV, and on the other end is the guy saying that God loves you regardless of who you are; your lifestyle is unimportant and so is doctrine.
So who is right? Which side most accurately portrays the God of the universe?
Neither and both.
I want to share with you a couple passages that seem to conflict with each other. Each verse represents the mindset of God, yet each pose so different a picture that it’s hard to reconcile the two. The first is found in Psalm 5:4-6, where David says concerning God:
“For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight, thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (tell lies): the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.”
To re-word verse 5… “The foolish will not stand in your sight. You hate all workers of iniquity”.
In fact, not only does God hate them, but we see in verse 6 that God will destroy liars and abhor (or loathe, detest) particular men. The Hebrew word for hate in this verse is sane’, and my PC Study Bible defines it as “to hate (personally)”. This is not just some instance of God saying, “Ok, I don’t like you a whole lot”. This is God saying to men, “I absolutely cannot stand you. I despise you. I hate you with every inch of my being”.
I have a news flash for some of you. God hates. You say, well God can’t hate, because God is love! Well, yes. He is. But because of that, God must hate. I think I’ve said it before, but it’s worth repeating. You cannot love light without hating darkness. You cannot love children without hating abortion. You cannot fully love something without hating its counterpart. Likewise, God cannot be love without also hating evil. And that means you and me. I believe that before God saved me, He hated me as He did those in the passage in Psalms. Absolutely nothing I did pleased Him, there was nothing I could do to change the way He esteemed me. Isaiah 64:6 describes our attempts at righteousness as “filthy rags”, and that our sins, evils, perversities have “taken us away”. If God viewed pathetic attempts of righteousness like this, with how much more distain does He view the man that blatantly shakes his fist at God? As harsh as it sounds to the conscience, I believe that God feels no pity or sadness over the soul that rejects Him and suffers an eternity in Hell. God hates sin, and He will not cry as He justly punishes it.
On the other side of the coin we have 1 John 4:19, which says “We love Him (God), because He first loved us”. Or we can go back to 1 John 4:8 and read that “God is love”. The same phrase is repeated in verse 16: “And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love…”.
And here lies the problem. After talking about the hate that God must have towards sin and those that practice it, we find that not only is God partially defined as love, but He also loved us before we loved Him! How is that possible if He hated us and thought our works to be comparable with ‘filthy rags’? (By the way, ‘filthy rags’ is historically thought to be in reference to one of two things: bandages used by lepers to cover their sores, or bandages used in conjunction with a woman’s menstrual cycle.)
Well, there are various ways of reconciling the two truths. Both can be affirmed exactly as they are, one or both can be denied/watered down, or both can be accepted without reconciliation.
The Calvinist would tell you that yes, God hates all those who He has not predestined to salvation. Psalms would then be applicable to the unregenerate man, and 1st John applies to the saved.
The Arminian would say that the word ‘hate’ actually means ‘to love less’, whereby God would then not actually hate anyone.
The Legalist would tell you that God hates anyone who sins, therefore perfection absolutely must be maintained for fear of damnation.
The Antinomian would tell you that God loves all Christians and as such we can go do whatever we want without fear of repercussion.
I like to think I’m a Biblicist, so here what I’ll do. I will tell you that yes, God hates sinners, or the unsaved. I’ll also tell you that God loves the unsaved and provided for them a redeemer, His son Jesus Christ.
Can I reconcile the two truths? No, not really. But I’m ok with that, for a couple reasons. The primary reason is this: God is God. For me to understand Him perfectly would put me on His level. I will never be there, so I will have to content myself with falling short in my understanding of Him and how He has chosen to work. I will gladly accept both truths without compromising either. God hates. God is love. To understand this is no easier then understanding the Trinity or how the Bible was penned 100% by God and 100% by man. There are simply some truths out there that cannot be comprehended by the human mind.
The verse that got my mind on this subject months ago was Colossians 1:21. As Paul writes specifically to the church at Colosse, his writings are in general applicable to all believers, particularly as he says “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he (Christ) reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight”.
Or, as one translation loosely paraphrases,
“This includes you who were once so far away from God. You were his enemies, separated from him by your evil thoughts and actions, yet now he has brought you back as his friends. He has done this through his death on the cross in his own human body. As a result, he has brought you into the very presence of God, and you are holy and blameless as you stand before him without a single fault. “
Now, I gotta tell ya, I had a serious problem with this passage. Surely Paul isn’t suggesting that God views me as holy and faultless. He can’t be, as sinful as I am. I mean, sure I’m a Christian…but that certainly doesn’t make me perfect. How is it that God can see me as something that I’m not? Is this passage a reference to how God views me after death when I enter into His presence? Or does it apply to me today, or what?
Well, to answer this question required me to dive a little deeper into the doctrines taught by Christ, as well as doctrines found within the writings of Paul and the other New Testament authors. Bear with me as I work down a doctrinal ladder with logical progression.
1. I believe that the Bible clearly teaches that once salvation is given a man, it is irrevocable and un-losable. This is commonly referred to as the doctrine of eternal security. Here are just two of the many passages that give evidence to this doctrine. Jesus addresses the Jews at the temple in Solomon’s porch in John 10:27-29 and says: “My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them [to] me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.”
Ok, so it’s clear that mankind cannot make me lose my salvation, nor will God force us to stop being His ‘sheep’. Therefore, I can assuredly say that once God saved me, He saved me forever. While not wanting to get into the nuances of a punctiliar (or instantaneous) salvation, I’ll go ahead and affirm the idea that a person’s soul is saved at the moment of our belief that Christ bore our sins. Paul says as much in 1 Corinthians 15:2.
2. If “once saved, always saved” is true, than logic would determine that the requirements necessary for salvation were met prior to the conversion experience and will thus still be met indefinitely. In a nutshell, when God forgave your sins, He forgave them past, present, and future. To deny this would mean you believe that a person loses their salvation for each sin that is committed after their salvation, at least until they repetitiously ask for God’s forgiveness. I know of no place in Scripture that gives evidence of this, as it would almost suggest a works-based salvation.
3. If salvation is irrevocable, and your past, present, and future sins are forgiven, than God has already forgotten about them. In fact, we see in Psalm 103:12 that our forgiven sins are as far from us as the east is from the west. You can travel east or west until infinity without your heading changing direction. If you travel south long enough, you will eventually assume a northerly heading. No so with east or west.
4. If I am and will always be saved…and every sin I’ll ever commit has already been paid for by Christ…than God can only see me right now as a forgiven son of His. John 1:12 says that “as many as received him (Christ), to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name”.
5. Colossians 1:21 summarizes all of this. I was once lost, now I am reconciled to the Father, sinless in His sight.
Now, let me throw a disclaimer out there. I am not saying that Christians are now sinless, because we will never be. Truth of this is found all throughout Scripture. What this verse means though, is that because our sins are forgiven, God sees His Son when He looks at us.
I believe the above process is a good one for discerning doctrinal error. If you take a statement or idea and run it to its logical conclusion, it will prove to be Biblical or not. I could open up a couple cans of worms here with some examples, but I’ll save it for later, haha. The bottom line is this: you can pick apart a verse and use it to support absolutely anything. By interpreting Scripture with Scripture, we can (through the aid of the Holy Spirit), properly acquire the intended interpretation of the Scriptures.
Anyways, guys. The main point of this ‘thought’ is simple. God is complex, and His Word is also complex. Rather than sit and let our pastors, preachers, priests, friends, etc tell us what God says, I suggest you read for yourselves. Acts 17:11 tells of a group of Bereans who searched the scriptures daily, checking to see the words of Paul were true. We can do the same when we’re confronted with legalists or antinomians, radical fundamentalists or neo-evangelicals, Calvinists or Arminians. Yes, God can hate. And yes, God is love. There is a balance there that must be found through faithfully studying the Bible. God’s word is for His children, as we can all have a proper understanding of it, provided we put a little effort into it. Let me leave you with 2nd Timothy 3:16 and 2:15.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine (teachings), for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing (handling) the word of truth.” |
posted by Richard @ 7/30/2007 04:53:00 PM  |
|
|
|
|
|
