the truth shall set you free

After my recent post about Islam, there was extensive discussion in the comment section. I realized that I should state my position on Islam more clearly, and I’m currently working on an article that does that, as well as comparing Islam to Christianity. Unfortunately, this week has been insanely busy, and I haven’t yet had the time to finish it.

In the meantime, I’d like to say a couple of quick things about religion in general. Basically, people need to read the book. I don’t think we can say “I’m ok, you’re okay” and still assert that there is objective truth. But, I must say that if no one isn’t even holding to the fundamentals of their faith, what is the point? This applies to modern, “moderate” Muslims who continue to argue that Islam is a “religion of peace.” The fact of the matter is (as I will put forth in my upcoming article), Mohammed was interested in establishing and maintaining an earthly empire. Thus, violence was - and is - necessary to fulfill the commission of Mohammed: expanding and maintaining theological and political power. Those who claim to be Islamic pacifists are plainly contradicting the goals and purpose of their founder. Like Christians who do the same, Muslims who claim to be “OK with other world religions” are compromising their own faith. If other faiths are “just as good” as yours, then what can yours possibly be worth? I’ll deal with this concept more soon.

Shifting the focus to Christianity, there are many “progressive theologians” that are creating an entirely new religion but continuing to masquerade as Christians. True followers see this for what it is: apostasy, dishonesty and damnable heresy. But sadly, many are enticed by the concept of “open minded”, “non-judgmental” spirituality. It’s a free country, and people are entitled to believe what they want to believe. However, it must be said and understood that this is not Christianity. It is not what Jesus taught; it is not what his apostles taught, and it is not what primitive Christians believed and practiced. Sure, “times change”, but truth doesn’t.

Of course, this is nothing new. Spiritual “leaders” have been adulterating the truth for centuries in one way or another, often with dangerous subtlety. I suppose subtlety is passé, because many so-called “Christian leaders” are now blatantly forsaking articles of faith in order to pursue their own desires. Today on CNN.com I see this headline:

Booze lands gay bishop in rehab

Are you kidding me? That sounds like the start of a bad joke, does it not?

Like Muslims who are willfully ignorant of their own leader’s purpose and writings, so-called Christians knowingly forsake theirs. Groups like the Episcopalians, the Unitarians, and the United Church of Christ (to name a very select few) have completely abandoned the Bible and are promoting a product of their own imagination. It is simply not Christianity.

Without fail, I will be called narrow-minded, judgmental, etc.; yet, I am not making judgments according to my own ideas and desires. I am simply pointing to these groups’ departure from the book they claim as their guide. Jesus said, “…the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).

These apostate groups would try to justify or explain their behavior. I am sure that they would argue that they are somehow still in accordance with God’s will. It just doesn’t fly. Here’s an example:

A “Homosexual Bishop”

Homosexuality is a hot-button issue in and out of the church, and there are several practical, secular cases against it. However, for the sake of time and space I’d like to deal with it according to the Scriptures solely.

One of the favorite comebacks from so-called Christians who want to justify homosexuality is this: “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality!” This is fallacious to the core, as there are many things Jesus did not directly condemn that we know to be wrong. For example, Jesus did not condemn bestiality or child molestation. Does that mean Christians should be free to pursue those desires? Obviously not. Ultimately, Jesus was not silent on the matter. His specificity concerning what is an acceptable human relationship logically excludes any alternative. Note his words in Matthew 19:4-6:

Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

People are willing to use logic every day, but when it comes to honestly reading scripture it seems they abandon all rationality. Jesus details God’s design for a human sexual relationship. This description is specific, and logic tells us that Jesus did not need to spend the next hour detailing what “Male and Female” does NOT include. It’s common sense. He also didn’t need to call out homosexuality in particular because it had always been wrong and his audience was well aware of this (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). The apostle Paul reiterated this idea in Romans 1:26-17 where he calls homosexuality “shameful” and “against nature.”

There is no rational case for Homosexuality. The Bible plainly teaches that it is sexual sin; that is that. Yet, CNN tells us that a Homosexual Episcopalian bishop is now in rehab. Is it clear how loony that is?

I originally intended to deal with the concept of “priests” and “laity” as well, but this has become quite long. Briefly, there is absolutely no New Testament authority for a “clergy” of any kind. This concept was an innovation of the Catholic church, who have traditionally held Peter in the highest esteem of all the apostles. It’s interesting to note that Peter wrote that all Christians make up the priesthood, with Jesus Christ as High Priest (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1; 4:14, etc.).

Much more can be said on these matters, but for the sake of space I’ll stop here. The point is, if you desire to be a Christian, you are subject to the tenets of Christianity, namely the New Testament of Christ. If you practice something else, you are something else. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

I recently came across the blog of Joshua Duncan, and noticed a rant he posted about Calvinism vs. Arminianism. He expresses frustration with those who claim to be neither Calvinists nor Arminians, but “Biblicists.” In other words, those who claim they do not subscribe to a supra-scriptural “theology.” This piqued my interest because – though, I have never used the term “Biblicist” – that is essentially what I claim to be.

Duncan begins by saying that ”…you can either be monergistic of synergistic with no third option available”, and for the sake of proving a point, I contacted a Christian friend of mine:

Me: Hey, I’ve got a question.
Friend: shoot
Me: Would you classify your beliefs as monergistic or synergistic?
Friend: What does that mean?

Case in point. Now, you may be asking yourself, “What do these terms mean?” or “Where do my views fit into this?” Therein lies my concern with Duncan’s claim. The importance he places on theological systems implies that ignorance of such systems is in some sense wrong.

To say that ignorance (or avoidance) of such issues is unacceptable is to argue against the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures. For example, 2 Peter 1:3 says:

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence…

This is not to claim that the Bible accomplishes everything for us, but it certainly claims to be all-sufficient with regard to the information it provides. Given that God’s word is all-sufficient, supra-scriptural theologies are irrelevant to our salvation. Therefore, faulting someone for not subscribing to a man-made system is, itself, wrong.

That said, let’s examine the problems with Duncan’s claims more closely. He says:

In essence, the non-Calvinist is saying, “You’re following the teachings of some man.” Are we supposed to ignore the exegetical work that has been done? Do they think that we venerate Calvin so much that we do not question his teaching? We are Calvinists because we believe in the Bible. Third, it drips of pseudo-humble arrogance. “You can have your fancy theological systems. I’ll stick with the Bible.” Friend, this “fancy theological system” is derived from the Bible. Please tell me how you’ve transcended the debate such that neither label applies to you.

Once again, all of this stems from the assumption that one must be a part of the debate, and I am not convinced that this is so. Joshua, if you are willing to question Calvin’s teaching, then why call yourself a Calvinist? By his name you have either (1) studied any and all of John Calvin’s doctrines and found them to be inerrant, or (2) have not studied all of Calvin’s doctrines but have faith that they are inerrant. Those are the only two options, and both are dangerous. I call myself a Christian – and a Christian only – because I do not question Biblical teaching. Do you consider that claim “pseudo-humble arrogance”? I should hope not, because that is the view the Bible takes. The issue is not who has “transcended the debate” or who is “above labels.” The fact is, theological systems are an attempt to “transcend” the teaching of the Bible as it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Simply, the term “Calvinism” would be unnecessary if it did not go beyond what the Scriptures teach. This concept is illuminated by the very existence of denominational Christianity; differing doctrines are denoted by various “brand names.”

Paul writes in 1 Corintians 1:10-14:

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Could we say that this passage “drips of psuedo-humble arrogance”? I don’t believe that describes the apostle Paul or the Holy Spirit which inspired this epistle. It seems to me that he is exhorting Christians to be “above labels.”

Let’s look again at 1 Corinthians, restated in our terms:

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Calvin,” or “I follow Arminius,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Calvin crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Calvin?

It is impossible to read this passage with any honesty or humility and still be angered by those who claim to “stick with just the Bible.” After all, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that the Sciptures are inspired that “the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

Is this passage true, since it doesn’t refer it’s readers to Calvin?

UPDATE: Joshua Duncan has responded to this article. I’ll most likely be responding to him, again. I guess this is a good time to ask: Joshua, would you like to have a formal, written debate on the topic? If you affirm that Calvinism is entirely Biblical in nature, I will deny. Send me or post a proposition if you are interested. Thanks for responding!

I recently published an essay in response to Jeff Sharlet’s article in Rolling Stone entitled, The Young & The Sexless. Within a few days I had a response from one of the girls in the article (Anna) and Jeff Sharlet himself. The discourse that took place in the comment section turned out to be more interesting than the essay itself.

Jeff took issue with a number of things I said, including his and Rolling Stone’s motivation in publishing the article. I know that Sharlet isn’t associated with Rolling Stone, so I probably shouldn’t have lumped them together as I did; however, the issue remains that Rolling Stone has no interest in featuring Christianity as a positive cultural influence. It would simply be working against the identity they’ve developed from the start.

Sharlet questions my “scripture history”, though, and I thought his statements deserved a response beyond the comment section. I know that Jeff isn’t really one to debate, but I also know that he will, so his responses to my criticism are certainly welcome. Here’s what he said:

Your scripture history — oy. First, Christ didn’t “say” anything in Matthew — Matthew wrote that Gospel well after Christ died. Secondly, nobody started practicing chastity because Christ said so — Jews already practiced chastity, at least in theory. Love Christ all you want, but he didn’t invent chastity. Finally, all historical evidence points to the contrary of your assertion. A few early communities of followers of Christ (remember, they weren’t “Christians” until later) did start practicing radical chastity as an interpretation of Christ’s, and Paul’s, message — so radical, in fact, that they left their families. As the historian Peter Brown — acknowledged by believing and non-believing biblical scholars as the authority on this subject — points out, Paul’s letter to the Corinthians was designed to DISCOURAGE such radical chastity, on the grounds that it was upsetting the social order.

Thereafter, chastity became a fairly minor part of the Christian program for several centuries. Very few Christians would have practiced it, even before marriage. There have been revivals of such morality, but they’ve been brief. Take the most famous American examples, the Puritans and the Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s. During both periods, out of wedlock birth rates were anywhere from 10 to 20%. And those are just the pregnancies.

I’m not arguing against chastity — not here, anyway — but rather, the self-righteous assumption that most Christians really practice it.

My first impression when reading this was “this guy is regurgitating things he has been told about the Bible by someone else who had been told something about the Bible. It certainly doesn’t come across as someone who has taken a look inside for himself.

First of all, you’re right on something; Matthew recorded what Christ said in his gospel. I never explicitly said that Christ “invented” chastity; in fact, I specifically said he was reiterating the place for sex as it was set forth “from the beginning” (Matthew 19; Genesis 2:24, Deuteronomy 22). If we go with an strict interpretation of the scriptures, John 1 explains that Christ was integral from the very beginning. So I suppose you’re wrong; Christ did invent chastity.

Secondly, you say that “all historical evidence points to the contrary of [my] assertion”, yet you provide no such evidence. What evidence do you reference when asserting that followers of Christ weren’t called “Christians” until later? Luke records in Acts 11:26 that “…the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” This is well within the first century AD. This is really beside the point, though.

Chastity was not new to Christians, nor did it become increasingly “radical” as you purport. We know that the Mosaic law forbade any form of sexual intercourse outside of marriage (this includes heterosexual, homosexual and even bestial) [See Deuteronomy 22 and following]. These concepts are simply restated in the New Testament, and logically this resulted in adherence, not a “radical interpretation.” In fact, there never has been much room for interpretation. Luke writes to abstain from fornication (Acts 15:29; 21:25), and Paul is clear on the subject (Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18), emphasizing that young virgins should marry to avoid it (1 Corinthians 7:2). See also Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Hebrews 13:4 and Revelation 2:20-22.

Peter Brown may be respected, but I know of nothing more authoritative than the text itself.

Jeff, your claim that chastity became a “minor part of the Christian program” is hard to believe, not only because you provide no evidence. Christians (being humans, after all) have fallen short of purity on a variety of moral issues (see Romans 3:23). However, I challenge you to provide any historical verification that chastity was ever downplayed by the church. That just doesn’t jive.

Consider this:

The Apostolic Fathers: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (2nd Century, AD) all quoted Christ and the Apostles, and reiterated with statements of their own, exhorting readers to abstain from fleshly lusts, particularly fornication and adultery. Theophilus doesn’t make it sound “fairly minor”, in my opinion:

And concerning chastity, the holy word teaches us not only not to sin in act, but not even in thought, not even in the heart to think of any evil, nor look on another man’s wife with our eyes to lust after her. Solomon, accordingly, who was a king and a prophet, said: ‘Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee: make straight paths for your feet.’ And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: ‘Whosoever looketh on a woman who is not his own wife, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.’ ‘And he that marrieth,’ says [the Gospel], ‘her that is divorced from her husband, committeth adultery; and whosoever putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.’ Because Solomon says: ‘Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goeth in to a married woman shall not be innocent.’” (Chapter XIII, of Chastity)

Or, St. Augustine (AD 397):

The mists of passion steamed up out of the puddly concupiscence of the flesh, and the hot imagination of puberty, and they so obscured and overcast my heart that I was unable to distinguish pure affection from unholy desire.

…If only there had been someone to regulate my disorder and turn to my profit the fleeting beauties of the things around me, and to fix a bound to their sweetness, so that the tides of my youth might have spent themselves upon the shore of marriage!” (Confessions, Book II.ii)

…and so on for centuries, yes, until now.

I urge you to provide the “historical evidence” for any of the claims you’ve made. Please, for if I am wrong, am I ready to admit it. I am particularly interested in seeing some evidence (from you, or Peter Brown) that Paul was discouraging sexual purity in any way. I have a feeling Timothy understood Paul differently.