A Holiness Built on Sand

In the previous post, I contrasted Christianity with modern fundamentalism's view concerning how one fights sin. The verses that are often used to support this view remind me very much of verses used to support cults. They all sound like they are saying what the traditional interpretation of the cult says they do until one reads them in context.

In Christianity, one does not remove the world of temptations from himself, but instead meets temptations with the strength of the Word of God and fellowship of other believers, i.e., the support and accountability of the Church. Those are the sources of strength for the believer to help resist sin when tempted. The fundamentalist view, rooted in the heresy of Gnosticism, where the problem is the physical object or situation or created things in the world itself, attempts to deal with sin by removing himself from those physical objects, people, situations, world, etc. In fact, salvation for the Gnostic is actually a deliverance from the physical world much like fundamentalism's idea that Jesus is going to fly back to earth to take us all away to heaven so we can be saved from this terrible place. The problem is our location and situation (i.e., the external creation itself) rather than internal. Hence, to fight sin in fundamentalist gnosticism is to remove the temptation. Avoiding temptation is a godly endeavor in the fundamentalist view, and so many laws were created to get rid of liquor stores, burn offending books, get rid of that rock and roll music, outlaw gambling, etc. I remember being at Moody where no playing cards were allowed because of this tradition.

There are a couple verses used to support this view, and I would like to look at them in context now.

The first is Proverbs 6:27-28:  

Can a man scoop fire into his lap
    without his clothes being burned?
Can a man walk on hot coals
    without his feet being scorched?

This is quoted over and over again in fundamentalism to support the idea that if one plays with fire, i.e., puts himself in situations where he can be tempted, he's likely going to sin. However, the verse, in context, is not talking about temptation at all. Here is the context.

²⁶ For a prostitute can be had for a loaf of bread,
    but another man’s wife preys on your very life.
²⁷ Can a man scoop fire into his lap
    without his clothes being burned?
²⁸ Can a man walk on hot coals
    without his feet being scorched?
²⁹ So is he who has sex with another man’s wife;
    no one who touches her will go unpunished.

³⁰ People do not despise a thief if he steals
    to satisfy his hunger when he is starving.
³¹ Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold,
    though it costs him all the wealth of his house.
³² But a man who commits adultery has no sense;
    whoever does so destroys himself.

The passage is clearly talking about commiting adultery, not merely being tempted to commit adultery. Bringing fire into one's lap/walking on hot coals is parallel to having sex with another man's wife. Being burned refers to the judgment to come as a result of the sin. It has absolutely nothing to do with temptation, and everything to do with sin.

The second passage, misunderstood more than the other, has a long tradition of being taken out of context and mistranslated because of it. 1 Thessalonians 5:22, they say, tells us to "abstain from/avoid every appearance of evil." What they take this to mean is that we are to avoid even any situation that could be construed as tempting, since people could speculate and think that we are sinning. 

There is a lot more to unpack there in terms of whether Christians are to avoid situations where others could more easily imagine them sinning. However, the idea that one is to avoid tempting situations, i.e., situations that appear evil to others, has nothing to do with what Paul is saying here in context. The context is presented below, translated correctly according to the context.

¹⁹ Do not put the light of the Spirit out. ²⁰ Do not treat prophecies with contempt ²¹ but test them all; hold on to what is good, ²² reject anything that is clearly evil.

The context is clearly talking about what one does with prophecies that are given. Instead of extinguishing the light of the Spirit (v. 19) by treating prophecies with contempt (v. 20), the Thessalonians are to allow them and test them (v. 21), holding tightly to what is good (v. 21), but rejecting anything that is clearly seen by the Thessalonians to be evil (v. 22). 

What trips people up is the word eidous, which can mean "appearance" in some contexts. The unmarked meaning of the word seems to be just something that is apparent or seen, as in 2 Corinthians 5:7, which contrasts that which is clearly seen with that which is not seen and must be accepted by faith. The translation "appearance" does not quite capture the idea here, and is not a great translation, even though it still would not negate the meaning of the passage in the context. It would simply have to be understood that the Thessalonians are to hold onto whatever in the prophecies that are given is good and to steer clear of anything in them that is an obvious evil. In fact, this is the larger context as well, since Paul is exhorting them to not partake in anything like sexual immorality, rebellion or disrespect toward church leadership that represents Christ in its authority, not loving fellow Christians, etc. 

The point is that this is not talking about being in situations that could be tempting or suspicious to others. It is talking about rejecting anything evil in a prophecy. 

But a further comment on this verse in relation to our subject would be instructive. Notice that Paul is arguing that they should not remove all prophecy because they could be tempted by something evil in it. There is a real danger in people believing prophetic utterances that tell them to do what is evil. If Paul were a gnostic, he might just commend the Thessalonians for getting rid of prophecy. Instead, he tells them not to remove the very possible temptation of following an evil teaching by removing prophecy, but to endure all prophecy and to deal with it by being strong in one's mind to discern/test what is said, and accepting only the good teaching while rejecting the bad. That is Christian response to things/people that may tempt in the world, i.e., rid oneself of the error rather than to rid oneself of the external thing that could bring the error. One is a worldview gained from a false religion and the other is a worldview obtained by the truth of apostolic Christianity. One is a false holiness, therefore, and one genuine, biblical holiness. The regenerate Christian who is guided by the Spirit of God will be directed to true holiness when this is pointed out to him. The naturally-made "Christian" will continue in his Gnostic form of ascetic holiness because his method of addressing sin seems better to him than the one proposed by the Bible. As we can see, eisegeting Scripture in the delusion of confirmation bias is a dangerous game. If you look for another religion in the Bible than genuine Christianity, you will find it. You just can't look too hard lest that religion soon be refuted by its whole counsel of what is said.

Should Unrelated People of the Opposite Sex Live in the Same Familial Household?

I know this is an odd question. It would seem rather obvious to me that the answer is yes. However, it has come up at our church for a specific reason, and I want to address it here, and then maybe address a more important issue of epistemology as well.

First, obviously it is OK for family members to live with one another. It would be an absurdity to try and argue that it is not. Likewise, an unmarried male and female should not live alone together in the household if they are just sinning with one another. The issue is really tempation, not sin (two elements that are unfortunately confused in many churches). This question is really whether it is OK for a family to take in a member of the opposite sex when other members of the household (a father, son, male servant, etc.) also live in the household. Specifically, let's just limit it to taking in a female for purposes of brevity.

Biblically, we have to ask concerning multiple scenarios. If it is wrong to take an unrelated female into the family household because there are males who live there who might be tempted by it, then it is wrong no matter what the situation. One cannot pick and choose between scenarios that he finds more palatable than others. If there is a principle that would reject an unrelated female from being taken into the household then it should reject any situation where the unrelated female might be.

The hard part of this is getting Scripture to agree with one's sentiments, as well as being consistent with those sentiments. Most people who would have a problem with this would only take issue with a single unrelated female, but does this mean that adultery is not a threat? Is there no temptation for married people? Plenty of married couples/families share households around the world, and in America, for economic reasons. The principle that rejects an unrelated female from living in the household should also reject this practice. Likewise, it should reject the practice of foreign exchange students who are female. It should also reject adoption of older orphans who have entered puberty. Any sort of communal living would be evil. One might even say vacationing with other families, if there is shared housing, is wrong.

The Bible, of course, sets up no principle against this, as it becomes an absurdity. It would mean that one cannot take in a widow or orphans, have handmaids, take in their betrothed, leave their daughters with others while they have to leave for work, war, etc.

The argument seems to be that having the unrelated opposite sex in the household is a temptation, but there are numerous problems with this line of reasoning.

1. The Bible doesn't tell us to remove temptations, but to refrain from sin or making others sin. These same people have greater temptations every day on their computers and TV's. Do they get rid of them? Why not? Do these people go out into the world? Why? Aren't they freer of temptation at home once they get rid of all of the possible temptations there? We ask God not to drive us into the temptation so that we are delivered from evil. We are not asking God to help us avoid all temptation. Temptation is an opportunity to become stronger. We may remove someone from a situation if we know they are just going to sin, and have a track record of doing so, because they are not strong, but we do not remove temptations beyond this point.

2. The Bible has multiple instances of unrelated females living with males (and vice versa) even though it is a temptation for everyone. As mentioned before, the greatest temptation of an unrelated female living in the household would be either one to whom a male in the household was betrothed (and therefore one could reason that premarital sex was Ok because he was going to marry her anyway) or with a female servant that a member of the opposite sex owned (since the one in power has a greater influence over the one who is easily influenced by that power). These would be the most tempting scenarios where one would be tempted, and yet, the Bible does not even hint at forbidding taking in an unrelated female into the household.

3. There is actually greater temptation for a couple to be alone than to be surrounded by family. If one wanted to truly get rid of temptation, he or she might want to forbid any alone time. That would mean forbidding driving anywhere together alone, going out alone on dates or otherwise, etc. Yet, these people evidence their cultural traditions by having no problem with that scenario and every problem with an unrelated female being in the household.

4. Not only does the Bible have no problem with this, Christians throughout history have no problem with it either. All of these practices: betrothed females, handmaids, adopted adolescent and adult females, widows, females of friends or distant relatives like distant cousins, etc. all stayed with families where men could possibly be tempted by their presence. No one ever thought that the practice itself should be abandoned. Indeed, in many cases, it would be contrary to Christianity to not allow for it.

All of this to say, the aversion to this seems to be due to a gnostic element in the religious subculture that seeks to remove sin by removing the physical as a temptation of sin. It reminds one of monks who scurry away into their monasteries so that they are no longer burdened by temptations. Our religious subculture views these men as holier than others when, in fact, biblically, they would be viewed as weaker, and even moreso, disobedient, than the rest.

Gnosticism is a real problem in fundamentalism. If some  physical thing can be tempting, the thing itself must be removed. If alcohol can tempt anyone, it must removed from all households and churches. If television is a temptation, one should not have one. Likewise, if the presence of unrelated women are a temptation, one can see how the argument should just say, "Let's remove the presence of women." However, since this is impossible, one just tries to sanitize what he can by removing unrelated women from any spheres that the religious subculture would find acceptable.

This is not how Christians become strong. This is not how Christians deal with sin. Christ does not avoid the wilderness because He knows He will be tempted there. Once tempted, He does not run screaming back into the city. He displays His strength in temptation to the glory of God by meeting it with an unwavering faith in the truth of the Word of God. We don't entice people, which is what the devil/world/flesh does, and what the Scripture means by the phrase, "stumbling-block"; but we do not remove temptation or avoid all situations where one might be tempted either, since that would mean that one is not growing as a Christian, but has simply rid himself of the world itself. The world being gone, he remains the same unchanged bag of flesh he was before. Instead, rather than trying to change the world and the possible situations that tempt us, we allow God to change us through temptation, not in its absence.

A last note to ponder is how the fundamentalist gnostics know that this is bad apart from Scripture. It seems to me that those who argue this way are using their own intuition and reason based upon the theology of the false religion/Christianity I mentioned above. We know nothing apart from Scripture. To argue otherwise is to make rules from the teachings of men, the very thing Christ rebuked the Pharisees for doing. Indeed, men work hard for antichrist (i.e., to replace Christ with one's own religion and ideas of holiness); but the Christian should work hard for Christ, seeking to strengthen one another, keeping one another accountable as we encounter temptations in our homes and in the world. The heretical, gnostic view makes sense in liberalism, where God speaks to us through intuition, feelings, cultural sentiments largely influenced by the zeitgeist, human reason, etc. It is the enemy of the orthodox Christian faith, however, when it tends to disregard and even contradict the principles in Scripture.

In the end, God has filled the world with temptations, and He has not removed them from us. Instead, Christ prays that we would be strengthened in the world of temptation so that we would not be of the world, but rather that we might become like Him in the world.

As such, if it is loving to take in a widow, a homeless Christian woman, a housemaid in need of work, a single Christian mother who is pregnant, a distant relative in need of a place to stay, a girl in need who is betrothed to a son in the family, a Christian girl is left by a parent who must go elsewhere, a Christian woman who needs protection, etc. then to do otherwise because of some man-made ethic that rejects both the testimony of Scripture as the supreme guide of our ethics, and the Church as supreme intepreter of that revelation, is self-exaltation, antichrist, hatred of God and His people, anticreational, and murder, all in the name of heretical holiness.

Biblical Theology L: 1 Timothy

The First Letter to Timothy is the first of a series of letters designated often as “The Pastorals.” A better designation for them might be the “Ecclesiological Epistles,” since they seek to set the church in order in terms of its positions and practices. The purpose is stated in 3:14–15: “I write these things to you in case I am delayed, to let you know how everyone must live in the household of God, because it is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” Chapters 1–3 lay out a right theology of ordering the church and Chapters 4-6 lay out a right practice in ordering the church.

Theology: Paul presents the church as a household, specifically the household of God (3:15). It is “a pillar and stay for the truth.” The household is the place of nurture for the children that trains them up to adulthood and provides sanctuary from destructive forces outside. In this regard, rightly ordering the household of God is an act of love and care for the people of God (1:5). It protects them from heretics who, like the serpent of old, attempt to penetrate the sanctuary/household and destroy the people of God inside (1:3–10, 18–20; 6:20–21). Rightly ordering and honoring the household and those who head it up through position and example will allow it to function in the role of a healthy household that grows its children in the truth and goodness of Christianity, which is the purpose for which God created the church.   

If it is to function this way, however, it must be ordered according to God’s creative purposes. This means that men must take upon themselves the position of leadership and not abandon the women, who are created not for fatherhood, but for motherhood, to take the responsibility for which God has made the men. They are to lead as fathers lead their households in prayer (2:1–8) and the instruction of godliness (2:11–15). 

Women are to be examples of faithful mothers who are committed to godliness rather than being flirtatious, inviting vanity, as well as sexual corruption and inappropriateness into the household (2:9–10; 5:). Nor are they to disorder the household by seeking roles of teaching and authority over other men, since they have not been made to be the leaders in the household from the beginning of creation. Disorder invites the devil into the household as it did in the garden. Hence, men are to become mature in their faith and alone are allowed to seek the role of the elders, who function as spiritual fathers, over the church (3:1–7). The deacons and women who serve function as older brothers and sisters who aid the elders in carrying out physical responsibilities within the church over the other children (3:8–13).

Ethics: The tendency is for people to fall into apostasy by believing false teaching, lies, myths, etc. in order to justify wayward living, and many will do so (4:1–10). The remedy for this is for leaders to live in a manner worthy of Christ and to publically read Scripture, teach it and exhort believers with it (vv. 11–16).

As a right ordered household (5:1–2), fathers and mothers must be honored through financial support when they are in need (5:3–21). People who qualify are only those who have no other support and are serving, or have served, the church faithfully. Widows receive “honor” (v. 3), which refers to that which takes care of all of their financial needs. Elders are to receive “double honor” (v. 17), which refers to a financial amount that totals to twice the amount of their needs. Financial blessing is not to be given to anyone in sin, lest whoever gives it partake in their sin (v. 20–22).

He warns Timothy that if leaders care more about getting more money, they will bring in false teaching that flatters rather than that which nurtures and protects believers. This will destroy them. Timothy, therefore, is to exhort everyone to be content with what they have and not to desire riches which is the root of all sorts of evil, and leads to the destruction of the faith (6:2–10). 

He ends by exhorting all believers who are well-off to share with those who are not, so that all of the Christians in the church grow together as a caring family. In this way, their savings account will be eternal life (11–19).

The Gospel according to the Three LIttle Pigs and Its Modern Adaptation

I was watching the Disney version of the Three Little Pigs the other day with my kids. It had been since I was a kid when I last saw it. Something dawned on me about the Disney version in comparison to the original, as it reflects the modern evangelical view of the gospel quite well. I say "original" to refer to the earliest book including pigs (the same story appears with pixies and bunnies in variation).

Everyone knows the story. The first two pigs build houses out of perishable material that disinigrates when the wolf comes and blows it in. The last pig builds his house out of sturdy material that will last the onslaught of the wolf's fierce gale. 

Both the original story and the modern Disney one are the same at this point. What is different in each is what happens to the pigs.  

Now, at this point, it probably important to point out what the building of the houses means. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the houses represent what one does in life, i.e., what he builds his life out of by what he does with this time. 

The first two little pigs spend their time on their pleasures in the Disney version to represent this fact. The original story is more implicit with the analogy.  The last pig spends his time working while being intentional about building his house out of the material that is going to endure. 

There are political interpretations and applications of the story, but the imagery itself seems to come from the Bible. Two ideas in the Bible seem present: The idea of building one's house on the rock rather than sand in order to endure the storms to come, and the idea that one should build his house (i.e., doctrines of the faith and living) out of enduring material rather than wood, hay and straw.

The perishable material seems to be taken from 1 Corinthians 4, but the idea of wind that knocks a house down and moral of the story from Matthew 7. 

Matthew 7 argues that one should not merely claim to have Christ as his Lord, but that one only truly has Christ as his Lord when he lives according to Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7. In other words, if one lives accordingly, then when the storms, i.e., judgment comes, his life will stand in terms of being a witness to the fact that Christ was His Lord during life. His claim is true, he may enter eternal life with Christ. However, if he has lived according to lawlessness, i.e., his own religious ideas instead of Christ's commands, this is building on human ideas which are sand and the storm, i.e., judgment, will come and show his claim to have Christ as his Lord to be false. He will receive the words of Christ, "Depart from Me, I never knew you, You who practice lawlessness, i.e., live according to your own human ideas/morals." 

Understanding this principle, the original Three Little Pigs relates that when the two little pigs who built their houses out of perishable material have their houses blown in by the wolf, he eats them. They die horrible deaths. The story parallels Matthew 7, where people who claim to be Christians do not live as Christians, and thus, show themselves to be of the world and destined to receive the damnation of the world.

The modern Disney version, however, looks very different. The first two little pigs live according to their pleasures in disregard of any judgment to come, and when their houses are blown in, they simply end up running into the third pig's house and all survive because of it.

There are a couple different directions I could take with that idea. One is that some think they can ignore Christ and will somehow be saved by virtue of their being associated with people who do live for Christ, as though salvation is through association. The other, however, is the way that evangelicals treat the gospel and talk about grace. 

Since Jesus built His house out of brick, i.e., lived a life of obedience to God, I can live my life in whatever manner I please and still be saved because Jesus is my Savior. He's got a brick house so I can build mine out of straw or furze. I have no need to be inentional about living for God since Jesus did it for me. 

This is where a misunderstanding of justication and sanctification come in. Most evangelicals think that Christians don't need to do good works and refrain from evil because that would be legalism and we're saved by grace. Hence, Jesus' brick house ensures that I have no need to be loving toward God, wise in the world, and follow Him by obeying His commandments.  

Christians obeying Christ by living out Christ's commands as evidence of their unification/salvation with Christ, however, is exactly what Matthew 7 is talking about. It isn't talking about Christ's active obedience that covers Christians in justification. It's distinguishing between true and false Christians, those who follow Christ and truly have Him as their Lord and those who only say that they do and live according to their own moral laws, traditional or mixed between traditional/cultural and biblical while setting other biblical teachings and morals aside. 

In Matthew 7, and the original Three Little Pigs, those who do not live out their lives by making choices for that which is eternal over temporary will perish. In the new version, living out such wisdom is optional. Jesus saves me with His house of bricks either way. 

In this regard, the modern Three Little Pigs is a deadly lie. It comforts the ungodly and assures them of their salvation when there is none. It cries out, "But this is the temple of God, the temple of God, the temple of God!" with the pre-exilic Judahites who trust in the promises of God given to those who repent and obey Him, even though they neither repent nor obey Him (Jeremiah 7:1-15). 

The original story actually continues after the wolf fails to blow in the last pigs house, as even the pig who built his house out of brick must continue to live wisely, aware of the judgment/death/wolf that seeks to destroy him. In the end, he ends up eating the very wolf that desired to eat him (perhaps a fitting metaphor for Christians overcoming the judgment of eternal death in resurrection--i.e., devouring that which once attempted to devour them during their lives).

Evangelicals continue to repeat their mantras, "We're saved by grace, by grace, by grace," even though grace and the promises of God are still for those who repent and have Jesus Christ as their Lord by seeking to obey Him in all things. When they fail, they continue to repent by ceasing to do evil and learning to do good. This house built out of the stuff that Christ commands is evidence that one has been actually building his room in Christ's house, under His Lordship, and if he has done so, though the waves crash down, the winds howl, and the wolves blow, his house will remain forever.

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. (Gal 6:7-8)

Biblical Theology XLIX: 2 Thessalonians

 The Second Letter to the Thessalonians was written to readdress the same issues Paul had addressed in the first letter. The issues had gotten worse rather than better. Persecution had gotten worse, there were some arguing that the judgment of Christ had already come and the Thessalonians had missed it, and some were living undisciplined and had ceased working, perhaps, because they believed they were in a new era. The letter is brief since Paul already addressed these issues previously.The letter is organized into three sections, each ending in a prayer.

Theology: The wicked who are persecuting the Thessalonians may have the upper hand now, but when Christ returns He is going to destroy all of them. Paul relates the divine warrior concept seen throughout the Old Testament to Christ.

God sends a deception upon everyone who does not receive a love of the truth of the gospel. Hence, His judgment begins now by giving the wicked over to believing their lies, and is a sign and seal of the judgment to come. If one is given over to deception now, it means that he or she will be destroyed when the Lord Jesus comes.

Paul wants to inform the Thessalonians that, despite what others may be arguing, the day of the Lord, i.e., His coming and judgment of the world, has not yet taken place. As mentioned before, His judgment is taking place now in the sense that He is giving people over to their deceptions, but the final judgment has not yet come. The only way to make this argument, of course, is by arguing that the judgment is spiritual and the second coming is likewise a spiritual event. This type of thing was likely argued by Greeks who had a tendency toward Platonism and proto-gnosticism that taught that the coming of Christ, the resurrection, and the judgment was a spiritual event. It is easy to see, then, that this spiritual event may have already passed the Thessalonians by. Paul argues, however, that the Lord will destroy all of their persecutors with fire when He appears visibly, that a great apostasy will happen first, and that the man of lawlessness must first appear. 

The man of lawlessness concept comes from Antiochus IV who is spoken of in Daniel. Paul uses some of that imagery here when he refers to him exalting himself above every god and seating himself in the temple, i.e., desolating it. This is likely a political figure who will attempt to subvert the religion of God’s people, the church, as Antiochus IV attempted to subvert the religion of Judaism in the second century B. C. Since the man of lawlessness exalts himself above every god, he does so above Christ, and probably even claims to be Christ, since the temple here likely refers to the church and not the literal temple in Jerusalem. The church that testifies that this figure is the true Christ is actually the false prophet that has apostasized against the apostolic teaching concerning Christ. This is the same concept found in Revelation, where the beast is the political/religious figure (i.e., the Emperor Domitian) is the one who exalts himself above all gods and the false church, i.e., false prophet, gets the world to follow him instead of the true Christ.

Ethics: Since Christ will destroy their persecutors, the Thessalonians display their worthiness of the kingdom to come by persevering in their love of one another and faith in the truth the apostles proclaimed to them. God has chosen them to suffer and their perseverance through it is evidence of God’s just judgment to make them worthy of the kingdom. Hence, salvation is through sanctification in the spirit and much of that sanctification is being produced by their sufferings.

Since the Lord is coming in judgment of the wicked, however, the Thessalonians should make every effort to both be disciplined in their daily lives, working for their livelihood, and to practice a form of church discipline on those who are living unruly lives and gossiping/meddling in other people's affairs. However, full discipline is not enacted in such cases, since Christians are to consider these people as fellow Christians still, unlike those put out of the church and are to be considered pagans by the Lord in Matthew 18.

Paul is encouraged by their love for one another, their strong faith in apostolic teaching given to them, and their growth in Christ even in the face of such adversity.

Faithful Catholics Having to Become Protestant to Remain Faithful

The false prophet makes itself known by its fruits.

"Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon." (Rev 13:11)

Paedocommunion Is the Orthodox Practice according to the Evidence We Have

A historical argument for paedocommunion.