"Kingdom Principles" (Myles Munroe) - This is the second book by Dr. Munroe that I have read since becoming truly and soundly saved. And this book has stirred me. I don't know his personal state, but I can see his teachings are not helping people, and are perhaps leading people astray.
Munroe claims the message of the Bible is the initial giving, loss, and restoration of "God's Kingdom".
As an extended metaphor, yea I could see it. Jesus is king of kings. So, maybe we are "little kings". And Jesus has plenty to say about the Kingdom of Heaven.
But metaphors break down at certain points. And that's what Munroe overlooks. He says things like "Real wealth is in the land... If you want to help ensure prosperity for yourself as well as future generations, focus on acquiring real estate." (Page 123) What!?!?
I wish that were an isolated statement taken out of context. He repeats the point several more times that chapter. At one point, I was heartened to have him say that the Gospel is not about prosperity. But it gets worse; he says the Gospel is that you are a king, and prosperity naturally follows from that! Statements like, "The wealthier the king, the greater his power" and "Giving requires a response from the king" (Page 207).
We are called to give as we are able, and as we are moved to (that may be more or less than the 10% 'tithe'). And we give out of joy and thankfulness; because it is the right thing to do. God is in no way obligated to us for doing the right thing. Does the president send you a thank you card for paying your taxes? Does the mayor of your city send out cards thanking people for not murdering or jay walking for the year?
Where do these teaching come from? Why is this so hard? I think the main reason can be found on page 158 - "Knowledge of the Word of God is important, but insufficient". He is proposing Sola Scriptura + Secret Knowledge. Sola Fide + Kingdom Principles.
I'll keep Grace alone, Faith alone, Scripture alone, Christ alone - all for the Glory of God alone.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Saturday, September 1, 2007
What is Faith (Part 2)?
For some people, "faith" means unreasonable belief (or at least belief apart from logic, for example, the book I just read).
The word "faith" is used twice ("faithful" or "faithfully" are also used a lot) in the Old Testament (KJV). The Hebrew word is "emuwn" (ay-moon) or "emuwnah". It implies "established", "trustworthiness", "security", "fidelity", or "firmness".
The word in the New Testament is "pistis" (and is used more times than I care to count, over 200 - although it is sometimes "little faith"). Pistis implies "reliance", "constancy", "assurance", "conviction", or "trust".
Ok, so there is me and God involved in this faith. Which one of us is "trustworthy", "reliable" or "constant"?
Not me.
So, our faith is in the trustworthiness, constancy, and fidelity of God.
If our faith is lacking, there are elements of us accusing God of lacking these attributes. So either we are blaspheming God (demeaning His nature) or we are creating an idol (a god without the true attributes of God).
Now we are engaged in an internal conflict with sin (Galatians 5:17). So, it is not unusual that we will sometimes stumble (1 John 1:8). But if we are continuing in sin, we are not saved (1 John 1:6).
The word "faith" is used twice ("faithful" or "faithfully" are also used a lot) in the Old Testament (KJV). The Hebrew word is "emuwn" (ay-moon) or "emuwnah". It implies "established", "trustworthiness", "security", "fidelity", or "firmness".
The word in the New Testament is "pistis" (and is used more times than I care to count, over 200 - although it is sometimes "little faith"). Pistis implies "reliance", "constancy", "assurance", "conviction", or "trust".
Ok, so there is me and God involved in this faith. Which one of us is "trustworthy", "reliable" or "constant"?
Not me.
So, our faith is in the trustworthiness, constancy, and fidelity of God.
If our faith is lacking, there are elements of us accusing God of lacking these attributes. So either we are blaspheming God (demeaning His nature) or we are creating an idol (a god without the true attributes of God).
Now we are engaged in an internal conflict with sin (Galatians 5:17). So, it is not unusual that we will sometimes stumble (1 John 1:8). But if we are continuing in sin, we are not saved (1 John 1:6).
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Book Review
"The Probability of God" (Stephen Unwin) - This book is largely a gentle introduction to Bayesian probability math. It is also surprisingly funny (there is a good comparison between the anthropic principle and the "You are here" sign in a mall). I have never been a fan of Bayesian probability (I'm a Lotfian fuzzy logic fan). This book did more damage to my faith in Bayesian math than it boosted my faith in God :).
He does make an interesting proposition:
Belief(P) = Computed_Probability(P) + Faith(P)
Where:
Belief(P) < 100% (because if Belief == 100%, then Faith(P) = 1 - Probability(P), therefore Faith = Logical_amount_of_doubt, so Faith is unreasonable).
Unwin should stick to math. He goes on to argue that there is no basis for religious disagreement. That is because some statements must be taken on faith. His example:
P1 = Jesus is the Son of God
If someone does not have faith in this statement, it does not mean that they have faith that Jesus is not the Son of God at 100%.
True, at that level. But I would argue that you do not need to take each statement from the Bible on faith. All you need is:
1. Genesis 1:1 (therefore God exists)
2. Psalm 33:4 (God's Word is right and He works in truth)
There are other fortifying statements, but these make a good foundation. The rest of the Bible then logically follows.
Similarly, I would assume that a Muslim would only need take a few core statements from the Koran, and the rest should follow. So the Koran says (Sura 19.88-89):
"And they say: The Beneficent God has taken (to Himself) a son. Certainly you have made an abominable assertion"
Hmm. That seems kind of contrary. I mean, only one of us can be right, right? Either God has a Son or He doesn't.
He does make an interesting proposition:
Belief(P) = Computed_Probability(P) + Faith(P)
Where:
Belief(P) < 100% (because if Belief == 100%, then Faith(P) = 1 - Probability(P), therefore Faith = Logical_amount_of_doubt, so Faith is unreasonable).
Unwin should stick to math. He goes on to argue that there is no basis for religious disagreement. That is because some statements must be taken on faith. His example:
P1 = Jesus is the Son of God
If someone does not have faith in this statement, it does not mean that they have faith that Jesus is not the Son of God at 100%.
True, at that level. But I would argue that you do not need to take each statement from the Bible on faith. All you need is:
1. Genesis 1:1 (therefore God exists)
2. Psalm 33:4 (God's Word is right and He works in truth)
There are other fortifying statements, but these make a good foundation. The rest of the Bible then logically follows.
Similarly, I would assume that a Muslim would only need take a few core statements from the Koran, and the rest should follow. So the Koran says (Sura 19.88-89):
"And they say: The Beneficent God has taken (to Himself) a son. Certainly you have made an abominable assertion"
Hmm. That seems kind of contrary. I mean, only one of us can be right, right? Either God has a Son or He doesn't.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Book Review
"The Exemplary Husband" (Stuart Scott) - This is an excellent book for any man who wants to be a Godly husband. It starts with a Gospel presentation for the unsaved, and should be very convicting for any false converts. It then proceeds into very convicting Biblical arguments for how a husband should serve God. Scott provides counsel for husbands of both saved and unsaved wives.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Was Mother Terea Saved?
Only God knows.
Ok, having got that out of the way, Internet Monk has an excellent post reflecting on how God can seem distant sometimes. In that post, he references a review of the new book revealing Mother Teresa's own spiritual troubles.
These letters are highly personal, and selected from times of confession and vulnerability. So we can't form an opinion from them.
But they can serve as an example for when we "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith" (2 Corinthians 13:5a). If someone I knew, claiming to be a Christian, said these things to me, what would I think?
She says some disconcerting things, "I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God — tender, personal love," she remarks to an adviser. "If you were [there], you would have said, 'What hypocrisy.'" She claimed to have heard Jesus talking to her.
The question is, did she do what she did out of gratitude for what God had done for her? Or did she do what she did in order to try to earn God's favor (or some burden of debt)?
A similar question is, why does the world respect her? Because of her dedication to God? Or because she was "better" than anyone else at doing good works?
What is the example of her life? Is she someone to idolize? (while seeing her standard as impossible to reach, so we don't even try?)
Ok, having got that out of the way, Internet Monk has an excellent post reflecting on how God can seem distant sometimes. In that post, he references a review of the new book revealing Mother Teresa's own spiritual troubles.
These letters are highly personal, and selected from times of confession and vulnerability. So we can't form an opinion from them.
But they can serve as an example for when we "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith" (2 Corinthians 13:5a). If someone I knew, claiming to be a Christian, said these things to me, what would I think?
She says some disconcerting things, "I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God — tender, personal love," she remarks to an adviser. "If you were [there], you would have said, 'What hypocrisy.'" She claimed to have heard Jesus talking to her.
The question is, did she do what she did out of gratitude for what God had done for her? Or did she do what she did in order to try to earn God's favor (or some burden of debt)?
A similar question is, why does the world respect her? Because of her dedication to God? Or because she was "better" than anyone else at doing good works?
What is the example of her life? Is she someone to idolize? (while seeing her standard as impossible to reach, so we don't even try?)
Sunday, August 19, 2007
The Law
My last post might seem to come down pretty hard on God's law. I have actually been summarizing Paul's comments. So let me move to Galatians 3:21a, "[Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid".
So what is the purpose of the Law? It is not (directly) for our salvation. This is the misunderstanding of the legalist.
Psalm 19:7 "The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul". Galatians 3:24, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." And there it is.
The Law has been compared to a mirror, which shows us our true selves. Our self-image is one of self-righteousness. "I am a good person." "I am much better than most people." "I'm not a murderer." "I try to live a good life." "Of course God loves me, I'm great!"
But when we look into the Law, we discover we are not good in God's sight. God sees everything we've done, and all our thoughts. Jesus said it is our thoughts which make us unclean, even more than deeds. Because our thoughts determine who we are.
Romans 3:12b "there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
If we agree with God that we are not good, we see our need for a savior. If we humble ourselves, cry out to God for what we have done, turn our backs on our old lives, and trust in Jesus to save us -- we can be saved.
So what is the purpose of the Law? It is not (directly) for our salvation. This is the misunderstanding of the legalist.
Psalm 19:7 "The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul". Galatians 3:24, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." And there it is.
The Law has been compared to a mirror, which shows us our true selves. Our self-image is one of self-righteousness. "I am a good person." "I am much better than most people." "I'm not a murderer." "I try to live a good life." "Of course God loves me, I'm great!"
But when we look into the Law, we discover we are not good in God's sight. God sees everything we've done, and all our thoughts. Jesus said it is our thoughts which make us unclean, even more than deeds. Because our thoughts determine who we are.
Romans 3:12b "there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
If we agree with God that we are not good, we see our need for a savior. If we humble ourselves, cry out to God for what we have done, turn our backs on our old lives, and trust in Jesus to save us -- we can be saved.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Legalism vs. Antimonialism
Antimonialism is an old word you don't hear very often. Literally, it is "against the law". It is characterized by people who believe they do not need to change their lives as a Christian. These people deny the transforming power of the Holy Spirit and live in sin, contradicting their statements of faith.
Legalism is the opposite extreme. A legalist raises our works (actions) to the point of salvation. In other words, "follow our rules or you're not saved". We are all born under the crushing weight of the Law. A burden which we cannot carry, which ultimately leads to death. When we are saved, we are released from this burden. The legalist returns to this burden.
The Bible makes it clear the proper course is through the middle. Our lives are too complicated to be governed by a set of rules. As Christians, we have freedom. But not everything is good for us. And we must not use our freedom to cause others to stumble or to keep people from hearing the Good News. At the same time, we must place God's will first. We know His will by being steeped in His Word, and applying Biblical principles. We should not be breaking the Ten Commandments. We should be loving others.
Legalism is the opposite extreme. A legalist raises our works (actions) to the point of salvation. In other words, "follow our rules or you're not saved". We are all born under the crushing weight of the Law. A burden which we cannot carry, which ultimately leads to death. When we are saved, we are released from this burden. The legalist returns to this burden.
The Bible makes it clear the proper course is through the middle. Our lives are too complicated to be governed by a set of rules. As Christians, we have freedom. But not everything is good for us. And we must not use our freedom to cause others to stumble or to keep people from hearing the Good News. At the same time, we must place God's will first. We know His will by being steeped in His Word, and applying Biblical principles. We should not be breaking the Ten Commandments. We should be loving others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)