Author Archives: Dan C.

Jesus, His Life, Part 2–John the Baptist: The Mission

Posted by Dan C. on

This is post is a review of the second episode of the History Channel miniseries Jesus, His Life. Called Pastor Gabe Hughes wrote a good review of the first episode of the History Channel miniseries, which you can read at his blog here, or at my blog here. That review suggested that the gospel message about Christ’s death for the sins of his people would be left out, and that the message of the gospel would be presented as ‘saving the world”. Episode 2 confirmed Pastor Gabe’s suspicions.

To be clear, reviewing the second episode in the same manner as Pastor Gabe, with ‘time stamps’ indicating exactly where certain things were said in the film or taught by commentators was both time consuming and difficult, especially when the film needed rewinding to capture exactly what was being said or taught. I did not watch it, or review it with hostile intent, but in order to be able to intelligently discuss it and point out areas that didn’t seem to be faithful to the Biblical account.

Having said all that, here is what I observed concerning John the Baptist: The Mission, with ‘time stamps’ and an occasional personal comment.

This episode began with some of the same footage as the first episode, and included comments from various Christian personalities. Probably the most notable (popular) evangelical would be Joel Osteen, who also was the executive producer of the series. That in itself is in indicator of sorts. If you wonder why I said that, just ask me.

Much of the story is told from the point of view of John the Baptist himself – what he might have been thinking during his relationship with Jesus. The operative term here is ‘might’. Keep that in mind.

Dan’s Observations & Comments, in chronological order, with approximate time stamps:

3:50 – Dr. Robert Cargill (University of Iowa) suggests that “John the Baptist came preaching fiery sermons about what we would call social justice.”

4:35 – During scenes depicting John’s activities at the Jordan River, Rev. Dr. Otis Moss III (Senior Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ) suggested that John was baptizing people for a ‘renewal moment’ and has John telling those being baptized “You are reborn!” (baptismal regeneration?) He also suggests that what is being washed away is “that which is old”

4:57 – Dr. Adam Marshack (Author of The Many Faces of Herod the Great)) tells us “John’s message is simple; repent of your sins, receive Baptism, receive purification, and you will be saved.” (baptismal regeneration confirmed?)

6:15 – Jesus’ first appearance at the Jordan River. John narrates and tells us that he thought his mission was to find Jesus, but instead Jesus found him. (not in the text of scripture?)

7:05 – Jesus and John are seen walking along the Jordan passing our food (fruit). (Initially we see John passing out food and Jesus watching and later Jesus passing out food and looking back at John?)

Professor Mark Goodacre (Duke University) interjects that while the gospels make it seem like the relationship between Jesus and John was brief, but in reality, it lasted much longer. They spent a lot of time together learning from one another and becoming part of the same group. (pure speculation?)

FR James Martin (Jesuit Priest) adds that for a time Jesus was one of John’s disciples. John was both a friend and mentor to Jesus, but in the end the student (Jesus) became the teacher and the teacher (John) a student. (Where is this in scripture?)

11:05 FR Martin asks the question “Why is sinless Jesus wanting to be baptized? In FR Martin’s mind Jesus wanted to start His ministry in a dramatic and public manner. (more speculation?)

11:51 – Dr. Cargill offers that Jesus realized he needed to do what he saw John doing. Jesus says “I’ve got to take an unpopular message to the people, even if it kills me.” (Really?)

13:06 – FR Martin (I think) tells us that Jesus (standing in the Jordan looking sort of puzzled) realizes who he is for the first time. Jesus finally realizes God’s plan for his life and surrenders to it. (Didn’t Jesus tell his earthly parents, when he was 12, “I must be about my Father’s business?) Jesus then stumbles out of the water.

Jesus heads to the desert and at @16:28 Satan shows up. Simon Sebag Montefiore (Author & Historian) provides commentary concerning the 3 temptations. The temptations are presented adequately, however Jesus saying “It is written.” after each temptation is omitted. Mr Sebag does include Jesus saying “Do not test the Lord my God.” It’s suggested that when Satan told Jesus “Worship me”. he was referring to the Roman Emperor. (?)

We now return to John’s story .

18:00 – Dr. Cargill says that after Jesus baptism John decided to “up his game” and take on political leaders. He heads to Galilee and publicly calls out Herod Antipas, The account of the rest of John’s life and execution seem to be accurate. What is embellished a bit is the visit of ‘Andrew’ to John in prison. I don’t believe scripture tells exactly who visited John in prison, only that John sent some of his follower to ask Jesus “Are you the one?” and Jesus sent a couple of his disciples to the prison to tell John what they had “seen and heard”

24:50 – Andrew visits John in Prison. We see bits of conversation between Andrew and John, with ‘flashbacks’ to what Andrew describes to John. Andrew tells John that a great Prophet has arisen.

At the same time, we are shown what Jesus was up to after the arrest of John.

25:14 Dr. Cargill tells us “After John is arrested, Jesus basically picks up the baton and runs with it. . . Jesus says to himself “This is My time.”” There is a scene of Jesus preaching the sermon on the mount to a small group under a tree. (borrowed from another film?)

26:16 – Jesus goes back to Galilee and recruits some of John’s disciples to be his own.

27:00 – We see Jesus and the great catch of fish when Jesus told them to cast on the other side of the boat, after an unsuccessful night.

31:00 – FR Martin says it was probably hard for John to let go of his own ministry. Back at the prison, it seems Andrew had left for a time, came back and told John of miracles performed by the Apostles. We see a scene of Andrew healing a sick person.

32:23 – Dr. Cargill talks about the needs of taking care of the poor, the widows, orphans, and the disenfranchised. (The mission of the Messiah that John needs to rethink?)

32:45 – Back to the prison. John realizes Jesus must become greater and he (John) must become less, because Jesus is doing work no one has ever seen.(we are not told in the Bible when John realized Jesus was the Messiah.).

Miscellaneous comments in summary:

Dr. Cargill doesn’t think John wanted to die and that he was actually afraid and sad. However John did understand his role in the life of Jesus.

Joshua Dubois (former faith advisor to President Obama) talked about understanding the profundity of the upcoming sacrifice and that John and Jesus were n the verge of a moment that would ‘change the world’. (Did Jesus die to save sinners, or the “World”?).

Back to the execution of John. The sword is about to drop for the beheading. John asks himself “Did I do enough? I hope so.” The sword drops and John’s head is delivered to Herod, Herodias and Salome in the banquet hall.

FR Martin reiterates that John was Jesus’ mentor and friend, and that Jesus would miss him at a very important time in his life.

Switch to Andrew, with a small group of disciples, saying to Jesus “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his followers to pray.” (See Luke 11:1. This happened, but the passage just says ‘one of disciples’ said that to him. Andrew was similarly named in other places on the film.)

Dan’s final comments:

1. There was much added to the film that is not in the record of scripture, which is the character and tendency of other Biblical films. You could say it’s a cinematic necessity in order to attract viewers and generate income. Some of the speculative additions are reasonable, but others seem silly to most biblically literate movie goers.

2. There are places in the above set of observations where I would have found it easy to biblically refute the action in the film, complete with scripture references. I deliberately chose NOT to comment so that I could not be accused of just sharing my opinion. That often happens when some readers find it repugnant that anyone say anything negative about a ‘Jesus’ film.

3. Where I did insert personal comments (italicized) I included question marks “?” so I wouldn’t appear dogmatic, and to encourage readers to compare the film with scripture on their own.

I sincerely hope this review has been helpful.

P.S. I WILL say with confidence that the only time I heard anyone say anything about the issue of “sin”, which is central to the message of the gospel, was when one of the film’s commentators told us that repentance from sins was necessary for salvation (correct), but water baptism was also necessary FOR salvation. I must therefore conclude, with Pastor Gabe, that the series will probably never offer a clear presentation of the gospel message. What we will be taught is that Jesus died to ‘change the world’

A Review of Jesus: His Life (Part 1)

Posted by Dan C. on

March 27, 2019 – Pastor Gabe Hughes

This is a Review of the first episode of Jesus: His Life by Pastor Gabe Hughes of Junction City Kansas, which he posted on his blog here. I read the article and then watched it myself. I found that this to be a highly credible article concerning the production. There is one thing he did not mention that I noticed at the end of his article. Without further comment, here is Pastor Gabe’s review.

Each Monday leading up to holy week, the History Channel is airing a docu-series called Jesus: His Life. The show awkwardly mixes in dramatic reenactments of the story of Jesus with commentary from an assemblage of (mostly liberal) Bible scholars.

The trailer to the show says that this is the life of Christ “told through the eyes of those who knew Him best.” History has never done very well with the story of Jesus. Their mini-series The Bible (more accurately termed The Bobble) was terrible. In addition to biblical inaccuracies, it just wasn’t entertaining. Jesus: His Life is equally dull. The mix of drama with commentary doesn’t work. The thematic scenes fail to be captivating, and the theotwits do not add any life to the program.

Given that the show is flat and fallacious, I don’t know why you’d want to bother with it enough to even read my review. But I offer this up anyway! The following is a play-by-play of the first episode, examining the life of Jesus though the eyes of Joseph. The time stamps are according to the video stream I watched on History’s website, sans commercial breaks. And away we go!

1:00 — Oh, hello Joel. Yup, Joel Osteen is the executive producer of this little number, so he’s one of the “experts” who will be popping up every now and then.

2:00 — The introduction is very “This is the story of how Jesus changed the world.” This is not going to be about how Jesus was sent by God and died as an atoning sacrifice for those who will believe in Him. This is going to be about how Jesus bucked the status quo and brought about a revolution of social change. This show will not present the gospel. Phrases like “Savior of the world” might come up, but they’ll never be explained. They’ll be framed in a social context, not a gospel one.

6:30 — Aside from some questionable theotwits, the information so far has been factual for the most part.

7:45 — (Edit) There’s a line I totally missed and someone pointed it out to me. When Gabriel appears to Mary, he says, “Do not be afraid, for you have found favor with God. If you choose to accept His plan, you will conceive in your womb and give birth a son.” Not only does this make the announcement to Mary staunchly Arminian, it’s also pro-choice! Mary got to choose to have a baby. In Luke 1:31-32, Gabriel said, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus.”

9:00 — Mary asks Gabriel, “Why has He chosen me?” Gabriel replies, “You are pure of heart and soul.” According to the story in Luke 1, Mary did not ask that question, nor was Mary told that the reason she was chosen. Gabriel said to her, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” When Mary was troubled, Gabriel said, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.” She was favored because God chose her, not because she merited worthiness.

9:30 — James Martin says, “Notice that when she says yes to the angel, she doesn’t ask her husband or her father. She says it on her own. So this is a very strong woman.” The feminism is strong with this one.

11:00 — Dr. Otis Moss III says, “When Mary says, ‘I’m pregnant, and you’re not the father,’ Joseph probably reacted in a typical male fashion. That’s why I love the story because it does not sugar-coat it as making Joseph holier than thou.” That’s why you love the story? Because of your own conjecture? Not because it’s about the birth of the Savior of the world? The show then portrays Joseph losing his temper, breaking stuff apart and throwing it around the house he had been building for him and Mary.

13:00 — Several teachers are cited as saying that if Joseph outs Mary publicly as having sex outside of wedlock, she could be killed under Jewish law. “Adultery is a crime punishable by death,” according to Dr. Robert Cargill. That’s true (Deuteronomy 22:20-24), but it’s unlikely Mary would have been put to death. The Jews couldn’t exercise capital punishment without permission from Rome. The Bible gives us no sense that Mary’s life was in danger. The only people being stoned to death at that period of time were those who would preach the gospel (Acts 7:59).

13:30 — Ah, Michael Curry, the Love Bishop.

14:30 — Joseph is seen cleaning up the house he trashed after his rage fit. I’ve been waiting to see if anyone will actually quote the Scripture itself. No one has. Matthew 1:18-19 says:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

Being a “just man,” he knew what the law said concerning unfaithfulness. Being “unwilling to put her to shame,” he was not going to make a public spectacle of Mary. He knew the law was on his side. Rage-trashing his house is not divorcing her quietly.

16:30 — An angel speaks to Joseph in a dream and tells him the child in Mary’s womb is from the Holy Spirit. When Joseph goes back to Mary, I have to admit, I found the interaction between them rather touching. But then it was interrupted by commentary…

I covered this in my book 25 Christmas Myths and What the Bible Says. There are no problems with the census in Luke. The explanation is simple. Luke does not give an exact time reference to when the census took place. He said, “In those days,” which is an unspecific period of time, and “this was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” All Luke is pointing to is that these events were part of the same drama, not that they all happened at exactly the same time. There was no reason to use “a device to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem.” Matthew didn’t use such an explanation in his gospel.

The dates often used by historians for the Christmas story are based on the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. But sometimes Josephus was off by as much as a decade. Why are scholars so quick to villify Luke but justify Josephus? Luke under the appointment of the Holy Spirit is spotless in the telling of the gospel. Oh, and contrary to Dr. Cargill’s claims, people did return to their lands when a census was taken.

21:45 — Ben Witherington III says, “[Joseph and Mary] barely got [to Bethlehem] before it was time for Mary to give birth.” Not true, but that’s a minor point. I appreciate that the show does correct the myth that Jesus was born in a barn. He wasn’t. He was born in a house filled with family.

23:30 — Professor Nicola Denzey Lewis says, “Millions of women died in childbirth.” Millions of women in Judea died in childbirth?

25:00 — Shut up, Joel.

25:30 — Whenever an angel appears to someone in this show and says, “Do not be afraid,” they’re just kind of like, “Who are you?” No one is actually afraid.

27:30 — The show continues the myth that there were only three wise men. Except they made the black wise man the lead guy now instead of the token sidekick.

28:00 — Right before the commercial break, Dr. Cargill says of the magi, “Meeting Herod the Great must have been terrifying.” They probably had no idea who he was. But gotta keep the viewers in suspense!

29:00 — The show has the magi arriving at night. There’s no commotion in the city. Yet the Bible says they came to Jerusalem asking, “‘Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star when it rose and have come to worship Him.’ When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him” (Matthew 2:2-3). The number of magi and the size of their caravan were enough to alert all of Jerusalem and earn the magi an audience before Herod. This was a big deal. In fact the question they asked, “Where is the King of the Jews,” was asked of Jesus by Pontius Pilate over 30 years later.

30:30 — The magi say, “We followed a star. Our charts tell us it heralds the birth of a messiah.” No, they knew the star was leading them to the Messiah because they had the Jewish Scriptures.

32:30 — Joseph tries to refuse the gifts of the magi. That was weird.

33:00 — The Love Bishop says love things.

34:00 — Right before the commercial break, Joseph rebukes the magi for coming because they’ve put Jesus’s life at risk. Oh, good grief.

35:30 — The Love Bishop says, “Joseph keeps getting these dreams in Matthew’s gospel. He gets the dream that tells him the child is a miracle of God. Then he gets the dream telling him to flee Palestine and go to Egypt.” Joseph wasn’t listening to dreams. He was obeying God. Matthew 2:13 says, “An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Rise, take the child and His mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy Him.'” The show doesn’t depict that. Instead, the show portrays Joseph having a vision of Herod giving the order to kill baby boys in Bethlehem.

39:30 — Joseph and Mary barely elude the guards and get Jesus out of Bethlehem during the massacre of the innocents. Oh, the drama. (I really thought I’d done a WWUTT video on the massacre of the innocents. Apparently not. I’ll get on that for next Christmas.)

40:30 — Joshua Dubois, Faith Advisor to President Obama, says, “The holy family become refugees.” These comments are always more politically loaded than they are biblically accurate. A refugee is someone forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or have been displaced because of a natural disaster. Yes, Joseph and Mary fled Judea to escape the wrath of Herod, but they never left the Roman empire. They would have gone to the Jewish settlement in Alexandria, Egypt. There they were quite secure among their own people, and they had the gifts from the magi to pay for their stay. This was not like we would consider a modern-day refugee.

41:00 — Dr. Moss points out that Joseph protected his wife and a child who was not his own. “Joseph becomes a beautiful model for fatherhood today. Where would we be if we had more men who operated like Joseph?” I appreciate the sentiment. But the question is better asked, “Where would we be if more men obeyed God?”

Part 2 examining the life of Jesus through the eyes of John the Baptist coming at a later time… Maybe.

_____________________________________

Dan’s Note:

Missing in the angel/Joseph dialogue was the statement by the angel that “you shall call his name ‘Jesus’ for he will save his people from their sins.”, which was the main purpose in Jesus coming – to save his people from their sins! Will this series fail in presenting a clear and concise message that Christ died for the sins of men, as Pastor Gabe suggests in his critique?

Guest Post: “Almost Half of Practicing Christian Millennials Say Evangelism Is Wrong”

Posted by Dan C. on

SLIMJIM's avatarThe Domain for Truth

Note: This is a guest post by Dan Cartwright.  He’s been a brother who has been iron sharpening iron with us on here and social media for years.  His blog can be found here.  He also tweets.

“Almost Half of Practicing Christian Millennials Say Evangelism Is Wrong”

The above statement is the title of a 5 February, 2019 article published by the Barna Group. It caught my attention immediately when I read it and just as quickly prompted the question “What does it really mean?” So I read the article. Here’s some background context from the article:

View original post 732 more words

Sowing Confusion on The Christian College Campus: A Troubling Sign from The West Coast – AlbertMohler.com

Posted by Dan C. on

Sowing Confusion on The Christian College Campus: A Troubling Sign from The West Coast – AlbertMohler.com
— Read on albertmohler.com/2019/03/27/sowing-confusion-christian-college-campus-troubling-sign-west-coast/

Two Roses from the Garden of Grace: Whosoever Will and Sovereign Election

Posted by Dan C. on

Adkins, Timothy S., The Banner of Truth

‘Which is true, whosoever will or sovereign election?’ Like many questions this one demands a false answer. The Bible does not teach one or the other, it teaches both. Considered together the concepts may seem profound and difficult, but they are neither irreconcilable nor opposed to each other. Both are found in Holy Scripture and we cannot choose one and reject the other and remain true to the word of God. To believe all of the Bible, we must believe both whosoever will and sovereign election because they stand alongside each other in Scripture. Both teachings are divine jewels, true and precious. We must never allow anyone to force us to choose between them.

Read the rest of the article at The Banner of Truth

Should Christians Not be Known for What They are Against?

Posted by Dan C. on

by Eric Davis, The Cripplegate

You’ve heard it said. “I don’t want to be known for what I am against, but what I am for.” “Christians should be known for what they are for, not against.”

It sounds good and noble. After all, a ministry or person that only speaks of what they are against is missing out on much of the content and emphasis of the Bible. Often these are self-proclaimed discernment ministries who do little more than step on others as they stand higher. In so doing, they have veered from Scripture. Pastors are to preach the inspired, inerrant text of Scripture. We will have to twist, avoid, and misinterpret much Scripture if we only speak in terms of opposition.

But more to the point. Should Christians avoid being known for what they are against? Here are a few thoughts for consideration.

  1. That’s not the way to wisely approach life in general.

Imagine a mom who takes this ideology. “Yeah, kids, I don’t want to be known in my mothering for what I’m against. So, you know that Twinkie-Koolaid-Cheeto diet you keep mentioning? I don’t want to be known as against that anymore. Go for it. Oh, and I don’t want to be known for being against you running out into the street, having to come home before dark, and taking indiscretionary time on the internet, so, go ahead.”

Consider a salesman who did not want to be known for what he was against in his job. “Hi Mr. Client. I don’t want to be known for what I’m against, so, honestly, all of the inferior products out there are excellent too. Just invest in whatever one. I am for all of them.”

Imagine an oncologist who did not want to be known for what they were against. “Well, I don’t want to be known for what I am against, Mr. Patient. So, I’m not going to take a firm stance against tumors, metastasis, and cancerous growths. I want to be among the oncologists who, instead, are known for what they are for.”

A post Genesis 2 society requires that we be known for what we are against. Faithfulness, generally in life, requires being against things. To be faithful, a mom will need to be against things. To be a faithful salesman requires being against things. Faithfulness as an oncologist necessitates being known for being against things. In every sphere of life, the goal is faithfulness. That is generally how we seek to operate. That will mean sometimes being for things, sometimes being against things, and always faithfulness to God and love for people in the task.

2. To construct and conduct a good, stable society, we must be known for being against things.

To promote and propagate a loving, flourishing society, we must be against things. And it should be known that we are against things, as a society.

Loving people means we need to be against rape and murder. Recognizing God’s image-bearing means we must be against racism and prejudice. It means we are against unnecessary war. Value for human flourishing means that we are against anarchy and stealing. To construct and conduct a good, stable society, we must be known for being against things.

3. The person who wants to be known for what they are for is also known for what they are against.

The guy who wants to be known for what he is for is known for being against things. He is known for being against being known what he is against. Perhaps he is known for being against other things. Maybe he is known among his friends for being against vegetables that do not have the organic label on them. Or, he may be known in his spheres for being against not working out four days per week, a certain political view, and other ideologies. Perhaps he is also known for being against those who would be against him.

Whatever the case may be, the person who wants to be known for what they are for cannot escape that they are known for what they are also against. The difference could simply be that it is more socially fashionable in certain sub-cultures to be known for being against the particular things that they are against. So, the real issue is not that they want to be known for what they are for, so much as it is that they want to be known for being for a particular subset of currently trendy ideologies.

4. There are things that God wants us to be known for being against.

The God of the universe wants to be known for being against things. Take the Ten Commandments, for example. Eight out of the ten involve an explicit command to be against something. God is against other gods and the worship thereof (Exod. 20:3, 5). God is against making objects which represent him (Exod. 20:4). God is against carrying his name in an unworthy manner (Exod. 20:7). God is against murder, adultery, stealing, lying, and coveting (Exod. 20:13-17). And regarding those commands stated in the positive, we can conclude that God wants us to be known for the contrary of those things. In other words, God wanted his people to be against forsaking the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8). He wants us to be known for being against dishonoring our parents (Exod. 20:12).

A look into Leviticus explains many more things that God’s people were to be known for being against (e.g. Lev. 18-20). “Well, these are only commands against something. That doesn’t mean that we are to be known for being against them.” Israel, the original recipients of these commands, was to be a holy people to the nations. They were to be known for their differences, which meant being known both for things they were for and against.

The New Testament instruction is similar. The apostle Paul indicates that the Ephesian church was to be against things like living as unbelievers (Eph. 4:17, 22), falsehood (Eph. 4:25), stealing (Eph. 4:28), unwholesome speech (Eph. 4:29), grieving the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30), bitterness (Eph. 4:31), unforgiveness (Eph. 4:32), immorality, impurity, and greed (Eph. 5:2), and “filthiness…silly talk, or coarse jesting” (Eph. 5:4). Paul instructed them to be against “unfruitful deeds of darkness” to the point that they would “even expose them” (Eph. 5:11).

Paul wanted his people to be against false doctrine to the point of exposing and eradicating it (1 Tim. 1:3, 4:1-4, 4:11; 2 Tim. 2:25, 4:2). In fact, elders are commanded to “exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9), which will mean being known for being against those contradicting doctrines. In the case of unsound teachers and teaching, Paul commands church leaders to “reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13). There, Paul calls out specific doctrines and beliefs that he was against, and that Titus and the men he trained were to be against. Later, Paul exhorts Titus similarly, “These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you” (Titus 2:15). Obeying that command would mean, in part, Titus being known for some things both that he was for and against.

Peter also assumes that God’s people would be known for what they were against in their hostile, first century Greco-Roman culture. “In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you” (1 Pet. 4:4). Apparently, Christians there were known for being against things in pop-culture to the point that the unregenerate were amazed that they were against them. And that was a good thing according to Peter.

Does this mean that God only wants his people to be known for what they are against? Of course not. We are to be known for loving our neighbor as ourselves, glorifying God, and studying the Bible. We are to be known for the unregenerate putting faith in Christ for salvation. We are to be known to have a zeal for good works in the name of Christ (Titus 2:14).

5. The ministries of godly men in Scripture were known for what they were against.

If God’s people are not to be known for what they are against, then the ministries of men like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, and John the Baptist were in disobedience to God. If that’s the case, then their ministries were outside of God’s will.

6. Jesus was known (and hated) for what he was against.

Jesus was hated by many people in his culture because of what he was known for being against. He was against an attitude which could not receive correction. He was against the idea that we should not make waves but just keep everything smooth and calm. He was against the demeanor which could not handle rebuke, reproof, and confrontation of sin. He was against the attitudes of self-promotion, self-actualization, and self-glorying (Matt. 23:5-6).

In what way was he known for being against such attitudes? Those attitudes characterized those against whom Jesus often spoke; the scribes and Pharisees. They could not stand it when Jesus confronted their sin (Matt. 21:45-46, Mark 12:12, Luke 11:45-46).

The reason they plotted his execution is because he was against those aforementioned ideologies which characterized them. Jesus was known in his decadent, self-indulging culture as someone who was against many such things. And they hated him for it.

7. Much of the content in the NT epistles is against something.

Many of the New Testament books were written specifically to oppose and correct some teacher and teachings. The Holy Spirit could have inspired these letters under many different circumstances. Several of those circumstances involved a letter where both the divine and human author (and by extension, the true NT church) was to be known for being against things. Those letters have now made it into the most widely selling book in history. Those who read the book with eyes to see understand both that there are many things that God, and his people, are known for being for and against.

For example, the letter of 1 Corinthians informs the world that God’s people are to be against self-promotion and self-aggrandizement (1 Cor. 1-2), self-ambition in ministry (1 Cor. 3-4), bragging (1 Cor. 4), refusing to carry out church discipline (1 Cor. 5), inter-Christian lawsuits and sexual immorality (1 Cor. 6), unbiblical divorce and aimless singleness (1 Cor. 7), self-centeredness in liberties (1 Cor. 8-9), and unintelligibility in corporate worship (1 Cor. 14).

Similarly, Galatians is written to let all know that God’s people are to be against the idea that one could be acceptable before God apart from justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Colossians was written to let all know that God’s people are to be against ideas that Christ was anything less than truly God and truly man. At the same time, God’s people also say that we are emphatically for the opposite of the aforementioned errors, namely, the truth.

In Peter’s dying words in 2 Peter, he spends 22 verses showing how much he is against false teachers and teaching (2 Pet. 2:1-22). John and Jude do similar in their epistles.

Much of the content in the NT is explicitly against something. Therefore, it is an inaccurate and myopic motto for God’s people to say, “I only want to be known for what I am for, not against.” Such a motto will have to depart from the Holy Spirit’s work in much of the New Testament. To stay consistent with the content and force of Scripture, one will have to, at times, be known for what he is against.

8. A desire to not be known for what we are against can come more from culture than Scripture.

The idea of, “I want to be known more for what I am for, not against,” seems to originate from outside Scripture. It sounds ominously like king Ahab’s ideology: “There is one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, but I hate him, because he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil” (1 Kings. 22:7-8). Ahab only wanted someone in his midst who was known for what he was for.

Perhaps this ideology is an indicator that we have become more like culture than Christ. Decadent postmodernism is really at an all-time high these days. It’s hard to not get wet when we’re in the water. So, for some who say, “I want to be known more for what I’m for,” here is what has happened: they are culturalized to the point where any type of correction is loathed. Correction and a polemical edge are like nails on a chalkboard. When an individual or ministry is not speaking against something, it gets a pass. However, when someone is needing to be against something, they cry foul. The underlying self-actualizing, decadent attitude fuels a hatred for necessary correction. This then colors the individual’s perspective. The result is that they can, and will, only see the individual in terms of the thing they hate, which, in this case, is being against something.

9. We should ask ourselves our motives for not wanting to be known for what we are against.

Let us ask ourselves, “What is my deepest motive for not wanting to be known for what I am against?” Complete the sentence as honestly as possible before God: “I really don’t want to be known for what I’m against because I really want ____.” What fills that blank?

The human heart can be so deceptive. We can take good things and make them idolatrous things in an instant. A desire to be loving can quickly degenerate into the gross idolatry of loving that people know that I am loving. A desire to love sinners can swiftly mutate into the idolatry of lusting that people know that I am different than those stuffy Christians; I am accepting, cool, and tolerant. A mind to simply love people can transform into the ugly idol of craving that people know how diverse my friendship base is. The human heart is truly wicked. In an instant we make idols such as love for praise, lust for approval, and craving to be known as fresh and new.

Could it be that the ideology of, “I don’t want to be known for what I am against,” has some gross idolatry fueling it?

10. God’s goal for us is neither that we would be known for what we are for or against.

The Bible does not command us to not be known for what we’re against or for. God’s goal is broader. “Do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). “The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person” (Eccles. 12:13).

Neither is there a command to be balanced. Rather, the command is to obey God for his own glory. Better than thinking of being balanced is being obedient, comprehensively so.

Conclusion

Love to our neighbor and God require a measure of being known for what we are against. Love to our neighbor and God also require a measure of being known for what we are for. But, the goal of the Christian life should be neither. I should not preach to myself, “I need to be known for what I’m against,” nor, “I need to be known for what I am for.” God’s word does not favor either.

Instead, Scripture gives a plethora of commands for the church to carry out. They all fall underneath the great anthem, “Do all to the glory of God.” Being known for what we are for is not more in line with glorifying God than being known for what we are against. Inherently, neither is more attached to glorifying God. There may be situations where being known for being against something is more glorifying to God (e.g. false doctrine, prosperity gospel, arrogant pride in the church). And there may be situations where being known for being for something is more glorifying to God (e.g. loving our neighbor, evangelizing the lost, the sinlessness of Christ, the substitutionary atoning death of Christ, the grace of God abounding to sinners). For preachers, we are for obedience to God in faithfully preaching the next verse. In doing so, that might look like being against something, depending on the text. For all Christians, things like cultural sins and doctrinal aberrations may also require being against something.

So, next time a brother or sister speaks against an issue, consider an alternative to thinking, “We need to be known for what we are for, not against.” Consider instead something like, “We need to be known for faithfulness to all of God’s word. That is going to mean being for and against think, depending on the situation.”

Social Justice | Think on These Things

Posted by Dan C. on

(Volume 24, Issue 6, December 2018/January 2019) Of the hot-button issues circulating right now, in both society and the church, nothing has drawn more interest
— Read on tottministries.org/social-justice/

In my opinion, an excellent analysis!

Francis Chan Defends His Friendship With False Teachers

Posted by Dan C. on

March 17, 2019, Pastor Gabe Hughes,. Junction City Kansas

(Dan’s Note: This might be the best commentary I have read concerning Francis Chan’s situation)

Yesterday, Francis Chan responded to the harsh accusations that he has been aligning with heretics. A recent article published at The Cripplegate was entitled Farewell Francis. The author Jordan Standridge warned that Chan “is sharing the stage with false teachers who will spend eternity in Hell (Gal. 1:6-9).” He pleaded for Chan to repent and “come back to your first love!”

Chan has been on a steady decline over the last few years. Preaching with Mike Bickle at the International House of Prayer may have been a head-scratcher, but it wasn’t enough to denounce Chan as developing an alliance with the enemy. Maybe Chan didn’t know that Bickle claimed to have gone to heaven and had a personal audience with Jesus. Maybe Chan didn’t know Bickle teaches that we bring about Christ’s return through prayer (according to what Jesus personally told him). Maybe Chan didn’t know that Bickle has claimed there will be new apostles preaching things you will not be able to find in the Bible, and they will be superior to the biblical apostles.

But since his appearances at IHOP, Chan has ventured into other strange territory, like preaching at Bethel Church in Redding, CA—known for manipulative gags such as pouring gold dust in the ventilation system and calling it a glory cloud from God. Teachers from Bethel under pastor Bill Johnson also claim to have face-to-face conversations with not only Jesus but God the Father, whom the Bible says no one can see and live (Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, 1 John 4:12).

Everything came to a head last month when Chan preached at a conference in Orlando known as The Send, featuring some of the worst teachers out there—Benny Hinn, Heidi Baker, Todd White, and Bill Johnson to name a few. Following The Send, pictures started emerging of Chan being buddies with these charlatans. He embraced them as brothers and praised them for being bold men and women of God. This has prompted many, including myself, to warn people to stay away from Francis Chan. He is no longer trustworthy.

Questions have been raised for a few years regarding Chan’s associations, but Chan has remained silent. Finally he responded this weekend in a blog entitled A Response to Some Concerns by Francis Chan. I won’t post the entire thing word for word—you can read it for yourself by clicking the link. I will highlight some critical points, and then my response will follow.

Chan wrote:

From what I hear from friends and critics (I stay away from social media, etc), there have been a lot of conclusions drawn from my decision to speak at The Send conference as well as other venues. Some people have questioned my willingness to take pictures with anyone who asks for a picture with me. So I thought it might be helpful to explain some of my theological beliefs which have come under scrutiny as of late, as well as some of my practices/decisions. I realize there are many questions, but let me at least clarify a few things.

What do you believe regarding the “Prosperity Gospel”?

My understanding of that term is that it refers to teachings which imply that if you follow Jesus, He will make you healthy and wealthy. It is often used to attract people to make a decision to follow Jesus so that they can spend the rest of their lives in health and prosperity. I believe this is a dangerous teaching for several reasons. First and foremost (in my opinion) is that it contradicts the teachings and example of Christ and the apostles. Jesus taught His disciples “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matthew 16:24). It was not a call to come and prosper but rather the opposite—a call to come and suffer.

Chan goes on in his repudiation of the prosperity gospel. I am not in disagreement with him here. Prosperity theology is a lie from the pit of hell. It’s precisely because of Chan’s views regarding health-and-wealth teaching that he has become a hypocrite in his ministry partnerships. He preaches with the worst of the worst among prosperity charlatans. Teachers like Hinn, Johnson, White, and Heidi Baker preach exactly the false gospel Chan condemns!

In a video of a Bethel Church service from March 25 of last year, Bill Johnson is seen leading his church in an absurd prayer which he called “a decree and confession.” Before praying aloud together, Johnson said, “I want your faith to be recognizable in your volume. No small task.” He then led the congregation to recite the following, the audience practically yelling it as they proclaimed:

As we receive today’s offering, we are believing the Lord for jobs and better jobs, raises and bonuses, benefits and sales and commissions, favorable settlements, estates and inheritances, interests and income, rebates and returns, checks in the mail, gifts and surprises, finding money, debts paid off, expenses decrease, blessing and increase. Thank you, Lord, for meeting all of my financial needs that I may have more than enough to give into the kingdom of God and promote the gospel of Jesus Christ. Hallelujah!

Bethel Church teaches you have the power to speak things into existence, especially your health and your wealth. By praying such a prayer, they are taught that they will have all of their professions.

Do not be fooled by Bethel’s intention to “promote the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Bill Johnson preaches a false gospel. He thinks the gospel is miraculous healing and has taught heretical things about God. Astonishingly, Chan has said, “Prosperity preachers often promise greater wealth if their listeners will give more to their ministries. This is never promised in Scriptures. We can never hold God to something that He has not promised.” Yet that’s exactly what Johnson was doing in that prayer!

What would it take for Chan to recognize Bethel Church actively advances the thing he condemns? Yet he has preached that if you criticize Bill Johnson, you are taking a sledgehammer to the house of God, and you will have to answer for that before God. He referenced 1 Corinthians 3:17 which says, “If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.” My friends, Bill Johnson’s “gospel” is anything but holy. Chan is defending these guys and making people fear calling them out. That’s deceptive, whether or not the intention of his heart is to deceive.

Chan’s blog continues:

Why do you sometimes accept speaking engagements in places that tolerate theology that is different from yours?

I speak at events almost every week of the year. Often times, it’s more than one event a week. I don’t really enjoy it—I hate the travel, but try not to complain about it. Despite the toll it can take on myself and the family, it is always an honor to preach the Word. I believe it is my calling. Some question my choice to speak so often, but my best discernment and the discernment of the elders of our church is that it is still a part of my calling in this season.

I am asked to speak at approximately 500 events a year. I decline approximately 90% of the requests. It’s a difficult thing to do. Often times, I decline because other speakers will be at the event who believe almost exactly what I believe. My reasoning is that it may be a waste of Kingdom resources for all of us to be there, speaking largely to people who already agree with us. It seems more effective to speak where there is less Bible teaching. It has not been my practice to ask who will share the platform with me and to research the other speakers. While some may be dear friends, there are many that I know little about. This current experience has caused me to consider exercising more caution and to develop a team to help me research. That being said, I speak in many places where I am not in alignment theologically. I actually believe that is where I can be most effective, as long as they give me freedom to address anything I believe the Lord wants me to address.

I recognize, now more than ever, that sometimes my participation can give the impression that I align with every other speaker at the event. I’m not sure what to do about that other than to tell you that I don’t. Unless the elders of my church direct me differently, I will continue to be found preaching in venues with those I disagree. I will preach in just about any kind of setting if I’m given freedom to preach from any passage of scripture. The elders and I are trying to come up with more safeguards for future events to hopefully prevent misunderstandings. Pray for us.

From what it sounds like, Chan is going to be developing a team to help him decide whom he should preach with and whom he shouldn’t. I appreciate that, and it will be interesting to see where this goes. Will there be change? Will Chan realize he’s been teaching with liars and apologize? Or will Chan use this group he’s assembling to validate his alignment with false teachers? Time will tell.

That aside, how is Chan’s reasoning regarding where he preaches biblical? He gave numerous biblical references in his condemnation of the prosperity gospel—he gave no biblical references with regard to which speaking invitations he accepts. He says, “Often times, I decline because other speakers will be at the event who believe almost exactly what I believe.” Does Chan think there is little to no value in preachers gathering together in doctrinal unity? Psalm 133:1 says, “Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!” Isn’t it a better witness for laypeople to see teachers in one accord and not in discord?
Now, even at events like the Shepherds Conference or the Ligonier Conference, both held in just the last couple weeks, not every teacher is doctrinally aligned at every point. Some preachers are Baptists and some are Presbyterians—there’s doctrinal disagreement right there. But those preachers rejoice in that while they may disagree on secondary issues, they are exactly the same on their love for the true gospel. They love word of God and pursue Him with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength.

When Francis Chan preached at The Send, he aligned with heretics. There may have been no true gospel presented except what Chan preached. But Chan was not there in a Matthew 23 moment calling out sons of hell that produce more sons of hell. He called Todd White “a bold, bold man of God.” Todd White is a con-artist and self-professed faith healer who said his father in the faith was Kenneth Copeland. Chan did nothing to discredit these charlatans. Rather, before the audience at The Send, Chan made them appear more credible.

Romans 16:17-18 says, “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.”

The Apostle John warned, “Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works” (2 John 1:9-11).

There’s simply no excuse for Chan’s ignorance. If Chan is so busy that he cannot do even a little bit of research, then he needs to say no to some of his speaking engagements and free up time to “test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). This is his responsibility. It’s on him, especially as a teacher. For the Spirit of God says, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).
Seriously, how does Chan not know who Benny Hinn is? He needs a team of people to tell him Hinn is a charlatan? If Chan simply watched the documentary American Gospel, he would receive so much insight into the false gospel these “friends” of his have preached and the damage they are causing. Chan knows the documentary exists. He was interviewed for it because of his outspokenness against the prosperity gospel. However, he was dropped from the final cut because the director of the film recognized the inconsistency in Chan’s witness.

In his blog response, Chan continues:

Why did it take so long for you to write a response?

Early in my ministry, I had a professor warn, “Don’t spend your time defending yourself. Let God defend you and those closest to you defend you. You can spend your whole life dispelling rumors.” I have followed that advice for the past 30 years. I hope this response doesn’t sound like a person who is trying to save his reputation just for the sake of saving his reputation. My hope was to bring clarity to those who might trust my life and preaching and assume that my being in a picture or on a stage with someone means that I align with them. In regards to pictures, I live a very strange life. Most people take pictures with their friends and family. I end up taking thousands of pictures with complete strangers who ask to take pictures with me. I have struggled over the years with whether it is wrong to sign books or take pictures with people. I would be perfectly happy to never take another picture or sign another book. It just feels rude and discouraging to say no. My intention was never to show allegiance with those who request selfies.

First of all, I can appreciate not wasting your time defending yourself against critics. I don’t. Dozens of videos have been made denouncing what I’ve preached. I’ve never responded to a single one of them. A pair of former members of my congregation once wrote a 9,000-word diatribe against me and posted it on Facebook. They lied about me in just about every way they could. But I did not type a single word in response—to them or anyone else (until just now, I suppose).

But this is not a trifle criticism over some idle comment Chan made. This is Chan aligning with heretics on a digression that keeps getting worse and worse. I have made several public appeals for anyone close to Chan to reach out to him and alert this brother to what he’s doing. He just doesn’t get it, and he still doesn’t get it.

The criticism regarding Chan’s associations has never been about selfies—not even in the last few weeks since images and comments have emerged following The Send. He’s not merely taking selfies. He’s heaping adulation and praise onto ministers of Satan. He’s standing shoulder to shoulder with them and calling them friends and brothers and men of God. Through pictures we’re seeing with our eyes what we’ve been hearing with our ears. It’s alarming! I’m not trying to spread rumors and gossip. I want Chan to repent!

This is serious—deadly serious. James 4:4 says, “You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” Chan recognizes that the prosperity gospel is worldly, yet he calls those who teach it his friends. I pray the Lord will open his eyes to whom he is playing with.

Chan concludes:

Another reason I took so long to write this response is because I read Paul’s defense of his ministry. He was able to do it out of love for people and the furtherance of the gospel. I needed a little extra time to make sure I wasn’t responding out of anger, pride, hurt, or cynicism- things that I have been guilty of. I think my heart is in a good place now, and I am writing because I believe I have a calling to proclaim the gospel and preach unpopular truths in a crooked generation. Though some are trying to deter people from my ministry altogether, I believe God has given me a calling to teach His Word. I plan on teaching faithfully until I die. I hope you take this in the spirit in which it was written.

One final thought—We should all be careful to guard against false teaching of any kind. In the process of refuting false teachers, however, we can unintentionally falsely accuse good teachers. That might be equally harmful to His Kingdom. God desires unity in His body, so it is no small crime to bring division into the church.

As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him.” Titus 3:10

“Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.” 1 Corinthians 3:16-17

Jesus deeply longed for unity amongst His children. This should not come at the expense of truth. There are times when the truth will divide. Let’s all humbly beg for wisdom from the Holy Spirit to know how to love our brothers without compromising truth. As we diligently confront false teaching, let’s show equal fervency in defending those who are truly our brothers and equal zeal in confronting those who unnecessarily divide the body.

Truly, it is weird to read Chan call for unity when he said in the same blog that he tries to preach in places where he is not in unity with other preachers. Maybe Chan needs to offer a definition of what he thinks biblical unity is supposed to look like. The guy abandoned his church instead of shepherding them as a pastor should, so I have my doubts about his understanding of unity or even his role of a pastor. Titus 1:9 says that a pastor “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also rebuke those who contradict it.”

But Chan didn’t rebuke anyone in his blog except those who have been rebuking. Exactly who are the “good teachers” Chan thinks we are accusing of being false? He refuses to name names. He’s still putting himself between the wolves and those trying to warn the flock. He’s being deceptive even if his intention is to tell the truth. Until he can be more discerning, we have to dismiss Chan as lacking credibility. He will lead others into believing the false prosperity gospel even while he condemns it. People will be confused about what the prosperity gospel is and isn’t when they see him aligning himself with those who preach it.

We cannot force unity. It cannot be manufactured by human will. We must be obedient to the truth, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom (Colossians 3:16), according to the full counsel of God. God will provide the growth. Chan made a reference to 1 Corinthians 3:17. Here’s what that passage says in verses 18-23:

“Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness,’ and again, ‘The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.’ So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present are the future—all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.”

When Jesus changes everything: one sister’s reflection on today’s woke movement

Posted by Dan C. on

An excellent read. . .

Lisa Spencer's avatarTheoThoughts

Well it’s been a month now since my wedding and I hope to get back to writing soon. You’ll notice some small changes on the blog site, primarily involving the name change. In the meantime, I present this guest post by Latanya Yarbrough and her thoughts on the Woke Movement that has gripped Christ’s church. 

I used to be so pro-black that I was anti-white. Idealizing and idolizing black culture eventually caused me to despise white people and white culture. Although I would have never admitted this to an “outsider,” in my heart I worshipped blackness and loathed white people.

These were my attitudes when I was unconverted. Before Christ I was steeped in the ideologies of black consciousness, black pride, black superiority, etc. I was tuned in to the social injustices and racial disparities around me–those that had taken place before my birth as well as those that prevailed…

View original post 1,233 more words