Thursday, November 27, 2008

Claim: "The Lord Told Me"

It is a trap for a man to say rashly, "It is holy!" And after the vows to make inquiry. -Proverbs 20:25

Be careful with the "Thus saith the Lord" syndrome. We are often quick to claim that God is leading us in a direction that were really captained by our emotions.

Even worse, we use presupposed hermeneutics to guide the coarse of Scripture in our life, determining ourselves what we THINK it ought to mean. This is a subjective reading of the Bible as opposed to an objective one.

Three rules (though far from an exhaustive list) may help us from falling into deception:
1. Private interpretation does not mean that we should rely solely on our own judgments, ignoring the insights and research of others;
2. Private interpretation does not mean that we have the right to "distort" the Bible in accordance with our own conceptions;
3. Private interpretation does not mean that we can ignore the history of interpretation in the church. Dr. Sam Storms
On the other hand, we DO sometimes feel as though the Lord is prompting or directing us through a particular passage or text, do we not? Can the Lord speak prophetically to us through a specific text, or even a subjective impression we got from the Bible? While I do strongly suggest treading lightly in this area (because our subjective impressions can often be faulty; Jer. 17:9), I also believe that it's by using the objective standard of the Word of God, that we are able to steer our less sturdy, subjective leanings along a straight path. A guideline that probably makes the best prescription, was made by Edmund Clowney in a conversation with Wayne Grudem:
The degree of certainty we have with regard to God's will in a situation is directly proportional to the degree of clarity we have as to how the Word of God applies to the situation (Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. 128.)
With that being said, be careful of deceptive teachings, for they are often malefactors of these simple guidelines, and as Jeremiah testifies concerning the heart of God in such matters:

"I did not send these prophets, But they ran. I did not speak to them, But they prophesied." -Jeremiah 23:21

Sunday, November 2, 2008

double standards & self-refuting claims in an argument

I've been following the response to a post by a friend on Facebook, on Prop 8.
It's an ongoing conversation between those who are voting "no," and those who are voting "yes." Those on this thread who are voting "no" hold the position that Prop 8 is hateful and discriminatory propaganda. That's ok; they are fully entitled to this opinion, and their vote. But observe some of the flimsy reasoning they brandish in their arguments against a couple Christians who are supportive of Prop 8:

1) "Your personal beliefs on homosexuality should not be imposed upon the California Constitution."

2) "If I remember correctly, there's an important commandment people are forgetting: 'treat others how you would like to be treated.'"

3) "How would you feel if you were prohibited to marry the person you love?"

4) "I am deeply offended that you would impose your religion on me and my fellow Californians."

Now, several others on the thread responded with sound, opposing arguments that need not be refined. Instead of rummaging through the details of the conversation, I want you to take a deeper look into the silly logic behind some of these statements, made above in the four points. Consider the faults in them:

1) Your personal beliefs on homosexuality should not be imposed upon the California Constitution.
Well, any vote you or I cast is going to be imposing on someone's beliefs, because not everyone agrees....that's why we vote, hello? Now...if my Christian beliefs (which are the foundation for my moral decisions) are not supposed to be incorporated into the voting process, than what is? How is this person who is voting against the proposition deciding her vote? I imagine it's from her personal beliefs. And I don't think her personal beliefs on homosexuality should be imposed upon the California Constitution.

2) If I remember correctly, there is an important commandment people are forgetting: 'treat others how you would like to be treated."
I've heard this pleading of Jesus' command made several times, and while it is a command to be followed, the quoter fails to draw into her conclusion consistent knowledge of the entire council of the Bible. We actually don't need to go very far for you to see what I mean...just finish the verse: "...for this is the Law and the Prophets." -Matt. 7:12 
Hmm...So while Christians are commanded to treat others the way we want to be treated, we are still under the command NOT to practice homosexuality, since that was a command given by the Law the Prophets. In fact, if you were to keep reading down that chapter, you find some rather hard-edged truth-claims being made by Jesus Himself: 
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." -Matt. 7:13
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." -Matt. 7:15
"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." -Matt. 7:19
Someone should probably warn Jesus about the way He's treating people. Just kidding. Jesus is obviously not against the Christian warning, proclaiming, or preaching the truth (in love). And His previous statement about treatment has nothing to do with whether we are to speak out the truth or not. That is why Christians are "imposing their beliefs" on the Constitution. Because the Constitution is made up of people's beliefs, and during the voting process, the secular government is ASKING us to share our beliefs! For Christians, we get our beliefs from the Bible. 

{This assertion is also peculiar because the same person who made the first objection (which itself was a double standard) is now using the very Bible she wishes was not being imposed on her, to argue against the Christian voting for Prop 8. But I digress...}

3) How would you feel if you were prohibited to marry the person you love?
These types of questions that are geared towards coercing your emotional response sometimes work well, but in this case, it does not. Why? Because Bible-believing Christians know that what or how we feel doesn't really matter in light of our clear instruction. Because let's be honest, we DO feel bad when we are prohibited from ANY kind of sin. That's why we needed Jesus in the first place, to help us stop sinning against Him.
To answer her question, I would probably feel the same way the cell phone driver feels when the cop prohibits him/her from using their cell phone while driving. I for one, like using my cell phone while driving, and I don't care if some people get in accidents, because I don't. And I'm sick and tired of people imposing their beliefs about cell phones on me, just because someone got in an accident with one.

4) I am deeply offended that you would impose your religion on me and my fellow Californians.
The logic behind this statement is somewhat self-refuting, and collapses upon itself when applied to, say, my position. You see, I (like her) am also deeply offended when others (like her) impose their opinions about me and my religion on me and my fellow Californians. So her statement is nullified by mine. Or the other way around? Ha:) (Silly logic).

...Just kidding, I'm not offended:) I just wanted to prove the point behind a very bad apologetic for Prop 8. And I'm still going to vote against what she is voting for based on my personal beliefs, which came from the Bible which I hold to be true.

Because I'm a Californian. And RockTheVote.com wants me to step up, and claim my voice.