The Unorthodox, yet Popular Theology and "Science" of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was born in 1881, and died in 1955.  He was a French Jesuit priest, paleontologist, theologian, philosopher and teacher. But he was also a spiritual father of the New Age movements.  He was the fourth of 11 children of a librarian and naturalist, Emmanuel.  His mother, Berthe, was the great-grandniece of Voltaire, a famous Enlightenment writer and hater of Christianity. Pierre’s spirituality was awakened by his mother. When he was 12, he went to a Jesuit college, became a novitiate, and made his first vows in 1901. In 1902, the French premiership began an anti-clerical agenda. Religious associations were forced to submit their properties to state control, which obliged the Jesuits to go into exile in Britain. Teilhard did much of his early work on their island Jersey, but he was a world traveler, and Paris and New York were also his home bases later on.

He was Darwinian in outlook, and his early teaching on Original Sin was so unorthodox that he got himself banned by the Superior General of the Society of Jesuits in 1925.  But that didn’t stop him. He still prepared to teach in China on evolutionary geology, also a no-no—so he was fired by his Jesuit Superiors in 1926 from any teaching at all.

He still went to China and dove into paleontology.  He took part in the discovery of Peking Man in 1926.  The problem is, Peking Man did not confirm evolution.  The site contained fragmented skullbones, teeth and tools, supposedly from rock layers 750,000 years ago. This was trumped up as a missing link to apes.  But in a 1959 book, a Catholic Chinese missionary, Patrick O’Connell, accused the scientists involved with fraud.  He claimed that the actual skulls (which disappeared in 1941) were just baboons, but the photographs and casts and measurements were tampered with to make them appear more human.  This was from his observations of the site; his theory had enough evidence that it was circulated by Duane Gish, Christian creationist scientist in 1979.  (P.S. Neither Wikipedia nor Catholic writings have anything negative to say about the Peking Man.)  It is also noteworthy that he was previously at the scene of Piltdown Man, discovered in 1912.  But this was also a fraud, and, since the evidence didn’t disappear, it was confirmed as a hoax in 1953. It was really an “altered mandible and some teeth of an orangutan deliberately combined (there’s the fraud) with the cranium of a fully developed, though small-brained, modern human.”  Shall we hint that the M.O. of the crime was very similar to the Peking Man, and both frauds were under de Chardin’s watch?  Both of these “proofs,” before they were proven hoaxes, were offered for the defense at the “Scopes Monkey Trial” in 1925.  To show you how the U.S. has changed, Mr. Scopes, a science teacher in Tennessee, was sued because he taught evolution, when Creationist teaching was the only one legal in Tennessee at the time.  Scopes, with the help of the Peking and Piltdown exhibits, and the help of the famed defense attorney Clarence Darrow, was judged not guilty, and in fact, he was offered a new teaching contract—so, he got off easy, partly based on this “evidence” at the time.

Getting to theology, one of de Chardin’s controversial theories was a mixture of science and religion, seldom done at the time, since most “approved” scientists were agnostic.  He conceived of the “vitalist” idea of the Omega Point. Omega Point, to him, means that “everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of unification…the Omega Point resembles the Christian Logos.” Logos is another word for Christ, but his version of Logos was quite different.  This theory was presented publicly in 1922.  This was also reflected in a book he wrote in 1919, “The Spiritual Power of Matter.”  Vitalism is the belief that “living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities (in that they) contain a non-physical element.”  That mysterious element he referred to as the “vital spark,” which some equate to the soul (he was cagey on this, but that was ultimately proven to be his intent).  Thus, plants, since they are a living organism, have a conscious soul, he maintaned.  In the 18^th and 19^thcenturies this theory of vitalism was discussed among biologists.  They tested the hypothesis but found no support (Benjamin Franklin and Franz Mesmer actually studied it).  It is now regarded as a pseudoscience. 

Perhaps his biggest works was The Phenomenon of Man, 1959 (English).  This posthumously published book set forth a sweeping account of the evolution of matter to attain humanity, then upward again to an ultimate goal of a reunion with Logos. In the book, Teilhard abandoned literal interpretations of creation in Genesis in favor of allegorical and theological interpretations. Here is an example of such a false teaching:  Matthew 5:17 has Jesus saying:

 I have come, not to destroy, but to fulfill the law

Teilhard blasphemously re-interpreted His quote as: "I have come not to destroy, but to fulfill Evolution.”

Unlike other Darwinians, he believed that evolution occurs in a directional, goal-driven way. He believed in the following evolution procession: evolution of matter into a geosphere, into a biosphere, into consciousness (in man), and then to supreme consciousness (the Omega Point).  No mention of the crucifixion, and no mention of our Rapture to get to that “Omega Point.”  Oh, yes, he does mention Salvation—but it’s a collective and universal one, as we all evolve to get there.  As he says, “no evolutionary future awaits anyone except in association with everyone else.”  Also, evolution was "the natural landscape where the history of salvation is situated.”  He uses two Bible verses to defend himself:  Colossians 1:17b: 

And He (Christ) is before all things, and in Him all things consist (KJV, “hold together”).

And I Corinthians 15:28:  

Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

In one speech, he asserted that these Scriptures were “pan-Christicism,” or that Christ was tolerant of other ways to get to Omega Point besides orthodox Christianity.  This is now two re-definitions of Christ and His purpose he has come up with.  His tinkering with Christ to achieve his ideal should engender a fear of God in him, but it doesn’t. He wrote further that Christ, to him, does not have two natures:  He has three. He says Christ is not only man and God; he also possesses a third aspect—indeed, a third nature—which is cosmic. The Body of Christ is not simply a mystical or ecclesial concept for Teilhard; it is cosmic. Teilhard describes this cosmic amassing of Christ as "Christogenesis." I.e., according to Teilhard, the universe is engaged in Christogenesis as it evolves toward its full realization at Omega, a point which coincides with the fully realized Christ. It is at this point that God will be "all in all."

You can see where he is taking this:  pantheism.  God/Christ is in all things, now and in that perfect future; in human and even plant, since ALL living organisms have “vitalism.”  This is multiple blasphemy, but it is politically on point for the extremes of the environmental groups.

Since all evolution involves mutation, he has a warped thinking on that score as well.  As apologist Dr. Martin put it, “From his correspondence, it is clear that Teilhard was not overly shocked by bloodshed, and regarded violence as necessary to Evolution, and seemed to have enjoyed war--what he saw of it. Death, bloody or otherwise, was what he called a "mutation." As he said, "it would be more to my purpose to be a shadow of Wagner than a shadow of Darwin." That means he prefers G6tterdiimerung (i.e., world-altering destruction marked by extreme chaos and violence), than ordinary Darwin.  I might add, here, that many cults speak in this apocalyptic way, hoping that at the end of the violence, a new and better society can be raised from the ruins. In some cults, its disciples die in suicidal events, like bombings, to hurry-up this better end.

Teilhard rejected all fundamental Christian beliefs, since believing it means he must accept that mankind’s evil and violence has erupted from Adam and Eve’s Original Sin—not the things that he wants to blame (below) for these depredations. When he saw the famous cyclotrons (atom-bomb accelerators) at the U.C. Berkley campus, he was filled "not with terror but with peace and joy" at these tremendous "wombs of change." It was apparently not the specter of Doomsday he saw there, but the possibility that Doomsday would be the womb of the Omega Point—which would give us a new, better world. 

Yet always and everywhere he spoke and behaved as the visionary with a rock-solid certainty about the future. But, for all of that, there is not one line of his that indulges the same infectious enthusiasm for things the Jesuits were trained for:  celebrating the Sacrifice of the Mass; for making reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; for shriving sinners of their sins; for teaching children their catechism; or for consoling the oppressed. All of him was wrapped up in his version of the "winsome doctrine," in the impersonal glory that would come to every man with the arrival of the "Ultra-Human."  He bemoaned that "no religion explicitly and officially offers us the God we need."  (As if what “we need” has any bearing on Him or His sovereignty.)  He asserted that no faith should be placed any longer in the supernatural, but only in man becoming more than man by his own innate drives. He was critical of God’s revelation of Himself in His Word (especially the Old Testament): he called such a God a "monstrous idea." He also derides the church:  she needed to abandon "juridicism” (this is very modern woke theology, considering the current Bible phase most quoted by non-believers, “Thou shalt not judge”), along with getting rid of moralism, and all things “artificial” in order to live in the very function of the call to love, by a (man-created) God who so elevates our energies. I don’t know how, but he even perverts the meaning of the Cross: he says that the Sign of the Cross was not suffering and death transformed into eternal life and glory, but the Cross is Evolution's triumph. I don’t see the connection. And he had a swipe at marriage and family in his day, too:  He thought God's order to Adam and Eve "to increase and multiply" no longer applied. We should now use eugenics to aim at the optimum in birth, not the self-control in reproduction. Eugenics was later found to be fake science, and in fact, racist.  Hitler passionately believed in eugenics.  Teilhard was a man ahead of his time in not only also prophesying birth control, but asserting that we have "the absolute right to try everything to the end--even in the matter of human biology (sexuality, euthanasia, conception in vitro, homosexuality).” Another of his comments that was scarily dead-on for the wokes today was this: he wanted to offset the excessive "masculinity of Jehovah."

It’s hard to believe that he wrote most of this in the 1950s.

Teilhard, as you can imagine, has had a profound influence on the New Age movements as well.  To quote Henry Morris, CEO of Institute for Creation Research: “Although New Agers have a form of religion, their "god" is Evolution, not the true God of creation. Many of them regard the controversial priest, Teilhard de Chardin, as their spiritual father.”  You would not want to be father of this bunch.  New Agers have been around for decades, stomping on Christian fundamentals, but that is the subject of another whole paper.

He further posits that creation would not be complete until each "participated being is totally united with God through Christ in the Pleroma (don’t you just love all the new words?—very intimidating).  Pleroma is defined as the “totality of divine powers.” (Gnostics like to use the word too.  Gnostics have been around for thousands of years, stomping on Christian fundamentals.  But that is the subject of another paper).  Note that we are all going to have these divine powers at the Omega Point; we are all going to be like God.  (Satan’s favorite lie, Genesis 3).  At that Point, “the cosmos will be transformed; and the glory of it all will be established.”  In one of his conferences, he said that Mankind will acquire “the sudden appearance of a collective humane conscience."

Further, he said “spiritual development is moved by the same universal laws as material development.”  Since evolution, our material development, is “indisputably” moving us up, he has the same optimism of our spiritual development.  He expresses that God is “pulling” is to the Omega Point.   Further evolution, he says, will eventually provide us with “a unification of consciousness.”

Let’s not forget his ideal of unity in another way too:  His alienation from capitalism and his orientation to "the people" meant that evolution should also apply to social justice in the distribution of goods, an equalization of property that capitalism made impossible (he says). "Human society has been more and more caught up in a yearning for true justice ... a liberation from the bonds [of poverty and dependence brought on by capitalism] in which too many people are still held,” he wrote.

The Society of Jesuits have always been in favor of social justice.  Jesuits led the way in liberation theology after his time.  That’s a big part of salvation to them. As Dr. Martin says, “both the Jesuit and Dominican Religious Orders had allowed some of their members to become worker-priests. These men ate and slept, lived and worked in the very same conditions as the ordinary workman. If their fellow workers joined Communist cells, they joined. If their fellow workers rioted in the streets or demonstrated in front of a government building, the worker-priests did too.” They were later forcibly recalled from this by their Jesuit superiors, but half the worker-priests refused to obey the recall order, and opted for membership in the Communist Party instead! As the future Pope John XXIII put it, they had “not gained one soul through this extensive output of manpower, but the Communist and Socialist parties had benefitted enormously.”  The idea of backing a socialist revolution was not repulsive to this Pope—just not gaining new souls for the Church—or keeping the ones they had.  

Teilhard showed his true leanings when he was distressed at Rome's intervention: "Under the circumstances, and in a capitalist world, how does one remain a Christian?" he asked. "Priest-workers find in the face of a humane Marxism not only justice but hope and a feeling for the Earth which is stronger than 'evangelical humanity. '" For Teilhard, Marxism presented no real difficulty. "The Christian God on high," he wrote, "and the Marxist God of Progress are reconciled in Christ." (I did not know that Christ was so political).  Little wonder that Teilhard de Chardin is the only Roman Catholic author whose works are on public display with those of Marx and Lenin in Moscow's Hall of Atheism!

It seems that accepting this theory imposes either the abandonment or the complete transformation of all the basic doctrines of Roman Catholicism/Christian. Creation, Original Sin, the divinity of Jesus, redemption by Jesus's death on the cross of Calvary, the Church, the forgiveness of sins, the Sacrifice of the Mass, priesthood, papal infallibility, Hell, Heaven, supernatural grace-even the existence and the freedom of God-all must be reformulated, and perhaps abandoned in large part.

But none of that stopped him from being championed by many cardinals and even several recent Popes. He scoffed at superiors’ many attempts to muzzle him. Despite the amazing freedom with which he spoke and published, Teilhard thought of himself as belonging to the "brotherhood" for whom, as he bragged, "thinking freely in the Church these days means going underground. Come to think of it, that's what I've been doing for thirty years." In those days, Church vigilantes were working overtime.  In 1962 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Catholic institution, condemned his works (see their quote below), based on their ambiguities and their doctrinal errors.  Pope Pius XII monitored him.  However, despite being banned several times from further writing, he still wrote.  But, after all, none of his works were placed on their Index of Forbidden Books.  Though his warped theology was loved by several priests and cardinals early on, they kept their views private.  He did get one favorable public mention in those days—an influential French priest, Henri de Lubac, in 1962 affirmed his works.  It was finally decided that his home base should be in the United States, not Europe, because of our feeling, I believe, that freedom should be more important than dogma.  But recently, with the degradation of Catholic vigilance (which suggests, to me, that they have lost somewhat of their mission and purpose), the encomiums have come thick and fast.  He has been honored by Boston College, by Villanova University—both Catholic schools, the former a Jesuit school—and by passing mention in several plays and movies.

I should point out that scientists are not excited by all this. To quote one: “ideas that were peculiarly his were confused, and the rest was just bombastic redescription of orthodoxy."  Another called him a “charlatan.”  But he is loved enough by the Episcopal Church that he is honored with a feast day on the Calendar of Saints of the Episcopal Church on 10 April (the day of his death). 

It is only in the presence of death did that confident optimism and surety that was the personal mark of this man seem to fade. "Now what does he 'see'? I wonder," Teilhard wrote after the death of a friend; "And when will my turn come?" On the occasion of another friend's death: "What shall I 'see'?" That he put the word "see" in quotes showed no persuasion that he would see Jesus and the Father and the Saints. It was an uncertain sentiment for whose lack of faith ordinary words are not sufficient. But he still said, “Dying and death were just the means of becoming one with the universe.” But one wonders what sort of shock Teilhard experienced when on that Easter day at last he "saw" the God of his eternal tomorrow, the God-man who by dying had not become "part of the universe" but remained its sovereign Lord--this time, as Judge.

To bring this story right up-to-date:  Here is a summary of the article published in Catholic Culture (November 2017):  Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the widely influential Jesuit paleontologist and philosopher whose writings were cited with a “warning” by the Vatican in 1962, may finally have that blot removed from his record.

Participants at the recent plenary assembly of the Pontifical Council for Culture that discussed “The future of humanity: new challenges to anthropology” unanimously approved a petition to be sent to Pope Francis requesting him to waive the “monitum” (warning) issued by the Holy Office in 1962 regarding the writings of Father de Chardin. The participants, which included top level scientists as well as cardinals and bishops from Europe, Asia, America and Africa, applauded when the text of the petition was read.

They told Pope Francis that “on several occasions” during their discussions “the seminal thoughts of the Jesuit Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, anthropologist and eminent spiritual thinker, have been evoked.” They said, “we unanimously agreed, albeit some of his writings might be open to constructive criticism, his prophetic vision has been and is inspiring theologians and scientists.” They mentioned that four popes—Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Francis—had made “explicit references” to his work. Paul VI, in a Feb. 24, 1966 speech, while expressing some reservations, praised a key insight of the Jesuit’s theory on the evolution of the universe, pointed to it as a model for science and quoted the author’s statement: “The more I study material reality, the more I discover spiritual reality.”   John Paul II, in 1981, through his secretary of state, wrote a letter to Monsignor (now cardinal) Paul Poupard, head of the Institute Catholique in Paris, in which he praised the French Jesuit in words that were widely interpreted as a sign that his rehabilitation was on the horizon. Cardinal Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict XVI, “spoke glowingly of Teilhard's Christology” by tying it into the Mass, no less: “the transubstantiated Host is the anticipation of the transformation and divinization(too close to divination, no?) of matter in the christological "fullness."  (A partial translation in English: We will all become divine.) Further, in a homily during Evening Prayer in the cathedral in Aosta, in northern Italy, on July 24, 2009, when he was Pope, he commended an aspect of the French Jesuit’s vision when he said: “The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. Francis (the current Pope) became the fourth pope to have something positive to say about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. He did so in 2015 in his encyclical in a footnote, in which he speaks about the French Jesuit’s “contribution” to the ultimate destiny of the universe. Moreover, the petition, seemed to find receptive ground in his address to the plenary assembly last week. 

      They concluded by expressing their conviction that “this act not only will acknowledge the genuine effort of the pious Jesuit to reconcile the “scientific” (my emphasis) vision of the universe with Christian eschatology, but will represent a formidable stimulus for all philosophers, theologians, theologians and scientists of good will to cooperate towards a Christian anthropological model that fits naturally in the wonderful warp and weft of the cosmos. 

My final word:  Let’s hope they don’t cave in to another false doctrine by giving this guy credibility.  Let’s be vigilant to obey II Timothy 4:3-4:

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Note:  The Warnings issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office are:

On June 30, 1962, the Holy Office issued a monitum (warning) regarding the writings of Father Teilhard de Chardin. In 1981 the Holy See reiterated this warning against rumors that it no longer applied. Following is the text of both the monitum and the 1981 statement:

For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth" Several works of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, some of which were posthumously published, are being edited and are gaining a good deal of success.

"Prescinding from a judgement about those points that concern the positive sciences, it is sufficiently clear that the above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.

"Given at Rome, from the palace of the Holy Office, on the thirtieth day of June, 1962.

 

Bibliography

The Jesuits:  The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church, Malachi Martin, 1987 (He was a Jesuit priest and paleographer who asked to be released from certain of his Jesuit vows, seeing that he wrote extensive criticism of their works. He died in 1999).

America, the Jesuit Review, specifically:  www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/11/21/will-pope-francis-remove-vaticans-warning-teilhard-de-chardins-writings

www.catholicculture.org/search/searchResults.cfm?querynum=1&searchid=2083717&showCount=2

https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/scopes-trial

https://www.icr.org/article/evolution-new-age

www.biblegateway.com

www.wikipedia.com/pierreTeilharddeChardin

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-27

Title:  Peking, Piltdown, and Paluxy:  Creationist Legends About Paleoanthropology https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-false-teachers

YouTube: Posthumanism, Omega Point, Noosphere Theory, and Teilhard deChardin

The Holy Bible

YouTube:  POSTHUMANISM, OMEGA POINT, NOOSPHERE THEORY, AND TEILHARD DE CHARDIN

 

 

Let's Re-introduce Proper Church Discipline

 In the area of church discipline, here’s where we are now: If your church is evangelistic, they're probably too careful about not offending people.  They want those clearly lost in sin to hang around and listen and get saved--so they won't exercise any church discipline, even for a divisive troublemaker--unless, if a person who is 'way out of line', they might  reprimand the offender to make them uncomfortable, and hopefully they leave the church.  Let's present a situation: a guy is known as living with a woman, and they show up together Sunday morning, week after week. The fact is, they need to be spoken with on the subject of adultery or fornication.  Many churches won’t do a thing, on the grounds of not offending them.   In some evangelical churches, many times the only real church discipline might occur if someone questions the pastor’s authority, or points out where Scripture seems to differ from what is being taught.  That person might indeed get the left foot of fellowship.  Disputing the knowledge of the pastor; that'll get you down.

A few isolated independent churches take an opposite approach. If they do exercise serious discipline, they will carry a reprimand to the point of shunning.  They go overboard on applying discipline too much; the cults are big at this.

My point is, seldom are the Scripture's rules on church discipline used as a guideline any more—which is too bad, since the rules are laid out there in detail and are easily understandable--and are meant to keep a healthy church, free of people whose purpose is to sneak in and destroy God's local light of evangelism and fellowship.

So, let’s take a look at what churches should be doing, by looking at Scripture. There are graduating steps. First, let’s say you, a regular churchgoer, have a problem with another person at church; they are definitely doing something to harm you. Let’s say you confronted them, exhorted them, but their only reaction was feeling victimized when you are seeking the truth--or they ignore you. If you are close to the Lord, you know their sin hurts them and you and possibly the church you both attend, so something has to be done. The next step, in most cases should be in Matthew 18:15-16:

“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’

After one-on-one failure, the church should be an interested party, if anger and bitterness among its members have negatively affected its evangelistic light. (We'll assume when they became members, they knew about this brand of accountability being expected, being spelled out in church bylaws.  Of course, they might not be members, which changes the rules).  The church's role in my example is to provide objective witnesses trying to get at the truth, and render solid advice to repair relationships.  But--in today’s society, if you tell one of the offenders that you’re bringing a couple people to listen and talk to him, it’s unlikely that he will even meet with you. But bringing witnesses are necessary—they are important for validating what was said, critical in later steps below. (By the way, though I'm using male pronouns, all these rules work for women too). Let’s say he does meet with you and the witnesses (which are, hopefully, not just your friends at church).  But, in the end, he still won’t agree with you. Then it’s time for step 2, in Matthew 18:17a:

And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.

This means it's time to tell the senior pastor or counseling person. They will need to check out your story by asking you, and him, and maybe a couple others some questions. Getting the church administration involved could be a big step, and has the potential to make reconciliation harder. Do you have mature people in leadership who will follow the Scripture’s discipline rules? Hopefully. Then there is another problem: Your problem person might react like the church is “ganging up” on him, and just mentally make himself the victim--or the rebel—so it may make him even less likely to repent. On the other hand, if he’s got a long history with the church, his next step could be to chatter with his church friends, make everything “your side vs my side,” and if these people have power, it may even split the church. Whether all this goes in a godly direction depends on whether most church members choose to follow Scripture--or do they follow charming personality instead, even if that person is hurting the church?

So here’s what SHOULD happen next if the church leaders feel you have a genuine case, have checked out all the facts, and have the courage to actually do church discipline—I Timothy 5:20:

Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

Wow, a public rebuke. Scripture doesn't list what sins are serious enough to get into this stage of treatment; it’s the elders’ (or pastor's) call. Even if the troublemaker refuses to talk with them, they shouldn’t shirk from following through this verse, since God may want to “prune” His disobedient church member (John 15:1-6) to make him better. This verse means the pastor has proper authority, by Scripture, to do a public rebuke to a member. Keep in mind, I remind you, that it is all done in love, with the goal of bringing this person to repentance and reconciliation. It has a side benefit, as stated above: “the rest also may fear (God).” (I have a blog on the benefits of a fear of God; there are many, many Scriptures that speak of it.) Ideally, in the public event, the offender, who has been told of this rebuke, is present. If he is not there, do it anyway.  I know this sounds contrarian, but the reprimand should seek to make sure as many church members as possible are there, too. If everyone hears all the details of the case and the quality of the reprimand, there will be fewer rumors and lies that fester and grow into division later.

Most church members today would really be shocked and anxious when they hear about such an upcoming public rebuke, it's so rare it happens anymore, so the pastor has to prepare them Scripturally beforehand. Some of the regular attendees will leave the church as soon as they hear about the public rebuke, and some will leave after, since the church no longer served their purpose as the comfy place where they can relax and do whatever they want, sin as much as they want, without accountability. Don't worry about losing such members.  God made the church for accountability--just look up the many verses with the words "exhort," "entreat," "implore" or "admonish."

This public rebuking was done in the earliest days of the Church—and we’re not talking about Salem, or The Inquisition here. We’re talking about the Acts chapters 2 through 5 church, the most powerful, Spirit-infused church in history—so the public rebuke wasn’t harmful to church evangelism of the Gospel.  In fact, I believe it was part of the reason why they were the most effective church in history. So, you may lose some rebellious members—this may not be bad. As Gideon proved, you can accomplish more for Him by obeying His difficult Word—in this case, properly exercising church discipline--even though you’re now operating with fewer in number. Accomplishing more for God--that is what you want, right? Not just a puffed-up membership number.  You don't want to be a church which spends most of its time trying to put out fires caused by the "baby" Christians who have had a long time growing up--and haven't.

Well, the disobedient one may not show up for “the rebuke,” or even if he shows up, maybe his heart is hardened and he will not change his mind. Now what do you do, as a church? Matthew 18:17b shows us the next step:

But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

What does that mean, “let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” Well, don’t just assume this means “shunning.” Yes, that would be the meaning where the Pharisees ruled (they threw people out of the synagogue).  Keep in mind, that wasn't a church.  But, why do we care about how the Pharisees thought, since Jesus condemned them? We're under a new covenant, the New Testament, which has our instructions.  Instead, let's look at how Jesus treated the heathens and tax collectors. (The tax collectors were Jews who collected taxes for Rome. Some cheated on the books and made themselves rich. Not a beloved crew).There are plenty of verses on this. Consider Mark 2:16-17:

And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

As an explanation of the phrase "I did not come to call the righteous," Jesus is not saying the Pharisees are "righteous," as in righteous to God; it’s more like self-righteous.  And “those who are well” really means “well in your own eyes.” These are the proper definitions of the Greek--and thus we see His sarcasm of the Pharisees. The point is, He had no problem socially mingling with the sinners and tax collectors—in fact, it was one of the charges against Him at His trial. He did good things with the Gentiles (non-Jews), as well--such as the Roman centurion and the Samaritan woman. The Jews normally refused to even speak to Samaritans. He also went into their homes. More fascinating reading is Luke 19:5-7, the story of Zacchaeus, a Jewish tax collector:

And when Jesus came to the place, He looked up and saw him, and said to him, “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” 6 So he made haste and came down, and received Him joyfully. 7 But when they saw it, they all complained, saying, “He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner.”

Note that in the later verses, Zacchaeus believes in Jesus and performs righteous acts of large amounts of alms for the poor and people he had offended. So Jesus' visit was effective. Even though he was a known sinner, and might have even stolen from his Jewish brothers, Jesus just wanted to save souls, and this man had a sincere salvation experience.  The best place to evangelize is among people who are humbled and low in life, unloved by the masses.

Well, then, did all this carrying on with the obscure sinful folk mean that Jesus winked at sin, and caroused with sinners? Not at all; Jesus wanted to bring salvation to as many people as He could. Sometimes people are reached through hard rebuke—Jesus did those at other times. Other times, it was by love—such as with Zacchaeus.

To fully understand what we're saying, we're not suggesting shunning these people.  To give you a little more history: Jesus knew that no “sinner” or Gentile or tax collector could ever be a member of a synagogue. They were denied sacred ritual. This in itself was a serious disciplinary rebuke. In the same way today, I’m saying, after a public rebuke, the unrepentant sinner should not be allowed Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, which is, after all, a channel of grace—thus he is “ex-communicated.” (Ex-communication, for several hundred years, was a fearful situation to be in, and was often used as a weapon to get people to toe the "proper" doctrinal line.) Communion was so important to the early Church that it was celebrated weekly—even daily, for some. They were so strict on this, that in the case of a serious sin, and even if the person showed repentance, the early church might still keep him in ex-communication for awhile longer to test out the sincerity of his repentance.  In those early days, if you denied Christ and buckled under persecution, let’s say, then later wanted to repent and rejoin the church, you could still be denied Communion for years. I remind you, this delay of reinstatement had to do with really serious sins. The sinner needed to be reminded of the gravity of his sin, and the church wanted to know if he is really serious in his repentance.

Temporary ex-communication, or denying the Lord's Supper, could also be advised for a lesser sin, after public rebuke has failed to work.  An unrepentant sinner might be denied Communion for that week, until he repents.  Considering the stubbornness of some, he may be denied, week after week, and never have Communion again.

Ex-communication doesn't have the effect on people that it once did, but it still should be used.  Again, with giving him explanation. In the middle ages, that was enough for him to feel that he lost his salvation. Now its importance is casually ignored.  We will pay the price for being casual about adult baptism and Communion; they are important instruments of maintaining salvation.

Getting back to the present subject, the unrepentant sinner is also not a “member in good standing,” either-- which means he can go to meetings, listen to the sermon, but gets escorted out or ignored in the passing of the Lord's supper. He certainly cannot be a speaker, or voter.

But despite all these negatives, here’s what separates Scripture from cults: at this level, for unrepentant sinners, based on what Jesus did above for Zacchaeus, and others, it’s OK for regular members to socially get together with them. You're not at the shunning stage yet.  But, in your getting together with them, your purpose is to leave yourself honest and open.  You should still carry a good testimony; the real goal is that your godliness might gently nudge them to reconciliation.  And this could mean his salvation.  After all, if the sin involves his unmerciful attitude, or unwillingness to forgive, he could be unsaved just because of that. Consider Matthew 6:15:

…if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

A word of warning here:  we cannot say out loud that someone has lost his salvation, because Scripture says we often can’t tell the wheat from the tares (Matthew 13:29, 30).

So Scripture teaches a delicate mix (shunning them from the sacred ritual, but not shunning them from socializing). This is what God decided through Scripture to handle this situation at this point.

I want to remind you: The pastor who refuses to wade deep into discipline, and study it, is not a friend of the flock. After all, if he backs off, he has treated Scripture lightly, besides turning his head on evil deeds—that’s a bad example. He will be judged by God on judgment day.

Now, let’s move on to the next level and when it’s activated. Read I Corinthians 5:11:

But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

Keep in mind that this person would have already gone through public church rebuke and ex-communication--but to no effect.  Now we're talking a person who is probably not a Christian, but broadcasts that he is.  He is still practicing his grievous sin.  He is hurting Christ by claiming to be a "brother" while sinning like this.  So we break away socially as well, almost complete shunning, and this level is for the most serious of sins: Someone who was, or claimed to be, a brother and has done one of these terrible things, and won't repent, you are not to eat or socialize with them. (But you could, of course, attempt to save them if they were drowning, or you could do a good deed for them, as Christ commanded even for an enemy).  Other lists of serious sins are: Ephesians 5:3-5, I Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Revelation 21:8. They do not all list the exact same serious sins, but they’re very close. It shouldn’t be hard to decide when to take this step. Note the phrase above, "anyone named a brother." By his behavior, he has denied His Savior. Unrepentant denial of our Savior through practicing serious sin could mean eternity in hell (Matthew 10:33).

One other set of verses is a serious enough sin to place it in this level of discipline: it's in II Thessalonians 3:6, 10-15:

But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us... 10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner… 14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Thus, living off welfare, where one can work, but has no intention to work, was a serious sin to be added to this level of discipline.

In all these above verses, keep one thing in mind: All those verses speak of an UNREPENTANT sinner, who has/is attending church as a "Christian," doing those things. Every saved person should experience repentance and confession. God loves us enough to clean us from sin and give forgiveness if we are repentant at the foot of the Cross.

Next let's talk about the “total shunning” level: This is reserved for those who are bringing a doctrine that says Christ has not come in the flesh. In the church’s early days, the target of this one was the Gnostics. In their mysterious religion, they had two gods; the inferior god created an inferior race, Man. But the perfect God couldn’t come to earth as a man, they said, which is inferior, so in His appearances, He wasn’t really flesh and blood. This heresy is spoken about in II John 10-11:

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist…10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

It’s the phrase “nor greet him” that makes this level of discipline unique. That’s total shunning. Is there a limit to the shun? I guess it’s OK to save him if he were drowning, but I don’t know—what if he’s heavier, what if he’s thrashing wildly? I’d think about it for awhile, hmmm.  No, I’m just kidding. You don’t take shunning THAT far.  But it advises that we don't even speak to this person.  This person is a true enemy of God's people, but don't forget, Christ said we should still love and pray for our enemies.  But they're kryptonite, and working with the devil to destroy the Church.

Anyway, these are the levels of church discipline. May God help us to pray that our church leaders will have courage to exercise these things before some really bad people start secretly tearing things down in our church. Which has already happened, weakening even many denominations.  Let’s stay Scriptural, with lots of love and firmness to go around.

Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, CD: Church Discipline, Scroll Publishing.

Trying to Walk in Someone Else's Shoes on MLK Day

 January 15, 1929 was Martin Luther King's birthday.  I thought I would bring to your attention a few of his private notes, which were honestly expressed.  It’s obvious he had a higher view of Jesus Christ than most people think.  His views on churches are spot-on, I believe.  His last sentence is a prophecy that has largely become true.  Read on.

"How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws."

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

"But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."


"I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership . . When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows."

"In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular."


"There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators"' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.

Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are. 

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust." 

Martin Luther King
from Letter from the Birmingham Jail
April 16, 1963

Are Speaking in Tongues and Word of Prophecy Real?

 The Holy Spirit gives each of His children at least one of nine gifts, listed in I Corinthians 12:7-11:

But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

Let’s discuss two of the most controversial ones: tongues and prophecy, so-called “sign” gifts. When the charismatic wave hit the U.S. in the early 1980s, much ink was spilled in controversy. You could say I’m 35 years too late on this, but the subject was raised in an excellent book I’m reading: The Supernatural Worldview, by Cris Putnam, published 2014. So let’s have a go at it.

The biggest outcry against the use of the sign gifts was by conservative, supposedly Bible-believing churches. In the 1980s, I broke away from my Baptist roots and joined a charismatic church. My former pastor didn’t have a kind word for me after that, saying that what I was hearing in a tongues-speaking was from the devil. I must say, though, I learned much in the new setting—particularly in small groups, where we were encouraged to be accountable, and to listen to what people in the group were saying to us.  They did actually admonish us--gently, but they actually did it.  I learned about my weaknesses, my strengths, my gifts--and found mine. Used it a couple times, and was respected. The educational emphasis was unexpected, since I knew that the charismatic churches have been accused of emphasizing emotion instead of intellect. But from what I observed, tongues were followed by interpretation, prophecies were judged to see if they were Scriptural; it seemed to be an orderly setting.

The theology that the non-believers in sign-gifts came up with to support their view was called “cessationism.” They maintained that (1) the Holy Spirit’s purpose for the sign gifts was finished in the first century; (2) the sign gifts were given exclusively to the twelve apostles; and (3) the gift of apostleship no longer exists. One of their favorite proof texts is I Corinthians 13:8-11:

Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

The cessationists believe tongues and prophecy are ways “progressive” churches want to hear “new” doctrines from the Lord, but then it opens these churches to deception and manipulation. My personal experience wasn’t that way—although it’s certainly possible it did happen elsewhere that way. I heard of extremes, and saw some on TV--and was embarrassed by it. 

Cessationists also loved to say, the tongues they heard about are “gibberish” and we need to “put away childish things.” That's condescension playing as intellect.  But getting down to theology, their real Scriptural “proof” is insisting the word “perfect” in the above verse refers to the arrival of the New Testament canon. Once that happened, they say, all these sign gifts were “done away,” and what happens now is not from the Holy Spirit, since there is no new “hearing from the Lord.” They say the Lord is heard from in Scripture, period—not through tongues or prophecy, they say.

But these verses are not saying what they assume. Let’s hear from John Piper, conservative theologian and author, speaking about verses appropriately supporting the word “perfect” in verse 12:

“It says ‘Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.’ Is it more likely that Paul is saying, ‘Now before the New Testament is written, we see in a mirror dimly; but then when the New Testament is written, we shall see face to face’? Or is it more likely he is saying, ‘Now in this age we see Him in a mirror dimly; but then when the Lord returns, we shall see Him face-to-face’?”

The latter version, as Piper implies, is much more likely correct--especially since there are several references in the Old Testament, and at least two in the New (Revelation 22:4, I John 3:2), that our desire is to see Jesus face to face. But my point is, seeing Jesus is the same theme as the next verse, which includes "that which is perfect."  Thus, the phrase is not referring to the New Testament as perfection, ending the termporary special gifts.  "That which is perfect" is Jesus, who we will see again in our ride up (the rapture) to heaven.  Thus, cessationists have probably lost their main "proof" verse as support.  So this verse is not an obstacle to the idea that all the gifts are still active, still Spirit-inspired, until Jesus has His second advent. Then they will vanish away.

The non-believers give this further argument: The arrival of New Testament canon, and its modern publishing, meant “hearing from the Lord” through miraculous signs is not necessary any more--so we “don’t need” the sign gifts; we should just read Scripture to get general guidance, and rely on, uh, feelings and our rational mind (hopefully the Holy Spirit guides us, too). They’re assuming that charismatics, looking for prophecies and tongue interpretations, are easily deluded in swallowing an anti-Christian idea that might creep up. Well, it's possible that there are tongue-speakers or charlatans trying to delude. But think of this:  is it possible that those who "rely on feelings or rational thought," hopefully from the Holy Spirit for guidance (I'm speaking to the cessationists), could ever be deluded by someone, or something, besides God?  Satan's emissaries are around to put a thought in your head too.  One answer for all that--that many cessationists default to--is to assume that if God seems silent after prayer on an issue--they then rely on their own logic, figuring their Scriptural knowledge will keep them from deviating from God's overall will.  But I have found that if God is silent, it could be that He is disapproving, and figures we have enough sense on Scripture to know what to do. 

But I've seen many cessationists eventually doing something that they wanted to do in the first place anyway.  They say that "my positive feeling are "from the Lord."  Or, some will cite some set of circumstances as God's answer.  True, I've heard of this happening to real missionaries.  But for most people, they just stumble across a set of events and capitalize on it, though I can't agree about their connection like they do. It's easy to twist all this to get what you want because you want it too much.  Cessationists can fall prey to delusion too.

Some who are logical (and reject Spirit-led possibilities because their brain does not allow for supernatural; "my brain is smarter than this foolishness"), simply give up on all this and say, "God's Scripture is all we got.  We decide the rest based on the moral guardrails that are there."  Sounds great, but how many people really, really know that Scripture has often more than one way of looking at a subject?  I've proven in other blogs how people like to "cherry pick" Scripture that agrees with them.  Face it, we are really obtuse about looking objectively about ourselves, our feelings.  Our logic can be warped by sin.  We fail to "look outside the box" for a solution, or we hate to let a decision wait for "God's timing."  We want it Now!

Well, for believers in all gifts, how do you rely on the sign gifts when there could be deception?  The answer is, the most spiritual men who oversee should do increased discernment.  This is better than doing a sweeping dismissal of the entire gift. Throwing out all of it—baby and bath water—is the lazy choice, and not the best one. Paul is concerned about charlatans:  he talks about performing intervention if possible deception like that goes on (I Corinthians 14:32,33).

Now let’s talk about Scriptural counter arguments. Look at Mark 16:17:

And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;

Those who believe in sign gifts argue that the power herein is God's gift for His children.  This power is also for the purpose of globalizing the gospel to “the end of the earth" (Acts 1:8). Well, that goal hasn’t quite happened yet, so we still need the gift. To argue that the purpose of sign gifts expired in the first century's apostles (or in the fourth century, when the canon was completed) is probably bogus.

Plus, the argument that it was "limited to the apostles" doesn’t hold water. Stephen had it, Acts 6:8, and so did Philip, Acts 8:13, and neither one was an apostle:

And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and signs among the people; Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

And then there are Paul’s detailed instructions on these gifts. In I Corinthians, three chapters are devoted off-and-on to this difficult subject of gifts—three chapters means it’s important.  But pastors still stay away from this rather than figuring it all out. In all those chapters, he says nothing about these gifts ceasing.

Read his words in I Corinthians 1:7:

so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ

That clearly indicates that he wants to see everyone possessing all the gifts, all the way up to the last days, “the revelation of our Lord.” So he was teaching the opposite of cessation. Consider, too, what he "bragged" in I Corinthians 14:18:

I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all

Well, that speaks a good word for tongues, does it not? Now in all honesty, Paul has restrictions on tongues—and he figures another gift, prophecy, is more important. (Of course, love is the most important of all). He wants an interpretation to each tongue, because otherwise no one could understand it (I Cor. 14:2). By the way, this by itself dismisses a frequent cessationist argument that tongues, if they operate, should all be like Acts 2, in a known language. But here, Paul is flat-out saying, if you don’t have an interpreter, no one will understand your tongue. And he's not talking about mission work in I Corinthians 14.  So he’s definitely saying that it covers unknown tongues as well. But with an interpretation, it becomes useful. That idea is further confirmed in I Corinthians 14:15:

What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

To give this contrasting statement “I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding,” suggests they sang or prayed in an unknown tongue (which means without understanding, unless there was an interpreter; in a private prayer, you wouldn't have an interpreter). Having a gift of tongues, even operated quietly by oneself, is still a spiritual uplift.  So there seems room in Scripture for a private unknown tongue as well as in public--a church meeting. In public, of course, they would need an interpreter.

Pastors nowadays hang on to cessationism, I fear, because all this “gibberish,” as they disparagingly call it, in public would turn most of the congregation off (especially the older ones, who are the biggest givers in offerings).  But in those days, the church still grew even with these strange gifts. Are people that much different today? I say, no; the pastor should not fear a disappearing congregation, being left with true believers.  And he should educate his congregation so they will be open to something new like tongues.   The church should still grow because of its outpouring of love and openness to something new.

A couple serious words of warning: Do not try to force yourself to speak in tongues through an altered state of consciousness, brought on by chanting, breathing irregularly, “emptying your mind,” drugs, or any other way. There is no Scripture backing you up, and you may indeed be inviting demons to come in for residence.

I must confess, though I am in favor of all gifts, from Scripture, I have never spoken in tongues.

Paul also said that tongues in a church service were for the unbelievers; i.e., to have them see that God is at work in this service. I Corinthians 14:22:

...tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers

But don’t get the idea that tongues have to be limited to a Billy Graham crusade tent in Africa where the "unbelievers" are. We showed their further usefulness above; it could still be in the U.S. And here’s a short testimony by a noted church father, Irenaeus, in 202 AD. “… .we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God…they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit.” This says, first of all, that tongues and prophecies didn’t die with the apostles—since Irenaeus was 100 years later. (Augustine, a great (but controversial) theologian in the fifth century, had kept a record of a long list of miracles in his day as well, from special gifts). Secondly, this implies that tongues, when interpreted, are also useful in church in revealing a sin that became a convicting rebuke to some unbelievers. (Rebuking unbelievers in their sin: there’s a concept.)

Finally, Paul writes, not just for the church at Corinth, but for everybody, I Corinthians 14:39:

Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues.

The second half of the verse is exactly what many “Bible-believing” pastors are doing, forbidding it, breaking this command from God.

Speaking of miracles: Miracles go on today, but hardly ever in the U.S. There are constant mission reports of many miracles in South America, India, in Muslim countries, in Asia, and Africa. Many involve healing. Where demonic activity is visible, God steps up the supernatural and makes Himself more visible. But not much of this happens in the U.S. My suspicion? Satan can see that the U.S. churches are weak because they can’t overcome people’s materialism. We are lukewarm. (Are we the modern church of Laodicea in Revelation 3:14-18?) So why should he “rock the boat” that is swinging us to sleep? The author, Cris Putnam, quotes a Barna poll that indicates that 59% of the U.S. “Christians” do NOT believe there is a real Satan! Satan is fine with this; he hopes we all lull ourselves into hell. Shades of C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape Letters! We must remember that Jesus would not work miracles when faced with stubborn unbelief (Matthew 13:58). We cannot let this lack of miracles be a self-fulfilling prophecy—in other words, if the lack of miracles increases our cynicism—this would lead to even fewer miracles yet.

It’s possible people are using gifts without knowing in advance about them. There is a story about the great preacher Charles Spurgeon—a Calvinist and likely cessationist, by the way, who stumbled into miracles of his own. In his autobiography he tells how he interrupted a sermon to point at a young man in the audience, telling him that the gloves he was wearing were stolen from his employer! (A bold move). Later in his office, the dumbfounded and convicted young man confessed his sin. Spurgeon further wrote, “I could tell as many as a dozen similar cases in which I pointed at somebody in the hall without having the slightest knowledge of the person .…except I believed I was moved by the Spirit to say it.” Whether he knew it or not, that’s the gift of knowledge in operation. We’re often ignorant of our gift, or don’t want to use it, or afraid to use it. Mr. Spurgeon’s faith door must have been opened a little more after that supernatural event.

And this gets to the reason for the author Mr. Putnam mentioning this subject. His book is about the supernatural. But cessationism is a refusal to believe in certain kinds of supernatural. Putnam calls this cessationist doctrine a “sanctified form of unbelief,” and believes we are dangerously discounting the supernatural in American churches. Even our sermons are not exposing or attacking Satan, or educating people on demons, for instance. They are also dismissing the power of the Holy Spirit by marginalizing three of His nine divine gifts--that is not a good thing. Mr. Putnam calls it “demythologizing the Holy Spirit.” Since the Holy Spirit is God, denying His power may lead to His judgment on the cessationist.

According to Joel 2:28-31:

“And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. 29 And also on My menservants and on My maidservants will pour out My Spirit in those days…And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.

What if many pastors of churches, dismissing the supernatural, then dismisses these prophecies, visions, and dreams that may happen in their church in the end-time days?  When God wants to warn them that new, terrible things will be happening and they need to get ready?  Let's say God wants to warn us of the upcoming End Times tribulation, and maybe provides these signs. If we react stone-faced to information God wants us to know, if He presented it to us in this "distasteful" way, and we ignore it, we won’t be ready for the antichrist—and could then be easily manipulated and even fall into apostasy. That "falling away" danger will be greatest among those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture—what happens when they see that that belief was wrong? (I have other blogs on that subject). Unfortunately, many of the “pre-trib” churches are also cessationists. A double-punch is coming to their faith. When they don't get a rapture, per their pastor's timing, then not believing the warnings, they will be blindsided by Satan. The resulting demoralization and confusion--is God's Word reliable? they might ask--will mean they are not ready in the face of persecution. So it's possible to conclude that many people could fall into apostasy simply because they walled off God’s use of supernatural gifts (Matthew 24:24).

Finally, let’s read about the church in Acts 2:40-47:

And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Or, how about I Corinthians 14:26:

How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification

This was a church that had great power, so we should desire to copy it as much as possible, right? But I’ve never heard anybody express any desire to follow that simple “copy the best” idea. Our churches are lacking in many of the areas you read in those two verses above, are we not? The fact is, young people are abandoning their parent’s churches—perhaps because the services seem to be just “going through the motions.” Not much evidence that God is there. Young people see this as hypocrisy.

I want it alive like it was in the early church. Maybe we won’t get this feeling of participation and togetherness that they had until we get persecuted like they were. But cessationism won’t get us into those blessings, that’s for sure.

Acknowledgements: Cris Putnam, The Supernatural Worldview

Is Adam's Guilt Transferred to Us?

Atonement #2: Is Adam's Guilt Transferred? Is Christ's Righteousness Transferred When We are Not Righteous?

Hopefully you read our first article on two theories about atonement. We put forth the idea that the "Classic" view, followed for the first 1000 years of the church's existence, was superior than the currently popular “Satisfaction” view, put forth around 1080 by Anselm, a Catholic church theologian. Reasons for the superiority of the Classic view were many, as we stated, and proved by Scripture. We proved, I believe, that the Satisfaction theory has a poor view of God.

Well, after listening and meditating on Dave Bercot’s CD on “Atonement #2,” we agreed and now, let's have a go at another problem, and offer more good reasons for abandoning the Anselm Satisfaction view. The problem is, the twisting of what went on with the word “imputation.” That’s a big word, but easily defined. As I did in the first article, this paper is not meant for seminarians, it is understandable by the general reader. And the subject is vitally important.

First, let’s define the word “impute.” That's the translation of the Greek word "logizomai" in Scripture.  Unger’s Expository Dictionary (highly reputed and reliable) defines "logizomai" as: “To reckon, to put down to a person’s account;” “to charge with, or credit with.” The three imputations that the Satisfaction view derived from the word are defined by them as: (1) The guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to all mankind; (2) The sins of Christ’s people are imputed to Christ; and (3) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people. Note that the Satisfaction theory's definition of "impute"  also means a transfer from one person or party to another person or party. This is a critical distortion.

Let’s look at the verses in the New Testament where "impute" appears.  First, here's Romans 4:11:

And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,

Does Abraham's title of "father" mean his righteousness could be transferred to the next generation?  Of course not.  If they believed, they get the same righteousness before God that he did.  Clearly pointed out in Scripture.  No transfer there.  Next, on the same subject, Romans 4:21-24:

²¹ and (Abraham) being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. ²² And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.” ²³ Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, ²⁴ but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,

Abraham's conviction in God's faithfulness, is also credited to our account IF WE BELIEVE, as you can see.  Again, Abraham's belief doesn't transfer to us.  Finally, the last usage of the "logizomai" is in Romans 5:13:

¹³ (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

This verse does not have a first person and a second person for a transfer, so this verse does not help the transfer argument suggested by the Satisfaction folks.  (I don't want to get into a discussion about when sin is credited to Old Testament people before law).

That's it, the only verses with the word logizomai.  You know, the Jews of Jesus' day believed in transfer of righteousness. Jesus has a few things to say about that in John 8:37-44:

³⁷ “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. ³⁸ I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have [ar]seen with your father.”

³⁹ They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”

Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. ⁴⁰ But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. ⁴¹ You do the deeds of your father.”

Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.”

⁴² Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. ⁴³ Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. ⁴⁴ You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do

They insisted that they were OK with God since Abraham was their father (ie, in his lineage). They had circumcision, further "proof" of their righteousness.  But He assures them they they were lost in unbelief--after all, they slandered His fatherhood, a blasphemy, and killed Him. He bluntly tells them that they obtained no righteousness from Abraham. No transfer, no credit to their account.

The real meaning of "impute" should not be distorted on the guilt side of the ledger, too. But the Satisfaction folks have done it. The word "logizomai," remember, is not used outside of Romans.  But the Satisfaction folks took their distorted definition and applied it to other places too--such as, to Adam and his descendants for sin.

Does Scripture indicate that Adam’s guilt is charged to all of his children, and grandchildren, etc. all through history? Satisfaction theorists say "yes."  Well, I think their flaw is this:  they make it look like a gigantic cross-generational curse that God has attached to Adam's descendants. However, Scripture denies guilt-transfer: Deuteronomy 24:16 says cross-generational curses can’t happen. Ezekiel 18:20 also says it:

“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

These verses clearly show that cross-generational curses are not part of God’s plan for eternity.  Thinking carefully, Adam was created with the ability to not sin; he could make a free choice to sin or not.  Unfortunately he chose the latter.  The result is:  We are born with a tendency to sin.  This is a disadvantage that we got from Adam.  It is a tendency, it is not a guilt transfer.  They are different words. The fact that we all sin is from our choices.

  Well, you might ask, how does the Classic theory deal with Adam's sin?  They maintain this is what we got from Adam: (1) his mortality and (2) our leaning toward sin.  Let's look at the first item, mortality being transferred to everyone. (We already dealt with the second).  It was necessary for God to put mortality on us, because we're stuck with the second feature.  Think about it:  If we live in sin forever, our abilities to sin will have no limit. And sin would become immortal in us. Bad thought. We prefer release from that bondage, and immortality in heaven, assuming our belief and our following in Abraham's faithful action.

Despite our inheritance of corruption, assuming we are accountable, we decide--on our own--whether to sin in a situation or not.  No cross-generational curse; we are responsible from our own sins, not Adam's.  Thankfully, God has put a void in everyone’s hearts that can only be truly happy by seeking Him. He gave us His Word, which points to the way of salvation; He gave us His Son, who showed us how to live--and died for our sins.  From all that wonderful love and mercy, do we, seeing His love, cling to Him as Savior of our souls? Or do we choose to rebel all our lives against this mercy? We have choices to make, and mostly reasonable minds to make them. What’s important, in summary, here is that our tendency to sin does not mean that we inherited guilt. Believing falsely may have a dangerous consequence: ie, some people believe  that they are beyond getting saved.

But there are other favorite verses presumably backing the Satisfaction theorists that we need to deal with. Such as Romans 5:12.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

This takes too much of the meaning of "thus."  This verse seems to say that Adam’s guilt is passed on. But a simple study reveals a simple truth: Why is “death spread to all men”? As the verse says, because “all sinned.” Thus we are only responsible for our own sin.  We can’t blame Adam or God for sin that we chose to do. We can only blame Adam for our tendency to sin. But the fact is, we each make the choice to sin; the responsibility is ours.

I should point out, too. that the Satisfaction theory can lead to an evangelism problem. To some unsaved people who conclude, “God isn’t fair. Sticking me with guilt for Adam’s sin,” it is easy to divert responsibility for our sin.  It's tougher to reach them with the Gospel.  But if you accept the Classic theory of atonement and God's forgiveness in that theory, as you will see, the easy tendency to blame God for unfairness is dispelled.

The other favorite verses for Satisfaction theorists are I Corinthians 15:21-22:

For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

In the phrase “as in Adam all die:” does it say, we all die because we have his sin guilt on us? No. It simply says mortality is passed on. That is one leg of the Classic theory.

 

Now let’s take a look at the second imputation “leg” of Satisfaction theorists: The sins of His children are imputed to Christ. Their key verses: Isaiah 53:4-5:

Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.

Now I don’t have any argument here at all, since both theories of atonement have Christ’s substitutionary suffering as it is spelled out here—He is innocent, but He paid for our sin. Our sins were imputed, or laid on, Christ. That includes a transfer, thank God. But I have one warning about this verse: The phrase “smitten by God” does not mean God punished His Son. (We had more to say on that in our first Atonement article; Jesus was the ransom paid to Satan for our sin. Satan was the punisher; it was a legal ability that he got from God when he got us to sin.) So it’s true that God allowed Satan temporary control over Our Lord--and us. Satan agreed with God to swap control over us to control over Christ--temporarily, as it turns out.  In the end, God is “at fault.” But for a greater good--because through the deal, we are enabled to be saved.

On to the third claim of Satisfaction theorists: The righteousness of Jesus being imputed to believers. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, a  conservative evangelistic work, has this to say: “It is not meant that Christ’s people are made personally holy or inwardly righteous by the imputation of His righteousness to them. But it means that His righteousness is “set to their account” so that they are entitled to all the rewards of that perfect righteousness.” The phrase “set to their account” suggests it’s a bookkeeping transaction in heaven; His righteousness is transferred in the ledgers of heaven to us—without the necessity of our being personally holy, or doing a thing except accepting Christ. Those who have read my other articles on eternal security know where I’m going with this. Dietrich Bonhoeffer would call this theology “cheap grace,” and I wholeheartedly agree. The Satisfaction theorists sometimes also say, in essence, that to think God expects us to behave righteously to go to heaven is expecting too much. The Old Testament, in particular, seems to teach us that. For instance, the Encyclopedia also says, “The righteousness which God demands is not to be found among people.” Is that so? Well, try typing the word “righteous” in a Biblical search engine (such as biblegateway.com). You’ll find over a hundred references of verses that dispute that, such as Genesis 7:1:

Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.

God told Noah he was righteous.  This is not meant only for the "super-saints," folks.  There are over a hundred verses, Old and New Testaments, just like that one. Then search for “blameless.” Lots more. Sorry, Encyclopedia, defending the Satisfaction argument should not have to include twisting the word "righteous." Having God call us "righteous" is attainable.  In fact, God expects His children to behave righteously.  His demand for righteousness after we accept what Jesus did does not mean He expects perfection, praise Him.  Believers can sin now and then, and still be "righteous."  He does commend His believers to strive to make their lives a righteous living for Him, to be sure of heaven. If we do not abide with Christ, we are denying Him.  He will then deny us (John 15:1-6).  I have other blogs on that subject.

To be thorough, we have to explain more of Anselm's favorites: Isaiah 64:6a:

But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;

This contempt for righteous behavior seems to try to contradict over a hundred Biblical verses that show God loves the people who seek to be righteous. So let’s analyze further to avoid accusing God for a Scriptural contradiction. One question is this: What is the occasion for Isaiah’s prayer here?  In context, it is a prayer of penitence and intercession that Isaiah was making on behalf of the unfaithful Israelites, to plead for God's mercy. It follows the typical form that the penitential prayer of that culture does: When a repentant Jew petitions God for mercy, they invariably amplify their wrong and magnify their smallness, which amplifies the greatness of the Lord for even considering mercy upon us. Such magnifying distorts reality, but for a good purpose—to glorify God’s majesty. But let’s return to reality instead of this ritual: Does God have to agree with Isaiah's version of man’s smallness? No. Think about it: If God really felt this way, why does He go to the trouble of calling certain people righteous over a hundred times? Scripture must be taken in context, and with the assumption that every word is originally God's Word, and that any errors are not significant to salvation.

Now it so happens that this verse was a favorite verse of Martin Luther. It seems he went, from a few verses like these above, to construct a theological system—ignoring hundreds of verses that disagreed with his theology. He concluded, let's forget works altogether--salvation is all about just belief in what Christ has done. True, in an absolute sense, none of us are righteous as God—we’re all short of the glory of God. But God, in His love, has always considered His faithful ones, who have walked in obedience, not perfectly, but enough to call them “righteous.” That God could call us righteous despite His hatred of sin, is His mercy showing forth. I love His self-description in Exodus 34:6:

And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”

There are many wonderful stories in His Word about His patience with stumbling mankind. As I point out in another blog, this theology does not lead you into sweaty uncertainty.  Be fearful of God to know how bad each sin is.  Do some things that intentionally stomp on them in our lives, so we can bear the fruit of sanctification.  Confess known sins, and repent of them.  Believe that God forgives.  Those eliminates most uncertainty.  You can't, Scripturally, expect certainty that we would all like to have.  Easy believism, again.  We would get complacent--like the Jews did.

We thus conclude that of the three imputations, the Satisfaction theorists were biblically incorrect on two of them--by emphasizing one or two Scriptures, and ignoring many other ones. They demean righteous behavior, they teach cross-generational curse, as well as the cheap grace of ignoring the necessity of a godly life to maintain salvation. The Classic theory doesn't have God loading us with guilt for Adam's sins.  Nor does it ignore the need for righteous behavior.

Read my other blogs to get more on this picture.  Or, better, read Scripture!

Acknowledgements: David Bercot, Atonement #2.