Jesus' Betrayal was both necessary and freely chosen
Jesus says "and truly the son of man goes, as it was determined; but woe to the man who betrayed" Luke 22:22. God determined the betrayal would happen, but when it occurred, it did so as a result of a free and responsible act of Judas. There is no contradiction between these two truths. They aren't mutually exclusive as they may appear. Therefore, Judas would not have been an instrument of God (prophet), but rather, an apostate that God knew through His infinite wisdom.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
My Response to Dave Bazan's Worldview
Below are some of the lyrics that Dave Bazan has on his new album. His lyrics on his new album are an apologetic for his somewhat agnostic ideas. These lyrics distort theology in a way that is fatalistic. I will discuss more later. He uses this fatalistic theology to justify being angry at God. Here are some of the lyrics.
(“Curse your branches
“all fallen leaves should curse their branches for not letting them decide where they should fall and not letting them refuse to fall at all”
When we Fell
“When you set the table and when you chose the scale. did you write the riddle that you knew they would fail; did you make them tremble so they would tell the tale, did you push us when we fell. If you knew what would happen and made us just the same then you my lord can take the blame.”
In Stitches
I might as well admit it, like i even have a choice.)
Dave spends the rest of his tracks explaining why he can’t reconcile his inner tension with God and how it this tension has created chaos in his life..ie. drinking etc.. The album sounds as though Bazan is showing God parts of the Bible that don’t add up or make philosophical sense. His songs portray the Biblical narratives in a way that assumes human agents aren’t free, but rather, are pre-determined by God. Bazan questions God’s Biblical actions as if he has a "better" understanding of how to rule the universe. According to Bazan, God is playing a twisted game with humanity and threatening damnation to those that don’t “pass the divine test of faith”. His fatalistic theological assumptions places the blame on God himself for the existence of evil; this is Bazan’s logical conclusion. However, this conclusion is clearly contradicted in scripture. (Hab. 1:13, James 1:13-17).
Before answering these remarks from Dave, we must know a little about him that may clue us into these his disturbing lyrics. Dave has a Bible degree and grew up in a very conservative charismatic church; His theistic struggles, fundamentally, are philosophical and theological. His fatalistic understanding of theology may be due to his brief time as Mark Driscoll’s worship leader at Mars Hill in Seattle, Washington. We may see more enlightened agnostics come out with the evangelical rise of Theistic Determinism.
Bazan’s greatest struggles appear to be coming to grips with God’s actions due given the divine attributes such as omniscience and sovereignty. He blames God for holding humanity hostage to a cosmic determinism that is blind, inscrutable, and inescapable. The often misunderstood Christian form of this doctrine is called divine providence. Providence is different from fatalism on one key component; the Christian understanding of providence provides authentic freedom and human responsibility. Bazan eliminates all human responsibility in his hermeneutical claims. If there is no human responsibility, then Bazan is right to conclude that God is the “puppet master” of which we have no say in the matter.
Dave’s fatalistic understanding of biblical theology makes the future precarious and meaningless, while biblical providence gives us divine guidance and a hope that makes life bearable. it’s obvious Dave is highly philosophically trained. Consequently, he asserts his philosophical reasoning into scripture without considering any harmonious option.
My harmonious option is answered in a previous blog entitled “The Coherence of the Sovereignty of God and Free Will.” http://chadsthought.blogspot.com/2009/07/coherence-of-sovereignty-of-god-and.html My essential claim is that God DID NOT CAUSE the fall. Every event has a cause (we were the cause in the event of the fall), but every cause doesn’t have a cause; therefore, we can’t blame God for the fall. Free will is a result of the Imago Dei (Gen. 1:26-28) Without it, God could not receive the most glory from his prized creation. Enforced love is no love at all. Love requires choice.
Bazan would argue the Bible would support a philosophical determinism which states, human behavior cannot be uncaused, for nothing can happen without a cause. Is God the cause for all external behavior? Dave’s argument is self defeating. A determinist must contend they and non-determinists are determined to believe what they believe. My claim is that freedom is caused by God in His infinite knowledge.
Humans are not machines that cannot be moved until an outside force tips it in one direction or another. Every cause doesn’t have a cause. This fact doesn’t suggest that God is ever surprised nor does it deny Him Sovereignty. Was God not an uncaused Cause? If Bazan doesn’t believe an uncaused cause, then why does he speak in his songs as though God exists? Fatalism surely is hopeless.
It seems to me that some form of self-determinism is most compatible with the biblical view of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. a person’s acts are self-caused. There are certainly external factors that causes behavior, but personal subjects are able to direct their own action. Just as no outside force caused God to create the world, no outside force causes people to choose certain actions.This view is held by Thomas Aquinas and CS Lewis, and Chad Logan... Not that my should ever be placed aside theirs.
Maybe I could write a song like this, “every cause doesn’t have a cause; therefore, we can’t blame God for the fall.”
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The "New" Apostates: Why My Generation is Falling From Grace
I have been utterly broken this past week over a handful of friends and acquaintances who have fled their evangelical roots into the hopeless abyss of agnosticism. This sanctuary of confusion is altogether heartbreaking. Hundreds of theories abound to answer the “Why” question for these new evangelical apostates; my immediate hunch for their “fall” goes back to my previous blog entitled “Preaching: Psychological Manipulation or Spirit Driven.”
These apparent apostates have “never” taken ownership of their faith; there is no authenticity to inherited faith. Inherited faith is an apparent and external "easy-believism" faith accepted merely by the familial, ecclesiastical, or social institution. Faith ownership happens only after individualized regeneration. Young Americans who recall the sinner’s prayer while being sheltered from higher reasoning skills may later grow up asking tough theological questions that will easily destroy their childish faith.
As I have said before, the aim of the church should be discipleship not conversion. Why churches often differentiate between evangelism and discipleship baffles me; the Bible surly doesn’t. Much of the American gospel has demeaned the costs of Christianity in such a way that we have opted for easy believism. The horrifying results are coming in from years of the church creating spoon-fed Christians who were “saved” by scare tactics for the purpose of dodging hell.
Evangelical apostates are also on the rise because of their enlightening realization that much of the American gospel has been highly influenced by partisan politics, modernity’s reasoning, and hedonistic pursuits more than scripture itself; I agree to a large extent. However, many agnostics blame God undeservingly rather than the “men” who claim to act on behalf of God. We should never construct our conception of God through social portrayals. One of my agnostic friends finally understands this dichotomy; he no longer places the blame on God for “religious wars” but rather, man’s false interpretation of God and holy scripture. As the church, we have to confront our laity with the hard questions and get them to think for themselves rather than uploading objective information into their cpu databases. Transferable information makes robots not biblical apologists.
Before going to college, students need to be resourced with the proper theological and philosophical tools for a strong Biblical foundation rather than pizza and concerts. After youth group, when kidults tap into their logical thought processes and begin asking the tough questions of life, they often run away from God. Why is this? Most of these “God-fleeters” use an anti-god philosophy in order to extinguish a sin-ridden conscience from God as they fall into fleshly desires.
Two friends imparticularly have left the faith due to world suffering and “so-called” Biblical discrepancies. These are the same ole arguments we all hear in Philosophy 101. I’m not completely convinced these fleeting reasons are authentic because they could be weighed down in guilt from personal sin issues. Humanity has to choose between two options for a guilty conscience; we either repent or change our belief altogether. It's more convenient to change our belief in order to justify sin. However, If they do have authentic reservations for believing in the divine, they at least deserve a reasonable response.
I would like to begin discussing these agnostic issues using ex-Christian, indie-rock artist, Dave Bazan. His new record, “Curse Your Branches” is his “so-called” divorce to God. My plan is to use his agnostic-driven lyrics and answer his sincerely authentic questions about the biblical and social portrayal of God. My hope is that this endeavor will strengthen my faith and provide answers for sincere doubters.
These apparent apostates have “never” taken ownership of their faith; there is no authenticity to inherited faith. Inherited faith is an apparent and external "easy-believism" faith accepted merely by the familial, ecclesiastical, or social institution. Faith ownership happens only after individualized regeneration. Young Americans who recall the sinner’s prayer while being sheltered from higher reasoning skills may later grow up asking tough theological questions that will easily destroy their childish faith.
As I have said before, the aim of the church should be discipleship not conversion. Why churches often differentiate between evangelism and discipleship baffles me; the Bible surly doesn’t. Much of the American gospel has demeaned the costs of Christianity in such a way that we have opted for easy believism. The horrifying results are coming in from years of the church creating spoon-fed Christians who were “saved” by scare tactics for the purpose of dodging hell.
Evangelical apostates are also on the rise because of their enlightening realization that much of the American gospel has been highly influenced by partisan politics, modernity’s reasoning, and hedonistic pursuits more than scripture itself; I agree to a large extent. However, many agnostics blame God undeservingly rather than the “men” who claim to act on behalf of God. We should never construct our conception of God through social portrayals. One of my agnostic friends finally understands this dichotomy; he no longer places the blame on God for “religious wars” but rather, man’s false interpretation of God and holy scripture. As the church, we have to confront our laity with the hard questions and get them to think for themselves rather than uploading objective information into their cpu databases. Transferable information makes robots not biblical apologists.
Before going to college, students need to be resourced with the proper theological and philosophical tools for a strong Biblical foundation rather than pizza and concerts. After youth group, when kidults tap into their logical thought processes and begin asking the tough questions of life, they often run away from God. Why is this? Most of these “God-fleeters” use an anti-god philosophy in order to extinguish a sin-ridden conscience from God as they fall into fleshly desires.
Two friends imparticularly have left the faith due to world suffering and “so-called” Biblical discrepancies. These are the same ole arguments we all hear in Philosophy 101. I’m not completely convinced these fleeting reasons are authentic because they could be weighed down in guilt from personal sin issues. Humanity has to choose between two options for a guilty conscience; we either repent or change our belief altogether. It's more convenient to change our belief in order to justify sin. However, If they do have authentic reservations for believing in the divine, they at least deserve a reasonable response.
I would like to begin discussing these agnostic issues using ex-Christian, indie-rock artist, Dave Bazan. His new record, “Curse Your Branches” is his “so-called” divorce to God. My plan is to use his agnostic-driven lyrics and answer his sincerely authentic questions about the biblical and social portrayal of God. My hope is that this endeavor will strengthen my faith and provide answers for sincere doubters.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Preaching: Psychological Manipulation or Spirit-Driven
One main goal of preachers, evangelists, or all biblical expositors for that matter is to be divinely driven by the Holy Spirit of God, not by psychological manipulation. The difficulty of this discussion is the apparent subjectivity in the evaluation of any given preacher's intention. No one but God and the preacher knows the preacher’s intention during the preaching event. The expositor must realize when emotionally manipulative tactics are being used in order to demand an audience response.
It may even be possible that Psycological manipulation can be mistaken for Spirit-driven preaching even in the eyes of the expositor. May the expositor always pray the Spirit convicts, not man's charisma. This type of preaching is defeatist. It may reap large numbers of false decisions; Yet, false they are. A decision stemming from emotions will only last as long as the emotions.
Guilt coercion through articulately deceptive tactics that formulate into many observers “Praying a Prayer” for Christ have been observed in all denominations. Perfectly rehearsed invitational songs and softly played music is not necessarily the Spirit moving. The Spirit needs no facilitator or complementary instrument to move.
I feel offended as a preacher when “evangelists” play on the emotions of the audience. The sad part about this extreme danger is that a charismatic communicator can pull the emotional strings of their audience and get the same emotional response based off the emotion they invested.
Here is a scary formula that I have heard evangelists use before and admit to me. Producing laughter creates instant credibility. Once credibility is established in the audience, crying from stage will be contagious throughout; consequently, perfectly setting up an invitational moment. Sadly, Cult leaders use this same method; they have charismatic leaders who have a coercive formula to get an emotional response from their followers. The followers are so oblivious, they don’t even realized it has happened. No one questions the leader's method because the God-card can easily be played in any religion. Nowhere in scripture did Jesus come close to emotionally coercing his followers.
Have we really deduced the gospel into “walking the aisle” and “praying a prayer?” We can’t market the gospel. How many times have your heard someone say “Every head bowed and every eye closed” Or “Just slip your hand up...I see you in the back” Did Jesus use this Method? No.. In fact, many of the crowds weren’t willing to follow Jesus because he required them to give up everything. I’m not convinced Jesus would be the most “successful evangelist” today... Well, using our quantitative measurements of success that is.
People make spur of the moment emotional decisions and slip up their hand at the end of services all the time. Consequently, many people who were coerced into “praying the prayer” don’t experience life change at all because of the manipulation of the physical environment around them. There is not enough emotional inertia during the invitation to produce a life-long pursuit of God. Only the Spirit of God can produce life change. We are deceiving ourselves if we think God depends on our evangelistic strategies.
Did Justification take place after the “magic prayer”? I’m still trying to find the verse that says justification happens in the context of prayer. Please don’t mistake me. I believe prayer is one of the best strategies of justification; it’s vitally important we talk commune with God during this decision. However, Is ‘praying the sinner’s prayer’ the strategy of scripture? Regardless of your exegesis, I’m not convinced it’s the only strategy for people to repent, believe in the Gospel, and submit to the Lordship of Christ.
Emotional coercion is the lowest view of the gospel I can imagine. Nowhere in scripture do we ever see Emotionalism in order to demand a response from the crowds. Paul was a pretty good evangelist, but I never read where he used emotions to demand a gospel response.
Now allow me to go full circle in this discussion; it may appear to be a contradiction to what I have already spoken. It is not. Emotions are the natural response to an authentic decision. A natural response is not to be confused with an automatic or inevitable response.
Bill Bright rightly concluded that emotions are a response to a truthful regenerative experience. Using a train illustration, the Spirit is the engine that pulls the caboose of emotions. Emotions can never be the engine of our faith. The evidence of a decision is repentance through the transformational power of the Spirit, not the tears of our eyes.
This discussion is not ammunition for us to be cynics of the emotional preacher; there are many emotional preachers who are authentically “Spirit-Driven” and I believe Spirit-Driven preachers will consequently be emotional. However, this information should fuel our desire to focus on the follow-up process with people who do “pray the prayer”. Our goal as preachers is to “make disciples” not coerce listeners to “pray the prayer”.
Christianity is not a "label" it's a lifestyle! The Book of Acts said “they were first called Christians in Antioch.” Note they didn’t give themselves the Christian label; they were labeled by others because their lifestyle was that of Christ.
Fear-based evangelism lasts as long as the fear lasts. We need Jesus not because we will die tonite but because we must live tomorrow.
It may even be possible that Psycological manipulation can be mistaken for Spirit-driven preaching even in the eyes of the expositor. May the expositor always pray the Spirit convicts, not man's charisma. This type of preaching is defeatist. It may reap large numbers of false decisions; Yet, false they are. A decision stemming from emotions will only last as long as the emotions.
Guilt coercion through articulately deceptive tactics that formulate into many observers “Praying a Prayer” for Christ have been observed in all denominations. Perfectly rehearsed invitational songs and softly played music is not necessarily the Spirit moving. The Spirit needs no facilitator or complementary instrument to move.
I feel offended as a preacher when “evangelists” play on the emotions of the audience. The sad part about this extreme danger is that a charismatic communicator can pull the emotional strings of their audience and get the same emotional response based off the emotion they invested.
Here is a scary formula that I have heard evangelists use before and admit to me. Producing laughter creates instant credibility. Once credibility is established in the audience, crying from stage will be contagious throughout; consequently, perfectly setting up an invitational moment. Sadly, Cult leaders use this same method; they have charismatic leaders who have a coercive formula to get an emotional response from their followers. The followers are so oblivious, they don’t even realized it has happened. No one questions the leader's method because the God-card can easily be played in any religion. Nowhere in scripture did Jesus come close to emotionally coercing his followers.
Have we really deduced the gospel into “walking the aisle” and “praying a prayer?” We can’t market the gospel. How many times have your heard someone say “Every head bowed and every eye closed” Or “Just slip your hand up...I see you in the back” Did Jesus use this Method? No.. In fact, many of the crowds weren’t willing to follow Jesus because he required them to give up everything. I’m not convinced Jesus would be the most “successful evangelist” today... Well, using our quantitative measurements of success that is.
People make spur of the moment emotional decisions and slip up their hand at the end of services all the time. Consequently, many people who were coerced into “praying the prayer” don’t experience life change at all because of the manipulation of the physical environment around them. There is not enough emotional inertia during the invitation to produce a life-long pursuit of God. Only the Spirit of God can produce life change. We are deceiving ourselves if we think God depends on our evangelistic strategies.
Did Justification take place after the “magic prayer”? I’m still trying to find the verse that says justification happens in the context of prayer. Please don’t mistake me. I believe prayer is one of the best strategies of justification; it’s vitally important we talk commune with God during this decision. However, Is ‘praying the sinner’s prayer’ the strategy of scripture? Regardless of your exegesis, I’m not convinced it’s the only strategy for people to repent, believe in the Gospel, and submit to the Lordship of Christ.
Emotional coercion is the lowest view of the gospel I can imagine. Nowhere in scripture do we ever see Emotionalism in order to demand a response from the crowds. Paul was a pretty good evangelist, but I never read where he used emotions to demand a gospel response.
Now allow me to go full circle in this discussion; it may appear to be a contradiction to what I have already spoken. It is not. Emotions are the natural response to an authentic decision. A natural response is not to be confused with an automatic or inevitable response.
Bill Bright rightly concluded that emotions are a response to a truthful regenerative experience. Using a train illustration, the Spirit is the engine that pulls the caboose of emotions. Emotions can never be the engine of our faith. The evidence of a decision is repentance through the transformational power of the Spirit, not the tears of our eyes.
This discussion is not ammunition for us to be cynics of the emotional preacher; there are many emotional preachers who are authentically “Spirit-Driven” and I believe Spirit-Driven preachers will consequently be emotional. However, this information should fuel our desire to focus on the follow-up process with people who do “pray the prayer”. Our goal as preachers is to “make disciples” not coerce listeners to “pray the prayer”.
Christianity is not a "label" it's a lifestyle! The Book of Acts said “they were first called Christians in Antioch.” Note they didn’t give themselves the Christian label; they were labeled by others because their lifestyle was that of Christ.
Fear-based evangelism lasts as long as the fear lasts. We need Jesus not because we will die tonite but because we must live tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)