Let God Be True

"The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17, ESV).

"Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth"  (1 John 3:18, ESV).

This is the name of the primary Watchtower Bible & Tract Society book which denies the Trinity as being the doctrine invented by Satan himself.  Actually, the church father Tertullian coined the word, and even though it isn't a biblical word, it is taught throughout Scripture from creation, where God is in the plural (Elohim--"Let us create ...") to the Great Commission where we are to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  All members of the Godhead are equally God and equally divine, sharing all attributes of deity alike.  

The reason Charles Taze Russell denied the Trinity was because he thought it was irrational--what made him presume God is able to be comprehended by man (The philosophers of antiquity said, "The finite cannot grasp the infinite") or in Latin: "finitum non capax infinitum").   The more one contemplates this truth, the more one realizes it is from the revelation of God, and not man's invention. Truth is that way, it is not something we would've guessed!  Christianity is a revealed religion and we know it by special revelation, personal visitation, and encounter by God Himself in the person of His only Son, our Lord.

There is one God, though manifested in three personas as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  All of one essence, but having different self-distinctions or consciousnesses.  What trait, characteristic, or attribute of one can be said of the others.  They always act in harmony and concurrence of will (there is no conflict of interest, disharmony, ill-will, or disagreement). If the members of the Trinity disagreed they would be lying by definition of the law of noncontradiction.  They work according to the role and domain they have, such as the Father purposing or proposing salvation, the Son accomplished it, and the Holy Spirit executing and making it known and real in the believer.  

The Father also authored and planned it, the Son did the work of redemption, and the Holy Spirit applied it.  They also worked in concert in creating heaven and earth.  Jesus is known as the logos or logic of God and is called the Word (expression or icon) of God (cf. John 1:14).  Jesus was the incarnation and manifestation of truth itself, proving we can know and grasp it (cf. John 14:6). He pronounced: "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" (cf. John 8:32).

One thing that is impossible for God to do is lie; while man is a liar and lies from the womb according to the Psalms.  Lying isn't just saying something that is contrary to fact on purpose: not saying the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; misspeaking; giving someone a line; making up something as you go along for impression's sake; saying something to gain the upper edge or advantage; false compliments; insincere flattery; any half-truth; misleading statements; exaggeration for effect; saying something to gain advantage; deceptive practices; giving off a false impression; jumping to the conclusion; misrepresentations; saying something that hurts; bearing false witness against your neighbor; disinformation; contradicting yourself; propaganda; not being honest in niceties or pleasantries, such as in greetings and saying you're feeling fine, when you're not; not telling the whole story; leading astray; acting the con man; flirting; buttering up someone; creating a false impression or going along with one; fooling someone; putting spin on something; saying something with bias or subjectivity; pre-judging someone or something; gossip; slander; judging; false portrayal of situations or events, etc.


Face it: We all stand guilty as charged when we realize all this encompasses and more to boot, including omitting the truth as a sin of omission, and anything God wouldn't say. Remember, telling one lie makes you a liar!  But God cannot lie according to Titus 1:2. If God could lie, what kind of God would he be?  President George Washington claimed that he couldn't tell a lie; actually, that's a lie--he could, but chose not to on intentionally. The Bible calls all men liars (cf. Romans 3:4).  President Jimmy Carter told us he wouldn't lie to us, but this was an impossible task as Chief Executive.

Philosophically, Thomas Aquinas believed and affirmed what Augustine had said in that all truth is God's truth and concluded that all truth meets at the top. Francis A. Schaeffer said the Bible is "true truth." Jesus said that God's Word is truth and sanctifies us (cf. John 17:17). Jesus said that the Father is the "only true God" (cf. John 17:3). Truth is what transforms and doesn't just inform or reform. Truth changes lives and is alive and powerful and fills us then makes us hungry. It reads you as you read it!

God judges those who practice deceit and lie on purpose or deliberately like false teachers or prophets, and they will not enter the kingdom of heaven  (cf. Rev. 22:15, ESV:  "... [T]hose who love and practice falsehood").  Satan is a liar and the father of lies, the father of all men before salvation, and when he speaks a lie he is speaking naturally, for this is his nature.  The man who insists he's telling the truth and swears in God's name is probably the most insecure of his integrity.  Like Shakespeare writes: "Methinks thou dost protest too much!"

Note that the Bible records Abraham as having lied about Sarah. When I say someone is a liar I am delineating someone who practices the sin intentionally and loves or approves of it--not some besetting weakness that is confessed. After conversion we have a new nature able, to tell the truth, and overcome the sin of lying--we are no longer prone to lie; however, the flesh is still tempted.  People generally associate liars as those who got caught; however, we are all liars, we all just didn't get caught!  Don't strive to be the ideal man with unrealistic expectations, but to be a real man with ones in touch with reality and needing God to overcome sin--always a battle till glorification.

To claim that you don't lie is a lie and a claim to divinity because only God can claim this:  "... Let God be true and every man a liar" (cf. Rom. 3:4, ESV).  In essence, this is blasphemy (which is a lie by definition) and a direct insult to God's holiness, as He is a jealous God and will tolerate no rivals or someone asserting deity or divinity.  If you've never realized what a liar you were before salvation or that you still are prone to do it because of the resident old sin nature, you have never been convicted of sin and don't know what the word really means or its connotations--the more you realize lies and the more sensitive you become, the more honest you become, the closer to the truth you get, the more aware you become of sin, and then the less sin!


The sad fact is that people aren't concerned with whether an idea is true anymore, but just whether it works, and works for them in particular. There is no Truth with a capital T and all truth is relative now, especially the ones relating to Christianity.  Christians are to proclaim the truth incarnate and that it is knowable, relevant, and profitable. New Age adherents believe something is true if it feels right. Morality is always based on transcendent truth that we all should know and appeal to, not personal opinion, feelings, or conjecture. Unbelievers are those who reject the truth (cf. Romans 2:8). People today deny universal truth that is valid for everyone but insists that it might be true for you, and not for them.


Objective truth is true whether believed or not. (Note:  Even the Greeks sought and loved the true, the good, and the beautiful.)  Two contradictory ideas cannot simultaneously both be true. What they tend to believe is that there is no truth and it is vain to search for it or claim you've found it.  Just like Pilate asked Jesus in John 18:38 what truth was, but didn't stick around for an answer. If you seek the truth with your whole heart you will find it and it will set you free--then you can speak forth truth, and not the lies and deceptions of Satan.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Committing Spiritual Suicide

Doctrinal accuracy is not an option in the church, but a mandate, as teachers are to teach sound doctrine and pay attention to what accords with sound doctrine (cf. Titus 2:1).  There is nothing wrong with the quest to be right, contrary to the teachings of the so-called "emerging church," which has the postmodern philosophy that we haven't nailed down biblical orthodoxy yet, making it "shrink-wrapped" or "freeze-dried."  It is dangerous to react to dogma by not believing in dogma or to be anti-dogma.  It is true, however, that one can be correct in his doctrine and have no spiritual life; we don't want to content ourselves on just being right theologically, with no inner reality.  Faith is more than acquiescence or consent to the church's dogma.

We cannot think that we are a cut above others or that less informed brethren are poor specimens of the faith.  It is vitally more important to be right in our hearts than in our minds--but both are necessary for a living faith.  "You cannot have a sound life without a sound doctrine, but you can have a sound doctrine without a sound life" according to R. C. Sproul.  You could say that one could get A's in theology class and hardly know the Lord at all, but if one does know the Lord, he will not ignore theology; however, it cannot just be in his head

We don't kiss our brains goodbye when converting but begin our search for the truth.  The sign of a believer is that he loves the truth and the sign of the unbeliever is that he rejects the truth (cf. 2 Thess. 2:10)  The unbeliever does not "obey the truth" and will "reject the truth" (cf. Rom. 2:8).  It is not an option to dismiss doctrine as unimportant, an aside, or only a side-issue; one cannot ignore doctrine--it's just what doctrines will be adhered to.  If we dismiss doctrine, we are committing spiritual suicide because we cannot avoid it doctrine. You could say that it is necessary, but not sufficient for a healthy relationship with God.  You can have no normal relationship with God without it, but you can also have no normal relationship with it, too. We cannot dismiss doctrine as irrelevant, because of only childish faith balks at learning the things of God in depth.  (Cf. 1 Tim. 3:9:  "They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.")

We are to contend (per Jude v. 3) for the faith (the common body of knowledge we adhere to).  We must not remain an infant in the faith, unable to comprehend the meat of the Word. What some believers do is to reject all theology or doctrine because they have experienced bad theology or bad theologians and reject theology per se because of it.  This is not an option for the true student of the Word (cf. John 8:31).  As we use our mind to God's glory, we are to "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you..." (1 Peter 3:15, NKJV).

To despise theology is to despise the very Word of God.--not an option (can't avoid it!).   How can you be right in your heart, if you are not right in your mind first?  Our hearts reflect what we think:  "Keep [guard] thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life" (Prov. 4:23, KJV).  Proverbs says, (23:7, NKJV):  "As he thinks in his heart, so is he...."  We are what we think about and our heart is only a reflection of our thoughts.  To be sure, there can be no spiritual health with correct theology, and there can be none without it either. One should not content himself just to be doctrinally orthodox either.  This is what the situation with the Ephesian church was:  They were theologically sound, but had left their first love--this is dead orthodoxy!

We must apply what we know and make it our experience, not just pride.  According to 1 Timothy 4:1, one of the signs of the last days will be that churches will bail out theologically--they will not heed sound doctrine and "depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons." When you ignore sound doctrine, it only opens the door to false doctrine.  We don't just ignore good doctrine because we've had a bad experience with bad doctrine.  Simply because we hate being wrong, we must not avoid theology altogether. God places a premium on the mind and deplores ignorance--ignorance is no excuse and is not bliss either!  We may be against intellectualism, but not against the mind per se and using it to God's glory, as we love God with all our minds.

God's will is to dispel our ignorance and it is the domain of the Holy Spirit to enlighten us, as we "shall know the truth and the truth shall set [us] free" according to John 8:32.  "Canst thou by searching find out [fathom] the deep things of God?"  (Job 11:7, KJV).   The answer is "NO!."   Our religion is a religion of revelation and not of human origin:  "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes."

One modern phenomenon is that we are increasing in knowledge, but remaining unchanged in our natures.  There is a vacuum in everyone that only God can fill, according to Blaise Pascal.  Carl Jung said the "central neurosis of our time is emptiness."  Billy Graham says we are all on a great "Quest" to find meaning and purpose in life and live in a vacuum that is boring (only man is truly capable of being bored despite his environment and circumstances) and "nature abhors a vacuum."  Man not only needs knowledge, but he needs a relationship with God and the wisdom to use it.

It is actually pride that closes the door to learning:  To commence learning we must admit our ignorance!  "I believe in order to understand," said Augustine.  In other words, "all knowledge begins in faith." We must remain vigilant, humble, teachable, open-minded, receptive, needy, and willing to do as God reveals to us to be in the right frame of mind to mature.  When we learn the truth we must not merely say,  "How interesting!" It is meant to upset and challenge us and our lifestyle--God's Word is meant to shock us out of our comfort zones!

You must open yourself up to the possibility that you may be wrong and let God's Word do its thing and have its total impact!  If you've never made a mistake, they say, you've never made anything!   Finally, never get caught in the trap that you've arrived--that you do not have any more need to learn anymore, having the attitude of a "know-it-all."  Soli Deo Gloria!

To The Angel Of The Church

John gets a dictated message from Jesus Himself to give to seven churches in Asia and is told to address them to the angel of the church in each case. One sound principle of hermeneutics is to heed the recipient of a message and interpret it accordingly. Note that these letters are addressed "to the angel of the church" not to the church per se; the letter was not to be circulated among members in my understanding, but read by the angel and applied by him to his church and likely read publicly. These letters are indirect to the churches, but the message relayed by their angels (which, being interpreted really refers to messengers, elders, or spiritual leaders).

Sometimes the Word falls on deaf ears and sometimes the opposite, they have itching ears and just want to hear a good word without any negative news or rebuke accompanying it.  All these letters have both good and bad news, except Philadelphia, which has no rebuke explicit nor implied. It seems that Jesus says the good news first and then says, "Nevertheless, I have this against you...."  At one level all the letters apply to every church and all believers as commendations to aim for and warnings to heed. None of us want to go where some of these churches are. Don't say, "That doesn't apply to me." It does apply; however, the application may be different!  But one point I want to stress is that it is to the angels that the letters are sent and addressed (they may not necessarily be the elders or preachers), and the letters are to be read and applied by them.  It is not what the pastor holds against the flock, but what the Lord holds against them manifest in the Word.

It is quite possible that people were not as literate in those days as they are now, and may have needed someone to read it to them, but in today's society with almost 100 percent literacy in Protestant nations, the letter might have gone into circulation.  Even the Scriptures themselves were widely in circulation and there might have been only one per church that was shared among members.  I do not believe manuscripts, which were hand-copied, were as likely to be privately owned, but mainly in libraries and in churches.  

At that time it was still thought possible to wipe out or stamp out the Bible and abolish it everywhere, making it illegal. Even though people usually graduate from high school today, many still have minimal skill in reading and find it quite challenging or difficult to read because of dyslexia or other handicap or just plain limited academic skill.  Not everyone can read, and this makes them disinclined to do it--I believe this is why we have preachers and teachers who can do the homework and read for them:  "Faith comes by the hearing [via preachers] of the Word"  (cf. Rom. 10:17).

I have been teaching the Bible for years now, and I have been in many Bible classes, being exposed to students of the Word at all academic skill levels and natural abilities, and one thing I have learned is that some people are just not wont to read and do not enjoy it due to difficulty--not everyone finds reading fun and easy and a learning experience. They don't want to read anything mainly because it is over their head and they are not at that reading level--it's no fun for a high school student to read the college-level material unless he is a bright student and quite proficient and ahead of his years.

Some people don't realize that even Bible-reading is a challenge to some--though I believe in the simplicity of the Word and that its main salvation message is plain enough for anyone to comprehend as far as salvation goes (cf. Isa. 35:8)  Part of teaching is to be able to condescend and know where people are and not preach over their heads, and also not to try to "wow" them with your scholarship, which only discourages in the end--students should be able to relate to their teacher. We don't want them to say: "You lost me." Einstein's dictum is right:  "Keep things as simple as possible, but not more so."

Paul told Timothy to pay attention to the "public reading of Scripture" (cf. 1 Tim. 4:13).  During the Middle Ages, people were illiterate and got most of their doctrine from artwork in the church and from the sermons on Sunday and had no direct access to Scriptures, which were even illegal to own in their own language and they were only copied into Latin.  Martin Luther is credited with making Scripture accessible in Germany, and William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale in England (John Wycliffe and Jan Hus actually started the movement).  It wasn't long after the invention of the printing press in ca. 1454-56 that Bibles were widely published, circulated, and available quite cheaply. 

It is not true that, just because a person has graduated from high school that he can read at that level in today's day and age, or that he can read at all, and doesn't have severe difficulty, handicap, or academic deficiency to be able to read at will, even if he desires to.  Those of us who are very good readers are not to look down (which is expecting a certain level of comprehension from reading is doing this) when we note those who lack this skill, nor are we to expect them to rise to our level and find reading pleasurable and rewarding.  It is just as much the schools' fault to have never taught how to read, as natural ability not being inherent in everyone equally.

Jesus urged us not to lord it over one another and Paul told elders not to be domineering; we should not try to micromanage each other's lives and try to tell them what God's will for them is or what they should do to apply the Word of God.  We apply ourselves to the Word of God, and then the Word to us, and then we might have something to share with others and hope they can spread the Word and apply it to themselves.  Case in point:  A teacher cannot say to his student or a preacher to someone in the church that it's God's will to read a certain book or go to a certain class or take a certain course--we are all stewards of our gifts and held accountable accordingly and to whom much is given much is required, etc.  Preachers and teachers can make suggestions and possible applications and can express their opinion, but not to lay down the law and tell people what they ought to do in applying the Word--"Do not go beyond that what is written" (cf. 1 Cor. 4:6, NIV).

It is getting presumptuous to get sidetracked and turn the church into a college or academic institution, instead of a hospital for sinners and family of believers who are meant to do one mission: Fulfill the Great Commission--including preparation;  all else is unnecessary, or in addition to this. We are not to "turn stones into bread" or be involved in the so-called social gospel, which is a misnomer. This mission is our purpose and focus, and we must let people operate and function within their gift's domain and not try to project our gifts onto others and expect them to be like us.

At my last church there was a popular two-year college-level Bible Study that the pastor encouraged members to take, but at no time did he rebuke them for not taking it--one felt accepted whether one took it or not. I'll bet that if a church offered a course at the 9th-grade level there would be some who would take it that don't feel up to the level of the average member.  Some people have the deck stacked against them from the get-go and find other ways to learn the Word and do God's will.  My brother is dyslexic and is hardly the one to ever read a book--I doubt he's ever read one; he didn't even graduate from high school; however, his spiritual development and maturity level, as well as comprehension of the deeper truths, is no less than someone who just reads a lot.  He has gotten his knowledge first-hand while those who just read a lot have accumulated a lot of knowledge that is second-hand.

What we are to encourage people to do is to read the Bible the best they can and be faithful to what God has shown them in the Word. We cannot superimpose our standards of performance or achievement on others--God isn't looking for achievement; He's looking for obedience.  Christ said that His yoke is easy and His burden is light (cf. Matt. 11:30)--we are not to overwhelm our sheep and so discourage them.  The yoke we have to follow is the will of God and we should walk in fellowship with Christ doing His will, in whatever capacity, a sphere of influence, circle of friends, or turf we find ourselves.

Any course should have a purpose:  We don't increase knowledge for knowledge sake.  If it is your calling to be a teacher, then God requires more knowledge--that is the tool of the trade. Knowledge must not remain theoretical or be a basis of pride. It is not an end itself, but a means to an end.  A little knowledge can be dangerous; therefore, we must be careful not to half-educated our sheep give them overconfidence that they know something--knowledge should humble a person and make him realize what he doesn't know. Today, we have too much knowledge to know what to do with it. Wisdom is sen as the good application of knowledge or learning. 

Even believers must realize that the cliche is still valid that "Christianity is a relationship, not a religion" (list of dos and don'ts). You can't just tell people to read the Bible and make them feel guilty if they don't; you have to instill a love and appreciation for the Word, which must come naturally from God, and not conjured up.  I always read the Bible because God gave me a love for it, not because someone told me I had to. Religion says "have to," while Christianity says, "want to.  "Jesus said that eternal life is to know Him (cf. John 17:3) and this should remain the focus.  It is often tempting to tell others what they ought to do (unless the Bible admonishes it). We all have an inner sense of "ought." The end result may be that they stop listening or don't think you know what you're talking about.

Pastors advice from Paul is "not lording it over those entrusted to [them], but being examples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:3, NIV).  We are not out to make clones of ourselves nor set up ourselves as the standard to emulate; God doesn't want cookie-cutter Christians.  Paul urged young preacher Timothy to "preach the word" in 2 Tim. 4:2 and we must realize that truth endures and is unchanging, but applications may or may not apply and are different for different people.  Paul told Titus to "teach what accords with sound doctrine"  (Titus 2:2, ESV).

In the final analysis, knowledge (except knowledge of God) puffs up (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1), and it is not what we know, but what we apply--viz., faith expressing itself through love (cf. Gal. 5:6, NIV). It is not in the knowledge of Scripture that the power is, but in the doing of it (cf. James 1:22). Our aim is to know the Lord, not getting a big head, and in this should we boast (cf. Jer. 9:24). It is not knowing the Scriptures, but knowing the Author!  One great teacher may be a great scholar but hardly know his Lord.

The aim is not to know about the Bible (or be educated in it), nor even to familiarize yourself with it, but to get acquainted with the AUTHOR and be at peace with Him (cf. Job 22:21). Anyone who knows the Lord is all right in my book and I would never attempt to throw stones and try to bring guilt at not meeting my own personal standards of scholarship--I know God's will for me, but not for someone else. We can know who we are in the Lord, but not necessarily for someone else.

Personally, I believe you can learn from anyone, even a child, but there comes a coming of age spiritually when you venture out on your own studies and not become dependent on someone else if you have this gift. The same can be said about a lot of endeavors: I know that God loves music and brings him glory; however, I'm not musical and cannot carry a tune or sing in key, so I depend on the talents and gifts of others;  I don't need another book on prayer--I just need to pray; I don't have a deep theology on prayer--I just believe in prayer!

In summation, we must find out who we are individually in the Lord and what our own calling is and what we can do, not thinking we have to be like someone else or compare ourselves with others, as is the manner of some; or, conversely, that others have to be like us and minister similarly.  We can all strive to be angels or messengers in the church.     Soli Deo Gloria!

Defender Of Faith

We are called to contend for the faith that was once and for all delivered to us, according to Jude 3. Christianity is rightly called a faith, rather than a religion, because of two things:  The common body of knowledge adhered to; and the virtue of faith that is essential for its doctrine of redemption.  Religion is not a faith in the same sense--our faith is in a person that we know ("I know whom I have believed..," says 2 Tim. 1:12), and our faith is not in a system or code of ethics or rules and ritual.

Saving faith is a living faith that grows--where is it going?  It is not being credulous or believing for no sound reason--we have ample reasons to believe and don't believe despite the evidence.  We take God at His Word and accept His authority over ours as self-attesting (which means that if you appeal to any higher authority than Him, then you are saying He is not God, but the authority is). We are not inclined to believe due to our depravity and must be regenerated unto faith by an act of grace of the Holy Spirit. The only manifestation of faith and the test of faith is obedience--you cannot believe in the Lord without submission, it's a contradiction in terms.

These two are equated in Hebrews 3:18-19; 4:6).  Faith commences with receptivity and an open mind, and you don't need all the answers to believe; you are required to take a leap of faith because faith is what pleases God (cf. Heb. 11:6). Some think of it as going with the preponderance of the evidence as a jury making a decision and going in the direction of the evidence, though you don't have all the evidence that is possible and there may be gaps in it to fill by faith.

It takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer and there is sufficient evidence for anyone with an open mind (can have your own opinions, but not your own facts; some say, "I already have my mind made up, don't confuse me with the facts"), a willing (i.e., to do God's will) spirit, and a needy (poor in spirit, or recognizing need for God and depravity and sinfulness of self) heart.  Not believing in God is not evidence and one must always inquire, "What evidence is there that there is no God, etc?" You cannot prove that God doesn't exist, or that Jesus didn't rise from the dead; the opposite of Christ rising from the dead is not that people don't normally do this, but that He didn't--and there's much circumstantial, historical, and empirical evidence that suggests He did!

There is historical or story-book faith that's all in the head, and then there's heart belief that saves. We must not only believe that Christ lived but that He lives.  And that He died for you personally.  Christ wasn't just born, but must be born in you!  We may come to Christ, which is believing in Him and say, "I believe, help thou mine unbelief" (Mark 9:24).  You need to be sincere, but can be sincerely wrong--you have to believe the right thing about Christ and be orthodox--sincerity is necessary, but not sufficient.  Finally, saving faith is childlike, but not childish, and simple, but not simplistic.

We do not believe it is the amount of faith that saves, but the direction or object that counts.  You can have great faith in the church and its program and be lost (that's why some will say to the Lord, "Lord, Lord, did we not [do this or do that]?").  There are some whose faith is weak, but at least it is in the right direction.  It's like having only a little faith to step out on the frozen lake that has 2-foot-thick ice--it doesn't take much faith!  Our God is so great, it isn't our faith that saves--it's Jesus, who is the only Savior who saves.  The problem most people have is not that their faith is too small, but their God is too small and their thoughts of God are too human! We boast of a big God who can do anything, and with whom everything (except going against His nature) is possible.  That's why Jesus said that faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains (which means attempting great tasks that seem impossible without God).  With God on our side, little is much and we can do a lot with our small ability--we all have the small ability and need to depend on God.  It isn't how much self-esteem we have, but God-esteem!

The crown prince of Great Britain wants to change his motto of the monarchy, "Fidei Defensor" or defender of the faith (FD), to defender of faith. Faith is a virtue but it is the gift of God and we are to use it to His glory.  Peter wrote "to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with [their]..." (2 Peter 2:1, ESV).  Paul says in Romans 12:3 (ESV) that we serve "each according to the measure of faith God has assigned [us]." Jesus said, that to whom much is given, much is required.  And also of a woman that she has done what she could.   Being the defender of faith per se is not biblical, because it must be the faith that saves, not just faith for faith's sake or faith in faith.

The Bible says, "... For not, all have faith"  (2 Thess. 3:2, ESV).  This is referring to saving faith because everyone has faith in something, even if it's oneself and he thinks he's a self-made man. Some have faith in the system or in religion, and some have faith in nothing (nihilism), which takes more than to believe in God because there is more evidence for God than against Him.   It isn't for lack of evidence that a person rejects God, but with the heart, he doesn't believe out of his stubbornness and unwillingness to do God's will--for Jesus said, that if any man is willing to do His will he shall know of the doctrine. Man simply doesn't want to believe, it's not an intellectual problem--these are just smokescreens designed to change the subject and stump the Christian with side issues--the real issue is repenting of sin and following Jesus as Lord and Savior for a new and more abundant, eternal life.

There is no such thing as easy-believism whereby your faith involves no commitment nor surrender of the ownership of your life--salvation is free but it's not cheap!  The only kind of faith that saves is productive faith that yields good fruit, for you shall know them by their fruits. We are indeed saved by faith alone, but the formula of the Reformation says, it is not by a faith that is alone.  James 2:20 says that faith without works is dead--that kind of faith cannot save.  No fruit--no faith--no salvation! Faith comes by the hearing [or preaching] of the Word (cf. Rom. 10:17), and isn't conjured up, caught like one catches a cold by going somewhere, imagined, gained by osmosis, or even hanging around the right people.  We don't work ourselves into the mood to believe!  It is the gift of God and comes through the power of the Word of God.

The first step to believing is a willingness to listen and receptivity, you must understand next and then put your trust and reliance on Christ and stop trying to save yourself or get your act together--you can never do this; cleaning up your act comes after salvation as a fruit and sign of a changed life.  Faith must be put to work and it consists of knowledge but knowledge put to use and acted on:  By faith, Abraham obeyed, etc.  We must realize and act on our faith to make it real saving faith by taking the leap of faith.  Works are the byproduct of saving faith and not the substitute for it because we are ordained unto good works according to Ephesians 2:10.  We don't do them because we have to (legalism) but because we want to out of a grateful and changed the heart.  We are not saved by works and we are not saved without them either!  They can be distinguished, but not separated.

There is not saving faith without genuine repentance either! They go together as one package and are the flip side of each other.  In Scripture, they are often mentioned in juxtaposition.  They can be distinguished, but not separated.  Repentance is turning from sin and faith is turning to God--in other words, you do an about-face or U-turn (cf. Acts 20:21).  We exchange our life of sin for a life in Christ as we choose to follow Him. If a person is impenitent, he cannot be a believer; likewise if one doesn't believe, he is also impenitent, because they go hand-in-hand. If you have a problem with believing, it's probably some sin you are cleaving to and refusing to surrender to the Lordship of Christ.

The formula of the Reformers was that we are saved:  By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and by the authority of Scripture alone, and to God alone be the glory!  Soli Deo Gloria!

The Spirit Speaketh Expressly

"[S[o that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes"  (Eph. 4:14, ESV).
"Do not be led astray by divers and strange teachings [far-fetched ideas]" (Heb. 13:9, ESV).
Note that a believer needs a frame of reference of sound doctrine in order to interpret the Bible and discern good teaching when he hears it.

In the last days there shall be an apostasy or great falling away:  "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings [doctrines] of demons"  (1 Tim. 4:1, ESV).  This not only a warning to heed but a sign to acknowledge that we are in the last days, and can see the day approaching and Christ knocking at the door.  What characterizes these teachers?  They may have impressive degrees that give them so-called authority, but they are not called by God to speak in His name because they only want to create disciples of their way of thinking and school of thought, rather than discipling believers to equip them for spiritual conflict with Satan and to complete the Great Commission, our marching orders.

Another sign you might look for is the sign today of the megachurch or a preacher that is a celebrity and has learned to preach what people want to hear as if itching their ears.  The size of a church has zilch to do with the blessing of God on the ministry--the maturity of members is more indicative.   Actually, megachurches are usually just a gathering of crowds that are fans of a popular preacher, and when he passes, the church might even be in transition spiritually.  Churches are supposed to be families and fellowships and we are supposed to be involved in it, not just attending it.

Discern good and evil as mature believers (cf. Heb. 5:14) and heed teachers devoted to sound doctrine.  Remember, Jesus wasn't educated and the only three men of substantial learning in the Scriptures were likely Moses, Daniel, Luke, and Paul.  God usually calls those that are not the mighty or noble of society.  You don't have to be a scholar to speak for God and degrees (no matter how many or how prestigious) don't guarantee a teacher is qualified to teach or preach in God's name.  However, you must be called of God and anointed to preach and you can even be a layman like Amos, who was not a prophet nor the son of a prophet (he didn't go to prophet school, as it were cf. Amos 7:14).

Something is not true because the teacher pontificates and speaks ex-cathedra like a Pope--even Popes are fallible and have been wrong and contradictory--nothing is true because someone says so. Be careful to hold only the Word of God as infallible (as Augustine told Jerome). The verification must come from the Word, which cannot be broken (cf. John 10:35), and not on the basis of any other authority!  The cry of the Reformation was Sola Scriptura, which is Latin for "by Scripture alone." The Roman Church recognizes other authorities such as tradition, which was held in equal esteem, credibility, and/or authority as the Bible (per the Counter-Reformation at the Council of Trent, 1546-48), and the right to interpret Scripture was in the hands of the clerics, meeting at the top with the Pope as Head of the Church.

One present-day phenomenon is the emergence of charismatic preachers who may be known in the media quite readily by blitzing the media with name ministry familiarity, and because of financial resources are able to saturate the public with their agenda and campaign.  We should never be impressed with personalities or anything the world can offer such as that may seem prestigious.  We should be impressed that the preacher is devoted to and teaches sound doctrine.

How do we challenge these heretics?  We must know basic sound doctrine and also know what is major doctrine and what is disputable, questionable, a gray area, a matter of opinion, or nonessential. Some doctrines are wrong, but some are damnable heresy, able to condemn the soul.  (Denying the deity of Christ is so basic as to be fundamental and a litmus test for true Christians to affirm.) They may quote the authorities as the Pharisees did, but we must quote the Bible to debunk their doctrine. Just ask them, "Do you have a verse for that?" We have the right to speak in God's name if we speak the Word of God and are true to sound doctrine as believers.

Don't be impressed with the teacher's credentials, except that he is filled with the Spirit and has an anointing to preach and teach--be spiritually discerned!  Nothing is true because a great teacher says so--we are supposed to be like the Bereans, who search the Scriptures to see if things are so as taught. They may have clever, specious arguments, but you must steer them back to the Word and ask again the question: "Do you have a verse for that?" As Romans 4:3 says, "For what does Scripture say?"| I cannot emphasize this enough.   In other words, it may seem so true and even ring true, but can you cite a Scripture for it?

Beware of high-sounding nonsense (cf. Col. 2:8), philosophy and know this for sure:  "No Scripture is of any private interpretation" according to 2 Pet. 1:21.  This is interpreted commonly as meaning that God doesn't reveal secrets or interpretations to some teacher in isolation that He doesn't to others. You cannot say that God reveals a mystery to you and not to others!  Soli Deo Gloria!

Watch Your Doctrine!...

Verses to ponder and reflect on:

"Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching [i.e., doctrine]"  (1 Tim. 4: 13, ESV).

"Therefore, let us leave the elementary doctrines of Christ and go on to maturity ..." (Heb. 6:1, ESV).

The body of Christ is one no matter where you go and you can have fellowship with a believer no matter what church he attends (fellowship actually could mean two fellows in the same ship).  We truly are "one in the Spirit."  But there must be commonality and unity (not necessarily uniformity) to have fellowship and you can fellowship with someone of a different denomination or doctrinal persuasion, but never think this implies doctrine is not important and that God doesn't expect us to learn the truth and be dedicated to its dissemination.  You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand--you can agree to disagree and find common ground to fellowship on--All Christians have Jesus in common and should not get so sectarian that they don't love the brethren, regardless of affiliation.

The Bible refutes the notion that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere--the common fallacy of today's worldview. Paul exhorted Timothy to "Keep a close watch on [himself] and on the teaching [literally, doctrine].  Persist in this, for by so doing [he] will save both [himself] and [his] hearers"  (1 Tim. 4:16, ESV).  You can be sincerely wrong, though sincerity is important. We can be singing kumbaya around a campfire and learn to get along because we're all Christians (members of one church should have no internal dispute--yes--but cross-town rivals might!).

Timothy was told not to neglect the gift he had--he reportedly was a church troubleshooter, and I believe this is a sort of theologian.  Mainstream denominations are highly ecumenical in that they believe in interdenominational cooperation despite differences of doctrine.  Sure, there are major doctrines we should not compromise, but we should never major on the minors and divide Christ. This was the mistake of Corinth that had become highly sectarian. There is a place for forgetting our differences and let love be the rule of the day, like when we translate Bibles and don't want to have a sectarian bias, or charitable and outreach programs that they can concur on.  But nowhere does the Bible authorize that we neglect doctrine or its value to make us grow up in the Lord.  "All Scripture is profitable for doctrine ..." (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).

Ignorance is not bliss and God puts no premium on it and expects believers to responsibly study according to their abilities and become genuine students of the Word:  "... If you abide in my Word, you are truly my disciples" (John 8:12, ESV).  What is implied is this:  "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free [Jesus called God's Word Truth and said we are sanctified by it in John 17:17]."  We are not born free as humans, but in bondage to sin and must be set free by Christ ("If the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed," cf. John 8:36).

Paul exhorts Titus:  "But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1, ESV). Notice that Paul says in v. 1 that the knowledge of the truth accords with godliness--there's a correlation!  It is by the acquisition of truth that we become sanctified as I quoted in John 17:17.  He also says, "... give instruction in sound doctrine ..." (Titus 1:9, ESV).   We need to know doctrine, according to Paul in Ephesians 4:14 so that we will not "be tossed to and fro ... by every wind of doctrine ...."

I don't know if there is a gift of being a theologian or if some people just have the knack for it and seem to excel in organized, systematic thinking and analysis of Bible teaching or doctrine.  But no one in the body is superfluous and unnecessary--the body needs theologians too, no matter what the gift may be.  A good theologian can identify a false doctrine a mile away and organizes his teaching and be thinking so as to be able to categorize it and disseminate it in an orderly way--let everything be done decently and in order according to 1 Cor. 14:40. Theologians have a viewpoint because they usually belong to a certain school of thought and tend to interpret things partially--remember, there is no such thing as perfect objectivity, except with God.

It has its limits:  For instance, you aren't going to convince a devoted Arminian that he can't lose his salvation--he has interpreted the whole Bible while denying that premise.  I remember that when God opened my eyes to the truth of eternal security it seemed like scales came off my eyes and the whole of Scripture was opened in meaning to me with a viewpoint (I previously had no opinions or didn't know what to believe or even who to believe).   Soli Deo Gloria!

The Place Of Sound Doctrine...

To theologians:  Don't be content or satisfied just to be right in your doctrine, because there is more to the Christian abundant life than knowing all the answers, in being right all the time, or your "philosophy," because love is what makes us distinct--not orthodoxy, which can be a sham or pretense.  You can have all your theology correct and be hollow and shallow inside amounting to nothing spiritually, and then again you can know very little about doctrine (I assume you know the basics of a standard credo) and have a very strong faith.  However, if the doctrine you do believe in is not sound, your walk will not be either:  You can have a sound doctrine without a sound life, but not a sound life without sound doctrine--you cannot be a heretic, or out on a limb.

r

To be a theologian is not a spiritual gift and we are all theologians; some are just better at it than others or are more serious about it.  It is not whether or not you are a theologian, but what kind of theologian you are--your doctrinal viewpoint reflects your theological school of thought and you see in this light in a sort seeing the big picture through a lens.  Without doctrine, you get tunnel vision and don't have any perspective.  A lot of theological skill is just plain academic skill and that is why all the great theologians have been men of great learning and expertise. A word of wisdom:  We are not rewarded according to how much we know, but how much we sow.

Doctrine is not everything, but it is still necessary, and if you realize that it means "teaching" you will not object to the nomenclature.  The early disciples were devoted to the "apostles' doctrine" according to Acts 2:42.  Paul urges Timothy to "watch your doctrine closely...."  There will come a time according to 2 Timothy 3 that men will not endure sound doctrine, but will "bail out theologically" to use Chuck Swindoll's wording.  No matter what, you cannot avoid facing up to theology or you commit spiritual suicide--this is not an option for the believer, according to R. C. Sproul, renowned theologian.

We are not all professional theologians and the reason they get such a bad rap is basically the distrust of theologians, and their reputation as being eggheads, intellectuals, and scholarly, and not realistic or applicable. To cite three well-known examples:  Where would we be without St. Augustine of Hippo, the greatest theologian of the first 400 years, of the church after the closing of the canon? It was Tertullian who first termed and taught clearly the doctrine of the Trinity.  "All Scripture is profitable for [what?] doctrine..." (2 Tim. 3:16); Athanasius was called the Father of Orthodoxy because of his diatribe with the Aryan heretics and defense of the triune Godhead.  

That is a loaded question since most people have a preconceived idea of what doctrine is. Doctrine is important; don't bail out theologically (cf. 2 Tim. 4:3). We all have a credo; we all have doctrines; some of us just don't have sound doctrine. Usually, they think of something dogmatic or doctrinaire or narrow-minded. They want to avoid doctrine. Actually, if we realize that all doctrine means is "teaching" then half the problem is solved. Who's against teaching?

Doctrine isn't just for intellectuals. You don't commit spiritual or intellectual suicide when you join a ministry or church. You are committing spiritual suicide if you ignore doctrine: It is a given and we are all theologians in a sense. We cannot avoid doctrine: "All Scripture is profitable for doctrine..." (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16). "Those who are wayward in spirit shall gain understanding; those who complain will accept instruction [doctrine, as it were]" (cf. Isa. 29:14).

There is value in knowing the scoop, as it were, or being "clued in," because this gives us confidence and these two, according to Charles Swindoll, are like Siamese twins. Doctrine feeds the soul and is the spiritual bread that Christ referred to when He said, "You shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (cf. Matt. 4:4). Just because we are privy to some doctrine doesn't make us a cut above other Christians. " The mere presence of doctrine can leave us cold, even if it is sound doctrine." It is necessary for spiritual wellness but not sufficient.

We don't have the right to believe what we feel is right but must obey rules of hermeneutics and logic that apply to any other book as well. Avoiding controversy is un-Christlike because Christ didn't shy from controversy: "To avoid controversy is to avoid Christ" (see John Stott's book Christ the Controversialist) The early disciples were devoted to the apostles' doctrine or teaching. Remember, God wants us to be "mature in our understanding." Ignorance is not bliss! It is a childish faith that balks at learning Scripture in depth. The meat of the Word is for those who "have their senses trained to discern good and evil" (cf. Heb. 5:14). I rest my case!    Soli Deo Gloria!

Knowledge Has Its Place

"...knowledge puffs up, but love edifies"  (1 Cor. 8:1b).

Does this mean that knowledge is inappropriate?  Why do we pursue knowledge anyway?  Do we just have a desire to be smarter than everyone or to have all the answers?  Knowledge is indeed a byproduct of knowing the Lord and being obedient in the faith by discipleship and application.  We should never pursue it for its own sake because it is merely a means to an end, and not the end itself--we must always ask ourselves why we are learning something and what our inner or ulterior motives are.  We can't all be scholars (and some don't even know the Lord to their shame, like the Pharisees), but there is a need for them in the body and they have their function.  We can't all be theologians who organize Bible teaching (doctrine just means teaching pertinent to a subject), but there is a need for them to defend the Bible (polemics) just like we need apologists to defend the faith.  We are all basically theologians, it just varies how good of a one we are--they are not just Christians good at theology, i.e., we all have a viewpoint or interpretation of Scripture that biases us, and no one is impartial completely, except God, who alone is objective in toto.

When teaching others, we want to aim to disciple them, not educate them, and that means to lead them on to a personal relationship with and knowledge of the Lord through Bible application--and no sermon or teaching is complete without making application, or it is just theory without practice or just something to talk about and not do something about.  We should be stirred to do something new by way of application that we wouldn't normally do.  The tendency for some students of the Word is to become intoxicated with the deeper truths of the Bible that they forget or neglect the basics of the Word or feel they have outgrown the milk of the Word, just because they can digest the solid food. We must restrain our natural curiosity and not just study for curiosity sake, but for a yearning for the things of God and a genuine thirst for the Word itself.

We need to pass the baton to the next generation what we have learned so they won't make the same mistakes!  A good teacher doesn't balk at teaching the whole counsel of God to the best of his ability and training and doesn't just have a personal agenda and motive to convert them to his way of thinking or interpretation.  There is a big danger in getting a big head and having too high an opinion of yourself when you have increased in knowledge without application.  The goal of the teacher should be to make the student independent of his teaching so he can in turn disciple others and the cycle continues.

The Pharisees knew a lot about the Scriptures and didn't know the Author and so they couldn't interpret it; they just had religiosity and customs to pass on.  They had in effect externalized religion and thought that going through the motions was all that mattered.  This is called "memorizing the dance of the pious."  It is formalism without any heart involved or what Jesus called being lukewarm in Revelation 3:19.  We don't want to be like the debaters who made it their way of life to just talk about the latest ideas or theories, but be doers of the Word, and not merely hearers (even if we gladly hear it).  Everyone doesn't have the same mental capacity and to whom much is given much is required, so we are not to hold everyone to the same standard, but let God be the judge.c

We also don't want to be hypocrites like the Pharisees who didn't practice what they preached either (Jesus said to listen to them, but don't imitate them). The more eager we are to learn and the more we apply it and pass on to others, the more God will reveal to us--but it is always a byproduct and we are not to compare ourselves with ourselves.   Remember that the Hebrews went into captivity because of their ignorance to their shame ("My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..," says Hosea 4:6a).

We don't want to know "about the Bible" but to know the Author of the Bible and use our knowledge constructively and to edify others. Knowledge is a spiritual gift and some believers are simply gifted with more of it, and we are not to hold everyone to the same standard.  They can become serious students of the Word to detect error and heresy and to pass on sound doctrine.

Note also that knowledge can be dangerous, especially when one gets an exclusive mindset thinking he is right and everyone else wrong and gets highly sectarian and dogmatic on nonessential doctrine. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and a half-educated person can do more damage than an uneducated one.  Always bear in mind Augustine's dictum:  "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

In conclusion, don't fall under the delusion that ignorance is bliss, because knowledge is power according to Blaise Pascal and Proverbs 24:5 (ESV):  "...and a man of knowledge enhances his might"; however, anyone who thinks he knows it all or knows some secret others don't (like the Gnostics who thought they were in "the know" and clued in above others and they had the secret to salvation), doesn't yet know as he ought to know, because no one has a monopoly on wisdom, or inside track, revelation, or knowledge.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Drawing The Line

Where do human rights and religious freedom conflict?  Many Christians are against gay marriage and rightly so, for it is not biblical (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9) nor sanctioned as God's plan for man.  But all humans have rights bestowed by God, such as the right to survive which includes the right to look for work or to eat.  We are all sinners and it would be like saying you don't want to serve an alcoholic or a felon.

One cannot deny basic rights conferred by God because said person is a sinner who offends you (this is not promoting or approving their lifestyle).   It would only be prejudice to refuse some service at a restaurant because everyone has a right to eat and this doesn't conflict with any doctrine or teaching of Scripture--all humans are to be treated with respect and dignity as they are all in the image of God, even though marred and tarnished.  Now if the government told a preacher he had to perform a gay marriage, he has the right to refuse--but he may do at his peril and lose his privilege to marry!  He must be willing to pay the price for standing up for right and wrong (we believe in absolute right and wrong--some things are always right, some always wrong).

 No one should be forced to participate in gay marriage in any way that makes him an accessory such as making the wedding cake or taking pictures either (if this is interpreted as their endorsing it like having his name on it or getting publicity).  Why? This clearly goes against sound doctrine and is evil  (male and female He created them ... and said that it was very good). The freedom of religion is not absolute--one cannot say that he has the right of polygamy in America or that he is cannibalistic, for instance.  But all rights have limits (one's rights end where another person's begin): one cannot yell "fire" in a theater either. One must be very careful in legislating that could cause discrimination because that is morally wrong.

But the constitution guarantees the free practice of religion and it cannot restrict its free exercise or force someone into a creed or practice.  Forcing someone to be an accomplice in evil is clearly going over the line morally; I am not a homophobe and do not even object to gays in the military as long as logistical problems are resolved, no one is forced to get "intimate" with them, and no one's privacy is invaded.  But the government crosses the line in forcing the military to "celebrate" or even associate with gay pride in the service which I interpret as "endorsing" it.  They have a right to pride, but not in making me an accessory or accomplice.

In conclusion, the example of a caterer supplying cake to the wedding being interpreted as "endorsing" it (i.e., putting our name to it or making the news or getting publicity--note the example that Paul brings up about the meat sacrificed to idols--for conscience's sake don't ask) would be wrong, but just supplying food or cake to any sinner is not a sin because that is not "endorsing" it.  Let each act according to their own conscience, but if they act in civil disobedience, they must suffer the consequences.   You have to draw the line somewhere:  everyone could be considered an indirect accessory, even the truck driver that brought the dough, but when they "endorse" it in a legal sense we draw the line--we cannot be forced to give our approbation or imprimatur to evil.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Agreeing To Disagree

This is almost a cliché now but it cannot be stressed enough in the body of Christ:  "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace"  (Eph. 4:3). We don't want to be contentious, disagreeable, nor divisive, that is to say.   It has been well said by Chuck Swindoll that if you drink of only one fountain, you will lose your discernment.  What that means is to keep an open mind and don't think you or your group have monopolized the truth and get a Bible-club mentality.  We all need each other and are all part of the story, as it were--the Spirit of truth will lead us into all truth.  The church is to be semper reformanda, which means "always reforming" and we never will complete arriving at truth until Christ perfects His Bride.

 In a marriage, it is good to have an agreement, but disagreement can serve a purpose also:  It challenges our wits and brings to light issues that would otherwise go unnoticed.  If they agree all the time, one of them is unnecessary!  In a church body we want to strive for unity in the Spirit, of course, but leave room for disagreement or dissension in the body.  Aurelius Augustine of Hippo said, "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity."  There are certain doctrines that we cannot compromise on like the Trinity and salvation by faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone.   We have to agree to disagree even in the body and not "muzzle the ox that treads out the grain," [hinder or restrain someone from proclaiming the truth] so to speak.  We need healthy dialog and debate in the body to grow in the faith--that's why Jude says to "contend for the faith."

The whole idea behind the Protestant Reformation was what Martin Luther proclaimed:  "I dissent, I disagree, I protest!"  We are not at the mercy of church dogma any longer and realize our God-given right to interpret Scripture on our own and form our own beliefs and convictions; however, we are not free to fabricate our own truths and are responsible for our doctrines.  Roman Catholic churches do not allow this liberty and laypeople are at the mercy of the clergy and the Pope to interpret for them.

We need more healthy dialog in our churches and believers who aren't too timid or intimidated to speak up for the truth as they see it.  Most churches today have come full circle:  "What do you believe, Sir?"  "I believe what my church believes."  "What does your church believe?" "What I believe!" "What do you both believe?"  "We believe the same thing!"  We might as well be Catholics as blindly follow a teacher without question, no matter how good he is.  No one is apostolic today, despite the Pope claiming apostolic succession, and is inerrant or infallible.  To err is human!  Augustine said, that he had learned to hold only the Scriptures as inerrant and infallible.

The condition for arriving at the truth is to realize that you don't know all of it yet and have an open mind, that is willing to admit it could be wrong.  The truth is not arrived at by vote or majority rule, but by the conviction of the Holy Spirit that is called the illuminating ministry and God can convict us of the truth--"If any man will to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine..." (John 7:17).  Soli Deo Gloria!

To Ignore Minor Doctrine

Martin Luther said, "I dissent, I disagree, I protest." He saw the doctrine of soteriology (this is perhaps the most significant doctrine and yet most misunderstood) seriously distorted and sought to reform the teachings regarding salvation because he was shocked at the condition of the church in his day (i.e., Tetzel selling indulgences et al.). He saw this as vitally important: to challenge the authority of Rome and the Papists. He was brave and faced the king and the pope at the Diet of Worms (1521).  He is known for saying: "To go against conscience is neither right nor safe."

Likewise, Jesus chose not the path of popularity, but called His followers a "little flock." It takes the character to stand alone and not to a conformist. There are two ways to get ahead in the church: playing church politics and taking a stand. Usually, God will bless you for taking a stand, especially if you are right. These seem to be mutually exclusive just like we have few politicians who are willing to do what is right and take a moral stand: that's why we have politicians and statesmen. I would not want to be known as one who compromised the truth or watered it down to gain followers. If I get promoted spiritually, I want it to be of God and not man. It is also wrong to brown-nose your way up in your company as well as in church: i.e., not do it as unto the Lord, but unto men.

We are to teach to the whole counsel of God: Paul said, "All Scripture is profitable for doctrine [teaching]...." To distinguish between major and minor doctrines is not biblical since there is no mention of this nomenclature. You could say that creation, judgment, and rapture are minor doctrines, too. I have been in a group that doesn't want to mention the wonderful doctrine of the eternal security of the believer because it might offend some who are Arminian. R. C. Sproul says to avoid controversy is to avoid Christ. (John Stott wrote a book, Christ the Controversialist and showed that He was not afraid of it.)

I have no personal agenda nor ax to grind and have made it clear that I am Reformed in my doctrinal viewpoint. If you attend a church they have the right to their doctrinal understanding and don't have to be interdenominational or nondenominational. Personally, I believe in the autonomy of the local church and it alone has the authority to decide its doctrines. But some would say ecclesiology is a "minor" doctrine. There are doctrines that sincere believers disagree on and one shouldn't be dogmatic on them, but that doesn't mean we can't mention them in passing when they come up; we just don't make them our agenda.

No matter what doctrines we teach, we are bound to offend some--that's the very nature of truth. The measure of truth is not what doesn't offend or the lowest common denominator. I am not afraid to ruffle some feathers or to give my opinion on a disputable topic, even if it only serves to stimulate interest, debate, or study.

Parachurch organizations (churches are organisms, on the other hand, and Christ is the head of the body), those not associated with any particular church and usually nondenominational, tend to outreach and not devoted to certain doctrines. I was involved with the Navigators, for instance, in the Army and they had a mission to the military personnel; they didn't see themselves as in competition with the local church, but supplemental. If we are not in a position of authority we cannot change doctrine or policy but must comply (to rules and bylaws, for example) if we want to be part of the ministry (this doesn't mean we have to always be conformists and can't be an influence). But Christ established the local church and gave it the Great Commission--"and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Augustine said it well: "In essentials (NONNEGOTIABLES), unity; in non-essentials [NEGOTIABLES], liberty; in all things, charity." We are not to be dissentious or disagreeable, but to agree to disagree. Cut some slack! There are doctrines that are not necessary to salvation; they should not be ignored either. For sure, to ignore doctrine just because one thinks it is minor is spiritually detrimental. We are not to major on the minors and get sidetracked. Let's not be petty and quibble over non-issues respecting salvation. Some Christians like to split hairs or get trivial about the details, but this defeats the purpose of teaching to stimulate thinking and growth. To sum it up, we are to keep the main thing the main thing, and not forget our focus on the gospel message and plan of salvation and how they relate.
Soli Deo Gloria!

A Doctrinal Testimony

A testimony is to attest to a first-hand account and account for it--it is hard to argue, like a man saying, "I was blind, but now I see." In a testimony, we give the synopsis of our life before conversion, how we got converted, and life after the leap, so to speak. Before the conversion, there is unrest and perplexity, then there is a turning point or climax, then there is peace, fulfillment and rest in Christ according to Billy Graham. They all tell of the person's personal pilgrimage and usually don't spare the details, as some like to glorify the past. I will spare you the details; believe me, I was a bad boy and a prodigal son and went through the school of hard knocks and had to come to the end of myself before I would cry out to the Lord in saving faith. I was surely depraved and knew it; I had been there and done that!

Conversion is the act of repentance, faith, and regeneration all occurring together by an act of God ("Salvation is of the Lord.") We do the repenting and believing and God does the regenerating which is passive. Faith is a gift of God and repentance is just the flip side that occurs simultaneously; it is either believing repentance or penitent faith that saves.

 My first step was to admit my need; like they say the preacher has to get the lost before he can save them. I was at my wit's end and at the end of my rope! Confirmation in the Lutheran church had been to no avail and I had lost what faith I had in college. It was in the Army that I came to know the Lord. I was not a very good soldier and didn't think I was going to make it as the loner I was. I wasn't getting out of life what I wanted and was existential in my philosophy thinking there was no purpose in life but to party. But I don't want to give "too much info!"

Before I was saved my life was dominated by sin and pleasing myself; I had no peace of mind and was looking ours for Number One! There seemed to be pleasure in sin for a season as I went to the bar scenes and learned to drink. I was also looking for love in all the wrong places if you know what I mean. I was separated from God and there was a cleavage or chasm between us. My life was empty, void and seemed boring in a vacuum. I yearned to have a relationship with God, not just know that He exists,  and didn't know what I was searching for; however, I wanted to know the truth. As Pascal said, "There is a God-shaped vacuum in us that only God can fill." And Augustine said, "Our hearts are restless till they find their rest in Thee."

  We are made to know God and have a relationship with Him.     I like Psalm 107:2 which says, "Let the redeemed of the Lord tell their story ("Let the redeemed of the Lord say so"); if you have been redeemed speak up, in other words! Now how I got saved listening to Billy Graham. I was listening to the sermon being translated into Korean and it was going so slow I got every point he made!   He was talking of repentance and that seemed the missing link in my life that I had never done; I had to renounce sin for good. First I realized my need: "Indeed it is the straightedge of the law that shows us how crooked we really are" (Rom. 3:20). Then I recognized that Christ was indeed God in the flesh who died on my behalf personally. I received Christ with saving faith, which is either called believing repentance or penitent faith as my personal Lord and Savior. Note that I realized that repentance was imperative or mandatory according to Acts 17:30, "Now He commands all men everywhere to repent." Acts 3:19 says, "Repent and turn to God that your sins may be blotted out and times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord."

I made a clear commitment that was a response to the wooing or tug of the Holy Spirit and I literally gave up, surrendered, and committed to following Christ. I went from the "gutter most to the uttermost."    The result is not that I am everything I ought to be, but thank God I'm not what I used to be!  I have peace with God, others, and myself ("Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God..."; "My peace I give unto you..."; "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace....")

I have an assurance that I am going to heaven because I am not ignorant of God's Word and take Him at His Word. "He that comes to me I will in no wise cast out" (John 6:37). This is my spiritual birth certificate you could say! As they say:  "God said it in His Word, I believe it in my heart, that settles it in my mind."    Most important I have an abundant and fulfilling life according to  His promise of abundant life with a capital L (in short purpose in living).  I am now learning to overcome sin, know His will and seek His kingdom. But faith is manifest only in obedience; it has legs and must be followed by action or it is dead (no fruit, no faith);we must turn our beliefs into deeds, for we are saved unto good works though not by them,  and we are His masterpiece (says Paul in Eph. 2:10).    Soli Deo Gloria!

Can Controversy Be Good?

"Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3).

John Stott authored the book Christ the Controversialist and I think he's onto something here: Avoiding controversy completely is avoiding Christ, as it were. There are foolish controversies or quarrels, and there are ones that are worth the fight and are "non-negotiables." We shouldn't quarrel about disputable matters, such as eating meat or a Sabbath, but everyone should obey his conscience and be fully convinced in his own mind (Rom. 14:1ff).   Some have an unhealthy craving for quarrels and meanings of words (1 Tim. 6:4,8). 

We are to avoid "foolish controversies" or dissensions according to Titus 3:9. In the book Patton's Principles: A Handbook for Managers Who Mean It he admonishes us not to argue over something that you have nothing or little to gain in winning--to pick our fights wisely.  You could lose a friend arguing about a trivial subject.    As St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo said, "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

There will be factions though we are not to have a factious spirit (a fruit of the flesh) because Christ said that he came not to "bring peace, but a sword (Matt. 10:34). But we are to beware of "deceptive philosophy and empty deceit.." cf/ Col. 2:8. So don't let anyone fool you with sophistry or "plausible arguments" and not according to the Word (Col. 2:4).   Soli Deo Gloria!

Is Doctrine Prosaic?

I guess it comes with the territory of a theologian to be boring--ennui you might say. Everyone wants what's practical and not what is true to Scripture. The Bible says that in the last days many will "bailout theologically", maybe a bunch of "do-gooders" who aren't really interested in knowing the true God. This is spiritual suicide, because you can have sound doctrine without a sound life, but not a sound life without sound doctrine. We are all theologians, as it were, and the way we interpret Scripture has a lot to do with our ethics (orthodoxy and orthopraxy). Hos 4:6 says: "My people perish for lack of knowledge." Is 5:13 says: "For this reason, they go into captivity because they lack knowledge."

Some people think ignorance is bliss, but au contraire--knowledge is power (says Prov. 24:5); it is ignorance that binds us not knowledge. There is value to knowing the scoop, and getting the "big picture;" to whet one's appetite is progress. We have so-called "tunnel vision" (not seeing the forest for the trees) without knowing basic Bible doctrine and can "twist the Scriptures to [our own] destruction."

We need to recognize fallacious doctrine like the "perpetual virginity of Mary" and have no preconceived ideas. If we have no presuppositions we can have a better chance of arriving at the truth. That means we must have a teachable spirit. We take an open mind, a willing spirit and a needy or thirsty heart  (or teachable spirit, receptive mind, and obedient heart), to Scripture to have it speak to us. Doctrine gives substance to faith and biblical savvy is a fortification in the angelic conflict and war with the world, the flesh and the devil. Knowing doctrine is like having our antennae sensitized. It gives mental stability. As long as we "keep the main thing the main thing": In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity (St. Augustine's dictum). It is a childish faith that "balks at learning the things of God in depth," says R. C. Sproul.

 Once we know our way around the block theology-wise we can "deliver the goods" as we hone our skills. Doctrine is not blasé or dull; it is the foundation upon which our interpretation rests and the superstructures are built. We need to improve doctrine's reputation and realize that it is just "teaching" and basically it what the Bible teaches dogmatically. It is not an application like promises, commands, warnings, examples, but principals to have faith in. To be mighty in the Scripture like Apollos we need a frame of reference or a worldview, so to speak.

We can "add a cup of discernment" when we know doctrine--if you only drink of one fountain, you will lose it, according to Chuck Swindoll. But we must never be intolerant of those we disagree with, or what we have is "truth gone to seed." Remember, no one has a monopoly on the truth or has cornered the market. The Bible itself is profitable for doctrine and the measures up where we don't.  Soli Deo Gloria!

What Is Theology?

Theology is literally the study (ology) of God or Theos using the Greek. It is like a "God-talk." Theology has a bad connotation for some but I hope to clear this up:

I want to make it clear that every believer ought to have at least a working knowledge of basic doctrine and preferably to know the way around the block theologically. There are negative connotations to the word "theology" but it is about a doctrinal credo that we pursue.

Theology is not an "abstract science"  (according to R. C. Sproul, one of America's most influential theologians), like economics with many conflicting schools of thought and interpretation. It is the "queen of the sciences" because it deals with the truth of Jesus who is the embodiment of truth. It is not a fool's errand of speculation, but a revealed knowledge from divine revelation. We could not know God apart from revelation because the finite cannot penetrate the infinite--God must take the initiative because no man can see God and live.

Great preachers are those who have honed their theology to perfection and can then deliver the goods. Every Christian is a theologian, what kind of theologian is open to question. We all have a theology; the question is whether we have sound theology.  Note: You can have sound theology and an unsound life, but you cannot have a sound life without a sound theology.  Soli Deo Gloria!

What Good Is ABC Preaching?

Case in point: Some churches are only hearing what "their ears are itching to hear."

Some Christians demean or disparage pastors who preach mainly to the infant Christians and do what you would call preach the basics or "milk" of the word. Christ never spoke above his listeners' comprehension and targeted his audience. Knowing your listeners and audience is key! It is more irresponsible to preach mainly solid food when there are baby believers or lambs that need the milk of the Word. There is something wrong with a wise-guy believer who thinks he knows a lot but has never mastered the basics--this goes for any endeavor.

The mature Christian doesn't get sick of milk just because he can handle solid food or the meat of the Word. "As newborn babies desire the pure milk of the Word..." says 1 Pet. 2:2. The adept pastor aims at his imaginary listeners and feeds them milk and solid food--something for everyone. The mature Christian, it should be noted, is apt to dig into the Word himself and get his own meat. However, we all need the gift of teaching in the church and it was given for a reason: Jesus said, "Feed my lambs;" Feed my sheep." He said sheep twice to make sure that Peter didn't get into a strict milk rut or diet, as it were.

The human body never outgrows its need for milk, a staple in the diet, for nutrition (calcium and vitamins A and D, for instance, and also a good source of protein). Likewise, we never outgrow our need and taste for milk: At the least, we are learning how to feed others milk and share the basics with baby believers--we have to learn and relearn until it is second nature; we can't just say, "O, I've heard of that!" Paul said that he would repeat something and that it was no bother for him and good for them to hear it again (cf. Philippians 3:1).

Now, to be sure, solid food is for those who have their senses trained to discern good and evil according to Hebrews 5:14. Preaching milk only will not feed the adult believers and preaching solid food will go over their heads and discourage the baby believers. A balance must be found, but we must never despise the basics or grow tired of them.   Soli Deo Gloria!

What Is The Place Of Doctrine?

That is a loaded question since most people have a preconceived idea of what doctrine is. Doctrine is important; don't bail out theologically (cf. 2 Tim. 4:3). We all have a credo; we all have doctrines; some of us just don't have sound doctrine. Usually, they think of something dogmatic or doctrinaire or narrow-minded. They want to avoid doctrine. Actually, if we realize that all doctrine means is "teaching" then half the problem is solved. Who's against teaching?

Doctrine isn't just for intellectuals. You don't commit spiritual or intellectual suicide when you join a ministry or church. You are committing spiritual suicide if you ignore doctrine: It is a given and we are all theologians in a sense. We cannot avoid doctrine: "All Scripture is profitable for doctrine..." (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16). "Those who are wayward in spirit shall gain understanding; those who complain will accept instruction [doctrine, as it were]" (cf. Isa. 29:14).

There is value in knowing the scoop, as it were, or being "clued in," because this gives us confidence and these two, according to Charles Swindoll, are like Siamese twins. Doctrine feeds the soul and is the spiritual bread that Christ referred to when He said, "You shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (cf. Matt. 4:4). Just because we are privy to some doctrine doesn't make us a cut above other Christians. " The mere presence of doctrine can leave us cold, even if it is sound doctrine." It is necessary for spiritual wellness but not sufficient.

We don't have the right to believe what we feel is right but must obey rules of hermeneutics and logic that apply to any other book as well. Avoiding controversy is un-Christlike because Christ didn't shy from controversy: "to avoid controversy is to avoid Christ" (see John Stott's book Christ the Controversialist) The early disciples were devoted to the apostles' doctrine or teaching. Remember, God wants us to be "mature in our understanding." Ignorance is not bliss! It is a childish faith that balks at learning Scripture in depth. The meat of the Word is for those who "have their senses trained to discern good and evil" (cf. Heb. 5:14).   Soli Deo Gloria!

Is Doctrine That Important?

Everyone has a doctrine, it is just a matter of how accurate it is. Jesus' doctrine was right but the Pharisees hated His doctrine, though they loved doctrine per se.  Doctrine separates Christians when they make it the end and not the means. The purpose of all doctrine is to lead us to a fuller understanding and relationship with God--not a reason to feel puffed up with knowledge. One can know very little doctrine and be very good at applying what he knows and be a very good Christian.

The disciples were "dedicated to the apostle's teaching [or doctrine]" (Acts 2:42). In other words, knowing doctrine is a means to an end, and not the objective itself (what we apply is more important than what we believe in theory). Some people like to divide Christians into two camps, for instance: Arminian vs. Calvinist. Both can be very fundamental, evangelical and conservative in their beliefs. In fact, there are some Arminians that know their God far better than some Calvinists.

It is not a good thing to get into the habit of labeling fellow believers, which can lead to judging. You can say, "I am a Calvinist!" But I can retort, "I am a Christian!" In summary, God isn't going to ask you what party you were a member of or how you interpreted the atonement--but of your love for and trust in Christ.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Value Of Knowing the Scoop

Chuck Swindoll writes of the value of "knowing the scoop." Presumably, people think that ignorance is bliss. Contrariwise, it is the knowledge that gives power and freedom. "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." We must strive to know our "way around the block theologically speaking." "Tunnel vision" is when we don't see the BIG PICTURE, and that is why knowing all the basic Bible doctrine is important. The Bible is not written out as theology or systematic theology, but one is expected to study it here and there. Also, God never teaches us something just for ourselves. The more we pass on the more He gives us.

 The Bible was not meant to increase our knowledge so much as to change our lives. Knowledge can indeed be dangerous, as Swindoll maintains, and especially when not mixed with love and grace. We can become intolerant of those not as informed as we are and think we are superior and they are "poor specimens." "Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies." (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1) Apollos was a great man in the Word and it is said that he had his theology "honed to perfection" so that he could "deliver the goods." We become balanced by seeing the big picture and being educated in the deeper things of God. God doesn't want us to be ignorant nor infants in Christ who balk at learning the deeper truths--which is childish.

Remember that it says in Scripture, "what Jesus began to do and to teach." They are linked together: Theory and practice; doctrine and ethics; orthodoxy and orthopraxy (right action); idealism and pragmatism; thinking and praxeology (right behavior). I never said that doctrine would be entertaining, but it is necessary. We can never get enough because we will never fully comprehend God; though we can know Him personally.

Beware of the temptation of "doctrinal indifferentism," since in the last days many will "bailout theologically" (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1).  It was Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam that thought theology was the bugbear of the Church's life. It is ignorance that binds us, not knowledge. In summary, Swindoll says that knowledge and confidence are like Siamese twins, they are forever linked--like Sir Francis Bacon said, "Knowledge is power" (cf. Prov. 25:4).   Soli Deo Gloria!

Theology's Importance

Since we are talking about doctrine we should define theology, the most important doctrine, since it is the study of God. C. H. Spurgeon said that the highest thing man can do is contemplate the Godhead--it would blow his mind indeed! God is the highest thought possible. Actually, theology has been called "God-talk." In the 17th century, it was the past-time of every gentleman to discuss theology and most were well studied on the subject.

Of course, Theos means God, and logy refers to the study of. Theology is the queen of the sciences since it is really the original science if you call the attainment of truth a scientific endeavor. Theology is more than a philosophy which is just speculation, conjecture and hypothesis. Theology is based on revelation, not rationalization. We could only know God if He were to reveal Himself to us. "Canst thou by searching find out God?" Zophar asked Job. Only as God takes the initiative and reveals Himself to us. This is either mediate or immediate revelation. There is general revelation such as the heavens declaring the glory of God, and there is special revelation such as God's Word. (Erasmus of Rotterdam, the unsurpassed scholar of the 16th century who debated Luther, thought theology was the "bugbear" the Church's life.)

We are not to be debating theology for theory's own sake, or to keep it theoretical; we are to live it out. The purpose of studying God is to be led to God and know Him personally. However, the case is sad today, for in the last days some will "bailout theologically" as Swindoll couches it. We are seeing orthodox theology less and less tolerated in the name of tolerance. One day we tolerate as they define the term and then we are embracing. We should never give up on sound doctrine and theology. "Teach sound doctrine." "Adorn the doctrine of God." "All Scripture is profitable for doctrine...."

Theology is not a "fool's errand of speculation," nor an "abstract science," according to R. C. Sproul, but self-attesting truth. If the Bible appealed to anything else such as human logic or reason then it would be inferior to it--we must take that leap of faith to begin our knowledge of God. Sproul calls us all theologians; the question is whether our theology is sound or not. We can have a sound theology without a sound life, but not a sound life without a sound theology.

C. H. Spurgeon said, "No subject of contemplation will tend to humble the mind than thoughts of God." "Nothing will so enlarge the intellect." God wants us to see the world through the spectacle of God's Word. "We develop a taste for spiritual things," someone has said. "Now that you have tasted that the Lord is good...." Ps. 34:8 says, "Taste and see that the Lord is good." I was hoping to "whet your appetite."

As we learn we get PROGRAMMED with the Word of God. Remember the principle "GIGO" and apply the flip side which would be "the Word in = the Word out." (Not "garbage in = garbage out".) We see the world through the spectacles of God's Word we will have divine viewpoint instead of human viewpoint.   Soli Deo Gloria!