"Relationship Marriage" sees sexual intercourse as a CAUSE...it is purely physical. However, the Bible says sex OUGHT to be an EFFECT of emotional, mental, physical, and spiritual. Sex OUGHT to be all of these. Think about it this way: which EFFECTS last the longest?
For example, a month after intercourse what is the physical proof someone has had "sex"? Usually there is no proof. However, when there is, it is a disease...or a pregnancy (which some people treat as a disease).
What is the mental proof? A memory.
What is the emotional proof? Women actually release a chemical called oxytocin when they have "sex" that causes them to tangibly feel a bond to the man. Men only experience this chemical when they take heroin.
What is the spiritual proof? Guilt or a lack of guilt. God’s blessing or judgment on their life.
If sex is just physical, the EFFECTS are short-term. Clearly sex is much more than physical and treating it as primarily physical is ultimately unprofitable.
Rob Bell said during his tour for his second book ("Sex God") that a woman shouldn't have "sex" with a man unless he was willing to die for her. We saw during the post on cults we OUGHT to be careful of people who reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous "buzz words".
How can a woman objectively determine if the man is willing to die for her? I believe a woman OUGHT to put off all touching until she has been profitable at Fellowship with a man for one year. The same holds true for the man. Now that is objective! It will also quickly PROVE the intentions of the man.
I have had people tell me that this would prevent them from finding a spouse for over a decade. When I hear that I just laugh. The problem is the person is used to having sex after a matter of days and THAT causes them to stay in unprofitable Relationships for years. What they don't realize is that they won't stay with most people very long if they can't touch them. They find out FASTER that they are unprofitable.
I realize this sounds extreme, but when sub-30 year olds hear this, they understand WHY this is true. After they give it more thought, they realize how selfish it is to prevent someone else from finding the right person. They've also had some painful break-ups because of the emotional, mental, and spiritual ties formed during "sex".
Understanding the WHY gives the person something to focus on DOING...vs. focusing on what NOT to do. It goes back to OUGHT vs. IS.
This topic continues with a look at The Levels of Touching.
(AUTHOR'S NOTE: Gary Thomas who wrote "Sacred Marriage" wrote me to correct something in this post. If you don't know by now, I LOVE BEING CORRECTED...it actually gives me energy! His comment is about "oxytocin". Everything I've read about this has said men don't experience the same attachment after sex that women do. However, it may not be due to oxytocin or men may not have the same ability to receive the chemical...and/or Gary could be right. Here is what he graciously took the time to write:
"I believe you are in error when you suggest men only experience the release of oxytocin through the use of heroin. In fact, following a sexual encounter, a man's level of oxytocin will rival that of his wife's. It is the only time in human experience when the male brain is operating on the same basis as the female brain, in regards to that particular chemical.")
Monday, March 31, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
"IS" Marriage Model
Here is an objective model for individuals in an IS Marriage...
IS MARRIAGE
1. They are focused on HAVE and DO.
2. They focus on appearance to God (They attempt to hide stuff from God).
3. They are at Relationship or less with God (They don't talk about God to other people).
4. They feel satisfied with being at Relationship with their spouse.
5. They see Sex is a CAUSE (One of the radio talk show hosts thought the reason New York's former Governor went to a prostitute is because his wife wasn't very good at sex!)
6. They attack their spouse.
(This is known as "the honeymoon is over", "the rough spot", "finding out who you REALLY married"...Things are going to happen to the couple from the outside. The Governor who replaced New York's former Governor had a press conference on his first day so he and his wife could admit to mutual affairs years ago. They stated that it was during the rough spot that EVERY marriage hits and they decided to keep it together for the kids. Things are going to happen to the spouses individually from the outside. Things are going to happen between the spouses. If the spouses LOVE, then they will realize they owe their spouse and they won't take a value. ATTACKING your spouse is BREAKING YOUR VOW to LOVE! There is NO excuse for NOT loving your spouse! Sure you can repent, etc. But for pastors and teachers to say it is NORMAL to attack your spouse AND EVEN JOKE ABOUT IT is PROVING their lack of understanding. To then tell people they CAN'T get divorced because they CAN'T break their vows is HYPOCRITICAL! There is NO place in the Bible where attacking your spouse is "to be expected".)
7. Find paradise outside of marriage
(Ask someone about when they hit the "rough spot" in their marriage. Then ask them how they got over it. Better yet, ask them when they REALLY got into their #1 activity. People hit the rough spot in the marriage and either divorce or find an activity outside of marriage that becomes their "paradise"...and the marriage becomes appearance so that they can do the thing they really want to do.)
WHENEVER sex is treated as a purely physical act it has become a CAUSE. You will see it EVERYWHERE. Just listen to today's hit songs...they may as well change the lyrics to "Sex is a CAUSE...Sex is a CAUSE..."
We have seen WHY today's view of "marriage" is flawed: it is based on Relationship. If you know me, you know that I tell people: If you are going to point out what is wrong, you better have a solution...or all you are doing is whining.
Next week we will look at the solution: OUGHT Marriage...
The first topic in next week's discussion is Sex OUGHT to be an EFFECT.
If you are just joining this thread, here is an outline of the posts.
We started by looking at the CAUSE of THE ACTS CHURCH.
We found one of them was Fellowship.
In order to understand how badly we have missed God's intentions, we discussed a measuring tool called OUGHT vs. IS.
In order to work our way to understanding marriage, we covered the following topics:
Overcoming Temptation
Fornication
Masculinity
Beauty vs. Attraction
Sex and Marriage (Our Society)
"Relationship" Marriage
Touching
Paradise
IS MARRIAGE
1. They are focused on HAVE and DO.
2. They focus on appearance to God (They attempt to hide stuff from God).
3. They are at Relationship or less with God (They don't talk about God to other people).
4. They feel satisfied with being at Relationship with their spouse.
5. They see Sex is a CAUSE (One of the radio talk show hosts thought the reason New York's former Governor went to a prostitute is because his wife wasn't very good at sex!)
6. They attack their spouse.
(This is known as "the honeymoon is over", "the rough spot", "finding out who you REALLY married"...Things are going to happen to the couple from the outside. The Governor who replaced New York's former Governor had a press conference on his first day so he and his wife could admit to mutual affairs years ago. They stated that it was during the rough spot that EVERY marriage hits and they decided to keep it together for the kids. Things are going to happen to the spouses individually from the outside. Things are going to happen between the spouses. If the spouses LOVE, then they will realize they owe their spouse and they won't take a value. ATTACKING your spouse is BREAKING YOUR VOW to LOVE! There is NO excuse for NOT loving your spouse! Sure you can repent, etc. But for pastors and teachers to say it is NORMAL to attack your spouse AND EVEN JOKE ABOUT IT is PROVING their lack of understanding. To then tell people they CAN'T get divorced because they CAN'T break their vows is HYPOCRITICAL! There is NO place in the Bible where attacking your spouse is "to be expected".)
7. Find paradise outside of marriage
(Ask someone about when they hit the "rough spot" in their marriage. Then ask them how they got over it. Better yet, ask them when they REALLY got into their #1 activity. People hit the rough spot in the marriage and either divorce or find an activity outside of marriage that becomes their "paradise"...and the marriage becomes appearance so that they can do the thing they really want to do.)
WHENEVER sex is treated as a purely physical act it has become a CAUSE. You will see it EVERYWHERE. Just listen to today's hit songs...they may as well change the lyrics to "Sex is a CAUSE...Sex is a CAUSE..."
We have seen WHY today's view of "marriage" is flawed: it is based on Relationship. If you know me, you know that I tell people: If you are going to point out what is wrong, you better have a solution...or all you are doing is whining.
Next week we will look at the solution: OUGHT Marriage...
The first topic in next week's discussion is Sex OUGHT to be an EFFECT.
If you are just joining this thread, here is an outline of the posts.
We started by looking at the CAUSE of THE ACTS CHURCH.
We found one of them was Fellowship.
In order to understand how badly we have missed God's intentions, we discussed a measuring tool called OUGHT vs. IS.
In order to work our way to understanding marriage, we covered the following topics:
Overcoming Temptation
Fornication
Masculinity
Beauty vs. Attraction
Sex and Marriage (Our Society)
"Relationship" Marriage
Touching
Paradise
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Paradise
The follow-up book to "Modeling God" talks about how the Bible ends. (By the way, those who are wondering about "Modeling God" and the main theme of that book, click the "Table of Contents" link at right. The posts that spell out the main theme of "Modeling God" have been updated and are listed in order.) In the follow-up book we will be amazed at the lack of people who can adequately answer the question: How does the Bible end? (If you want a head start, read the last four chapters of Revelation to see how the Bible ends.) One of the events at the end of the Bible is a wedding supper. One of the conclusions of the Bible is that paradise will consist of a marriage!
The Bible says marriage OUGHT to be paradise. In paradise, are the first few years going to be the best years and then run down to a "mature" comfortable level? Then why do we believe God intended marriage to be the same way for us? Because that's the way it IS? Whatever is, is right? Currently, the first years of marriage are very energizing...and then it runs down. AND PEOPLE JUSTIFY/RATIONALIZE IT! They rationalize IS! God intended marriage to ramp up more each year AS LONG AS EACH PERSON IS GETTING TO KNOW THE OTHER PERSON BETTER. What is the definition of paradise?
When you are doing something that is NOT the thing you MOST want to do...you are thinking about something in the future. You are demonstrating faith. You are demonstrating hope. You are believing and thinking about something that hasn't happened yet.
When you are doing the thing you MOST want to do...you DON'T think about the future. You don't demonstrate faith. You don't demonstrate hope.
We saw in "OUGHT vs IS" that 99% of what we talk about is future or past. However, when we are doing the thing we enjoy MOST, our thoughts are ALL in the present. We aren't looking forward or backward.
That is paradise. Time continues, however, we are not thinking about the future because we are doing the thing we MOST want to do. Love and time would continue...they wouldn't fail. However, faith and hope would end.
Let's put all of this together in an objective model for the individuals in "Relationship Marriage"...
The Bible says marriage OUGHT to be paradise. In paradise, are the first few years going to be the best years and then run down to a "mature" comfortable level? Then why do we believe God intended marriage to be the same way for us? Because that's the way it IS? Whatever is, is right? Currently, the first years of marriage are very energizing...and then it runs down. AND PEOPLE JUSTIFY/RATIONALIZE IT! They rationalize IS! God intended marriage to ramp up more each year AS LONG AS EACH PERSON IS GETTING TO KNOW THE OTHER PERSON BETTER. What is the definition of paradise?
When you are doing something that is NOT the thing you MOST want to do...you are thinking about something in the future. You are demonstrating faith. You are demonstrating hope. You are believing and thinking about something that hasn't happened yet.
When you are doing the thing you MOST want to do...you DON'T think about the future. You don't demonstrate faith. You don't demonstrate hope.
We saw in "OUGHT vs IS" that 99% of what we talk about is future or past. However, when we are doing the thing we enjoy MOST, our thoughts are ALL in the present. We aren't looking forward or backward.
That is paradise. Time continues, however, we are not thinking about the future because we are doing the thing we MOST want to do. Love and time would continue...they wouldn't fail. However, faith and hope would end.
Let's put all of this together in an objective model for the individuals in "Relationship Marriage"...
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Relationship Touching
I get a lot of questions about how people OUGHT to move towards Marriage Covenant. With the Levels of Sharing model it becomes easy to answer these questions. In fact, I know teenagers who have grasped the Levels of Sharing in a matter of minutes...to the point they can teach their peers.
"Have you met the person? Do they know who you are? How do you know them?" (Interaction)
"What common interest do you share? What can you both talk about deep enough others may not be able to keep up?" (Connection)
"Will they share about other areas of their life with you? Hobbies, weekend plans, family members, etc?" (Relationship)
The question EVERYONE eventually gets to is "When is it appropriate to start touching each other?"
ANSWER: What is the objective? (WHY?)
Looking at "Relationship Marriage" (yesterday's post), the issue is that eventually one of the people feels owed because these two people aren't profitable together. The goal OUGHT to be to find out if the two people are profitable. Do they continue to get more energy from each other? Do they continue to get to know each other better?
If the goal is to get to know the other person better, then the couple OUGHT to find out if they can get more energy from each other without touching over the Long Term. The couple OUGHT to wait until Fellowship. We will look at this more closely next week. Why wait until Fellowship?
The energy from touching overwhelms the energy from getting to know the other person. When this happens, touching becomes a CAUSE, so the EFFECTS are short-term and will fade. Touching just leads to the need to touch more until it turns into sex. Once the energy from sex lessens, it is THEN that the people begin to get to know each other...a lot of times they find out they aren't compatible.
This month, one of the front page stories in the national newspapers was that 25% of girls in the U.S. between the ages of 14 and 19 have at least one STD! It was about 15 years ago that Jocelyn Elders wanted to deal with this on a purely Physical level. We've been addressing this area and it is only getting worse...we are treating the symptoms (IS), not the issue (OUGHT). If anything, we have reinforced this flawed model. What is the objective?
The objective OUGHT to be to get to know the other person better...Fellowship. This is hard enough without being distracted by the energy experienced during "touching". Touching before Fellowship almost guarantees the BEST the couple will be able to attain is "Relationship Marriage" (yesterday's post).
Whether it is in a marriage or a friendship, progress is attained (and energy is produced) as long as the people are focused on getting to know each other better. This progress can go on forever (OUGHT)...this is "happily ever after". Fellowship is the key to "happily ever after". Getting to know the person results in them changing and becoming more attractive. Remember, beauty is the image...the outside...the IS...the APPEARANCE...it fades over time. Attraction is the whole package...the OUGHT...it can grow over time. The outside can become more attractive over time because it represents EVERYTHING about the other person.
Remember, the definition of "fornication" is idolatry. Idolatry is the worship (giving of one's self) of an image. People who give themselves to an image are committing idolatry/fornication. Fornication CAN be sexual when a person gives themselves physically to the image of another person...the APPEARANCE. ANYTIME someone gushes about how beautiful someone is that they don't know, they are committing fornication. This is especially true when people talk about movie stars, singers, models...unless they know these people.
Every act of Sex and Marriage Covenant that occurs WITHOUT being at Fellowship becomes a CAUSE. Sex becomes a CAUSE instead of an EFFECT.
When you hear someone say: "Why would someone buy the cow if they get the milk for free?" or "We aren't going to have sex until marriage because we want to have something to look forward to" these are PROOFS these people see sex as a CAUSE. Martin Luther saw sex as a CAUSE. "Christian" books see sex as a CAUSE because that's the way it IS today.
Before we can complete the "IS Marriage Model", we need to get background on paradise in the next post.
"Have you met the person? Do they know who you are? How do you know them?" (Interaction)
"What common interest do you share? What can you both talk about deep enough others may not be able to keep up?" (Connection)
"Will they share about other areas of their life with you? Hobbies, weekend plans, family members, etc?" (Relationship)
The question EVERYONE eventually gets to is "When is it appropriate to start touching each other?"
ANSWER: What is the objective? (WHY?)
Looking at "Relationship Marriage" (yesterday's post), the issue is that eventually one of the people feels owed because these two people aren't profitable together. The goal OUGHT to be to find out if the two people are profitable. Do they continue to get more energy from each other? Do they continue to get to know each other better?
If the goal is to get to know the other person better, then the couple OUGHT to find out if they can get more energy from each other without touching over the Long Term. The couple OUGHT to wait until Fellowship. We will look at this more closely next week. Why wait until Fellowship?
The energy from touching overwhelms the energy from getting to know the other person. When this happens, touching becomes a CAUSE, so the EFFECTS are short-term and will fade. Touching just leads to the need to touch more until it turns into sex. Once the energy from sex lessens, it is THEN that the people begin to get to know each other...a lot of times they find out they aren't compatible.
This month, one of the front page stories in the national newspapers was that 25% of girls in the U.S. between the ages of 14 and 19 have at least one STD! It was about 15 years ago that Jocelyn Elders wanted to deal with this on a purely Physical level. We've been addressing this area and it is only getting worse...we are treating the symptoms (IS), not the issue (OUGHT). If anything, we have reinforced this flawed model. What is the objective?
The objective OUGHT to be to get to know the other person better...Fellowship. This is hard enough without being distracted by the energy experienced during "touching". Touching before Fellowship almost guarantees the BEST the couple will be able to attain is "Relationship Marriage" (yesterday's post).
Whether it is in a marriage or a friendship, progress is attained (and energy is produced) as long as the people are focused on getting to know each other better. This progress can go on forever (OUGHT)...this is "happily ever after". Fellowship is the key to "happily ever after". Getting to know the person results in them changing and becoming more attractive. Remember, beauty is the image...the outside...the IS...the APPEARANCE...it fades over time. Attraction is the whole package...the OUGHT...it can grow over time. The outside can become more attractive over time because it represents EVERYTHING about the other person.
Remember, the definition of "fornication" is idolatry. Idolatry is the worship (giving of one's self) of an image. People who give themselves to an image are committing idolatry/fornication. Fornication CAN be sexual when a person gives themselves physically to the image of another person...the APPEARANCE. ANYTIME someone gushes about how beautiful someone is that they don't know, they are committing fornication. This is especially true when people talk about movie stars, singers, models...unless they know these people.
Every act of Sex and Marriage Covenant that occurs WITHOUT being at Fellowship becomes a CAUSE. Sex becomes a CAUSE instead of an EFFECT.
When you hear someone say: "Why would someone buy the cow if they get the milk for free?" or "We aren't going to have sex until marriage because we want to have something to look forward to" these are PROOFS these people see sex as a CAUSE. Martin Luther saw sex as a CAUSE. "Christian" books see sex as a CAUSE because that's the way it IS today.
Before we can complete the "IS Marriage Model", we need to get background on paradise in the next post.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
"Relationship" Marriage
Imagine if I told you to enter into an agreement with another person. The agreement will consist of you being allowed to give and take from the other person...and they will be allowed to give and take from you. The final stipulation is that I will make sure it is someone who you believe has given more to you than you've given to them...and they will believe you have given more to them than what they have given to you.
Notice, this arrangement will begin with both people NOT demanding ANYTHING from the other person because each feels like they are "ahead". What is going to happen to this arrangement in the Long Term?
Each person is going to continue to give as long as they believe they are ahead. However, if they ever believe they are owed, they are going to stop giving. Why would they EVER feel they are owed?
There are a lot of reasons a person can feel owed. The other person may take too much. What the other person is offering may not be worth as much as it once was. Something may happen from outside the arrangement to one or both of the people that causes them to feel owed (like the death of a child).
What would PREVENT someone from feeling owed?
If they accumulate enough to weather the momentary losses...if they never take too much from the other...if they just focus on giving.
In the follow-up to "Modeling God", I go through this next point in depth. Here, I'm just going to mention it briefly. What happens with people who "trick" others into a Relationship. Isn't this the formula for the majority of romantic comedies? One of the people wants to GET the other person...so they act different than they really ARE in order to GET. This isn't LOVE. This is a recipe for disaster.
In fact, I know a pastor in Law Vegas who preaches that EVERY marriage goes through the "realization" phase. At some point you find out who you REALLY married...you get mad...then you make your peace with it, adjust your expectations and go on from there. Isn't this dishonesty? Didn't someone break a vow? Wouldn't someone have the right to get out of the arrangement if the other person purposely hid information?
EVENTUALLY, this arrangement IS going to result in one person feeling owed. This arrangement is Survival Mode...a short-term focus on keeping one's head above water. There is no accumulation over the Long Term. Notice the solutions that were offered to PREVENT this...
"Focusing on giving" is LOVE.
"Never taking too much from the other" is LOVE.
"Accumulating enough" is...the church's solution!
"Love Languages" is an attempt to find what you can do for the other person that doesn't cost you much but gives them a value. This is helpful, but it is only a short-term solution. When we have people make their list of 20 gains and 20 drains...their "love language" is one of the gains they list. Your "love language" is at MOST 1/20 of who you ARE! Another example of a short-term fix is "date night". Are the couple going on a date because they WANT to or because they HAVE to?
The CAUSE OUGHT to be getting to know each other and the EFFECT OUGHT to be time together. This appears to be an attempt to get a CAUSE (desire for each other) from an EFFECT (time together).
None of this prevents the couple from attacking each other. In fact, think about that for a second...OUGHT you to EVER attack your spouse in ANY way? The church has said Physical abuse is definitely wrong and worthy of divorce...is this "Biblical"? What about spiritual abuse? Mental abuse? Emotional abuse? Isn't this making the Physical pre-eminent...the APPEARANCE...IS?
Actually ANY act of abuse towards your spouse is the breaking of a vow to LOVE!
How many times have you heard a pastor/teacher JOKE about arguing with and/or personally attacking their spouse? Do they tell you they broke their vow to LOVE? Or do they tell you that's just the way it IS and we're all just doing the best we can?
One of the people can vent to the other person about anything...this OUGHT to be healthy. What I'm talking about here is when one person attacks the other "person" physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritually.
Let's look at it another way. Stage 1 of this arrangement is both people feeling they are ahead and giving. Stage 5 is one or both of the people attacking each other mentally, emotionally, spiritually, or physically. What must the in-between stages be? How do we go from "honeymoon" to "abuse"? One of the stages HAS to be at least one of the two people thinking about themselves...thinking they are owed. Feeling like you owe would PREVENT you from EVER abusing your spouse...
Imagine if I put one more stipulation on the arrangement: you can't get out. This is why the majority of today's marriages EVENTUALLY turn into "relationship and abuse" (IS). The husband TAKES a value from the wife and doesn't feel the need to make up for it...or knows that he doesn't have to make up for it because she can't end the arrangement. The response is: "That's marriage...you take the good with the bad AND there is no way out." This results in the wife looking to take a value somewhere else.
This "Relationship Marriage" arrangement is flawed...and the Bible doesn't support it AT ALL. Relationship Marriage is a man-made tradition that makes the Word and Will of God of NONE EFFECT.
The Bible says we OUGHT to be at Fellowship BEFORE we go to Marriage Covenant...we OUGHT to be focused on getting to know the other person better.
I don't believe these pastors and teachers intend to hurt people. They are a lot like the Pharisees...they are doing the best they can. I believe that pastors/teachers know we have a flawed (contradictory) arrangement and believe they have to make do because they don't know the OUGHT.
However, once the Biblical answer was presented to the Pharisees, they had to intentionally choose between a flawed man-made tradition or the non-contradictory Word of God. Their actions were an expression of their will and became a salvation decision...
This topic continues with a look at the effect of touching from the "Relationship Marriage" perspective.
Notice, this arrangement will begin with both people NOT demanding ANYTHING from the other person because each feels like they are "ahead". What is going to happen to this arrangement in the Long Term?
Each person is going to continue to give as long as they believe they are ahead. However, if they ever believe they are owed, they are going to stop giving. Why would they EVER feel they are owed?
There are a lot of reasons a person can feel owed. The other person may take too much. What the other person is offering may not be worth as much as it once was. Something may happen from outside the arrangement to one or both of the people that causes them to feel owed (like the death of a child).
What would PREVENT someone from feeling owed?
If they accumulate enough to weather the momentary losses...if they never take too much from the other...if they just focus on giving.
In the follow-up to "Modeling God", I go through this next point in depth. Here, I'm just going to mention it briefly. What happens with people who "trick" others into a Relationship. Isn't this the formula for the majority of romantic comedies? One of the people wants to GET the other person...so they act different than they really ARE in order to GET. This isn't LOVE. This is a recipe for disaster.
In fact, I know a pastor in Law Vegas who preaches that EVERY marriage goes through the "realization" phase. At some point you find out who you REALLY married...you get mad...then you make your peace with it, adjust your expectations and go on from there. Isn't this dishonesty? Didn't someone break a vow? Wouldn't someone have the right to get out of the arrangement if the other person purposely hid information?
EVENTUALLY, this arrangement IS going to result in one person feeling owed. This arrangement is Survival Mode...a short-term focus on keeping one's head above water. There is no accumulation over the Long Term. Notice the solutions that were offered to PREVENT this...
"Focusing on giving" is LOVE.
"Never taking too much from the other" is LOVE.
"Accumulating enough" is...the church's solution!
"Love Languages" is an attempt to find what you can do for the other person that doesn't cost you much but gives them a value. This is helpful, but it is only a short-term solution. When we have people make their list of 20 gains and 20 drains...their "love language" is one of the gains they list. Your "love language" is at MOST 1/20 of who you ARE! Another example of a short-term fix is "date night". Are the couple going on a date because they WANT to or because they HAVE to?
The CAUSE OUGHT to be getting to know each other and the EFFECT OUGHT to be time together. This appears to be an attempt to get a CAUSE (desire for each other) from an EFFECT (time together).
None of this prevents the couple from attacking each other. In fact, think about that for a second...OUGHT you to EVER attack your spouse in ANY way? The church has said Physical abuse is definitely wrong and worthy of divorce...is this "Biblical"? What about spiritual abuse? Mental abuse? Emotional abuse? Isn't this making the Physical pre-eminent...the APPEARANCE...IS?
Actually ANY act of abuse towards your spouse is the breaking of a vow to LOVE!
How many times have you heard a pastor/teacher JOKE about arguing with and/or personally attacking their spouse? Do they tell you they broke their vow to LOVE? Or do they tell you that's just the way it IS and we're all just doing the best we can?
One of the people can vent to the other person about anything...this OUGHT to be healthy. What I'm talking about here is when one person attacks the other "person" physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritually.
Let's look at it another way. Stage 1 of this arrangement is both people feeling they are ahead and giving. Stage 5 is one or both of the people attacking each other mentally, emotionally, spiritually, or physically. What must the in-between stages be? How do we go from "honeymoon" to "abuse"? One of the stages HAS to be at least one of the two people thinking about themselves...thinking they are owed. Feeling like you owe would PREVENT you from EVER abusing your spouse...
Imagine if I put one more stipulation on the arrangement: you can't get out. This is why the majority of today's marriages EVENTUALLY turn into "relationship and abuse" (IS). The husband TAKES a value from the wife and doesn't feel the need to make up for it...or knows that he doesn't have to make up for it because she can't end the arrangement. The response is: "That's marriage...you take the good with the bad AND there is no way out." This results in the wife looking to take a value somewhere else.
This "Relationship Marriage" arrangement is flawed...and the Bible doesn't support it AT ALL. Relationship Marriage is a man-made tradition that makes the Word and Will of God of NONE EFFECT.
The Bible says we OUGHT to be at Fellowship BEFORE we go to Marriage Covenant...we OUGHT to be focused on getting to know the other person better.
I don't believe these pastors and teachers intend to hurt people. They are a lot like the Pharisees...they are doing the best they can. I believe that pastors/teachers know we have a flawed (contradictory) arrangement and believe they have to make do because they don't know the OUGHT.
However, once the Biblical answer was presented to the Pharisees, they had to intentionally choose between a flawed man-made tradition or the non-contradictory Word of God. Their actions were an expression of their will and became a salvation decision...
This topic continues with a look at the effect of touching from the "Relationship Marriage" perspective.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Sex and Marriage (Our Society)
Two weeks ago we covered Fellowship and the Levels of Sharing. Last week we covered background topics that will help us with this week's topic.
The Fellowship Model comes down to one objective. In fact, everything we will discuss this week comes back to one objective: getting to know the other person better.
MOVIES AND SONGS
Marriage Covenant is the ultimate level of sharing.
How does society present the process of getting to Marriage Covenant?
One of the best examples of society's beliefs is the movies...How do the movies present the process of getting to Marriage Covenant?
The first step is Interaction: How did the couple meet? Every movie has a key scene where the couple first meets.
The second step is Connection: What deep interest did the couple share? Whether it is a hobby, employment, or a personal belief, the couple begins to look at each other differently when this key scene happens.
The third step is...what? In some movies, this is enough for the couple to have sex and/or propose marriage! Basically, one of the characters will appear aloof until the scene when they share some deeply personal information in ONE AREA (Connection). At that point, the other person decides they will leave their fiancee, spouse, best friends, etc. and COMPLETELY devote themselves to this person BECAUSE OF ONE SPEECH. Granted, it is well shot and there is music playing in the background...but take a step back and realize they are giving themselves COMPLETELY to another person BECAUSE of Connection!
The third step OUGHT to be Relationship. In the movies this is done with a montage. The couple is shown eating dinner, taking a walk, going to the movies, going on vacation, sitting on the park bench...all of this is usually shown while the featured song from the movie soundtrack is playing. This represents the couple sharing a lot of superficial things. Notice, when a movie goes through this step it is usually rated for younger audiences than when it goes right from Connection to Sex.
The fourth step OUGHT to be Fellowship. However, IF the movie is able to demonstrate Relationship, the fourth step is ALWAYS Sex and/or Marriage. Here is the summary of society's model for Sex...
Example: Society's Model for Sex
-Interaction happens immediately. (How did you meet?)
-Connection can happen in a matter of seconds to minutes. (What common interest did you have?)
-Some people think Connection allows them to have intercourse, like in the movies.
-In the movies, they may even go to Relationship before intercourse.
-In the movies, Relationship is represented by a montage of activities.
Fellowship is skipped in the movies.
What would it look like for a couple to be at Fellowship? The couple would constantly confront each other in a nourishing way about each other's imperfections. How do you make that look romantic to our society?
The reason you don’t see Fellowship in movies is the characters aren’t at Fellowship with God!
In fact, you can determine the EXACT moment when the couple has officially "fallen in love".
"FALLEN IN LOVE" MODEL
When two people first meet, they tend to be contrastive. They look for problems and make the other person prove themselves. The friendship is put at risk EVERY DAY. After awhile they become comparative...they actively look for the good and ignore the flaws in the other person. When they become comparative, we say they “fell in love”. They get comfortable and stop putting the friendship at risk.
Comparative: They make the other person comfortable and ignore uncomfortable situations. "Fallen in love".
Contrastive: They make the other person uncomfortable by addressing their flaws in a nourishing manner. This is Fellowship!
When they "fall in love", they only want to see the best in the other person and actively avoid seeing the rest of the person. This goes COMPLETELY AGAINST Fellowship! No wonder they don't show Fellowship in the movies...it is the opposite of "falling in love".
When Fellowship does happen in a movie, notice the response. It is a moment one or both are dreading because they are putting the Relationship at risk. Sometimes the Relationship ends. Sometimes it continues...but the response after "surviving" the confrontation is almost always that both will work to NEVER have a moment like that EVER again.
Today, the ULTIMATE (the best we can "supposedly" hope for) example of marrige being presented to us (both inside and outside the church) are marriages based on Relationship.
This topic continues with a look at Relationship Marriage.
The Fellowship Model comes down to one objective. In fact, everything we will discuss this week comes back to one objective: getting to know the other person better.
MOVIES AND SONGS
Marriage Covenant is the ultimate level of sharing.
How does society present the process of getting to Marriage Covenant?
One of the best examples of society's beliefs is the movies...How do the movies present the process of getting to Marriage Covenant?
The first step is Interaction: How did the couple meet? Every movie has a key scene where the couple first meets.
The second step is Connection: What deep interest did the couple share? Whether it is a hobby, employment, or a personal belief, the couple begins to look at each other differently when this key scene happens.
The third step is...what? In some movies, this is enough for the couple to have sex and/or propose marriage! Basically, one of the characters will appear aloof until the scene when they share some deeply personal information in ONE AREA (Connection). At that point, the other person decides they will leave their fiancee, spouse, best friends, etc. and COMPLETELY devote themselves to this person BECAUSE OF ONE SPEECH. Granted, it is well shot and there is music playing in the background...but take a step back and realize they are giving themselves COMPLETELY to another person BECAUSE of Connection!
The third step OUGHT to be Relationship. In the movies this is done with a montage. The couple is shown eating dinner, taking a walk, going to the movies, going on vacation, sitting on the park bench...all of this is usually shown while the featured song from the movie soundtrack is playing. This represents the couple sharing a lot of superficial things. Notice, when a movie goes through this step it is usually rated for younger audiences than when it goes right from Connection to Sex.
The fourth step OUGHT to be Fellowship. However, IF the movie is able to demonstrate Relationship, the fourth step is ALWAYS Sex and/or Marriage. Here is the summary of society's model for Sex...
Example: Society's Model for Sex
-Interaction happens immediately. (How did you meet?)
-Connection can happen in a matter of seconds to minutes. (What common interest did you have?)
-Some people think Connection allows them to have intercourse, like in the movies.
-In the movies, they may even go to Relationship before intercourse.
-In the movies, Relationship is represented by a montage of activities.
Fellowship is skipped in the movies.
What would it look like for a couple to be at Fellowship? The couple would constantly confront each other in a nourishing way about each other's imperfections. How do you make that look romantic to our society?
The reason you don’t see Fellowship in movies is the characters aren’t at Fellowship with God!
In fact, you can determine the EXACT moment when the couple has officially "fallen in love".
"FALLEN IN LOVE" MODEL
When two people first meet, they tend to be contrastive. They look for problems and make the other person prove themselves. The friendship is put at risk EVERY DAY. After awhile they become comparative...they actively look for the good and ignore the flaws in the other person. When they become comparative, we say they “fell in love”. They get comfortable and stop putting the friendship at risk.
Comparative: They make the other person comfortable and ignore uncomfortable situations. "Fallen in love".
Contrastive: They make the other person uncomfortable by addressing their flaws in a nourishing manner. This is Fellowship!
When they "fall in love", they only want to see the best in the other person and actively avoid seeing the rest of the person. This goes COMPLETELY AGAINST Fellowship! No wonder they don't show Fellowship in the movies...it is the opposite of "falling in love".
When Fellowship does happen in a movie, notice the response. It is a moment one or both are dreading because they are putting the Relationship at risk. Sometimes the Relationship ends. Sometimes it continues...but the response after "surviving" the confrontation is almost always that both will work to NEVER have a moment like that EVER again.
Today, the ULTIMATE (the best we can "supposedly" hope for) example of marrige being presented to us (both inside and outside the church) are marriages based on Relationship.
This topic continues with a look at Relationship Marriage.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Beauty vs. Attraction
This week we have been covering five topics from the next book as background for next week's discussion of how Fellowship relates to Sex and Marriage.
This week's background topics...
Monday: OUGHT vs. IS
Tuesday: Changing undesirable behavior
Wednesday: Fornication
Thursday: Pornography and Masculinity
Today's topic: Beauty vs. Attraction
BEAUTY
Beauty is defined as "a pleasing APPEARANCE". This has been well known for ages: "Beauty IS skin deep." Beauty IS about the image. Since NO ONE is perfect, the definition of "most beautiful" IS "having the least imperfections". Again, if we are focused on justifying what something is not, we are focused on IS.
Over ten years ago, I was involved in a beauty pageant. What I learned is the woman who wins the pageant is the one who is best at covering her imperfections. The most interesting part of the pageant for me was "the walk". The key to "the walk" is for the woman to have a lot going on and when she stops to pose she has to "pop the knee". Then she turns and walks back to her spot. The goal of "the walk" is to create a lot of activity so the judges never have time to settle on the imperfections.
Have you ever heard pastors/teachers tell men they HAVE to see their wife as beautiful? How would you see your spouse as more beautiful? Seeing her as beautiful is an EFFECT. How do you instantly have an EFFECT? What is the CAUSE of beauty? Lack of imperfections. How can the husband create that CAUSE? Intentionally overlook her imperfections? Isn't this preaching effects? Isn't this dishonest? How does this benefit the wife? Are we dealing with solutions (OUGHT) or justifying the current condition (IS)?
Yesterday we covered "pornography". When I help someone addicted to pornography, one of the first things I talk about is the difference between beauty and attraction. I ask them if they have found that perfect picture yet: The most beautiful woman in the world. Actually, a picture that seems perfect at first quickly begins to lose its appeal on repeated viewings...and the quest for the next perfect picture candidate begins. The same thing EFFECT is occurring with looking twice at women. The second look is because the man thinks he may have seen the PERFECT woman. Further examination shows she's not PERFECT...no woman is. However, the damage is done when the subsequent looks involve imagination...
Beauty is based on the Physical. The Physical runs down...it will NEVER be perfect. That is the problem with "beauty"...it fades. It will NEVER become better over the Long Term. Attraction is a different story...
ATTRACTION
Attraction is defined as "an invisible power within a body by which it draws anything to itself". Attraction deals with the invisible power WITHIN the body...the Spiritual. This is something that can grow. This is OUGHT because it is something we can DO.
Since attraction is based on the Spiritual, it can be perfect...it can become better REGARDLESS of how the outside looks. How is THAT possible?
My background is formulating consumer products: Joy dishwashing liquid, Liquid Tide laundry detergent, Shout!, Spray 'n Wash, Purex, etc. Each of these products have numerous attributes...well over 50. They clean different stains in different conditions. They have different stability profiles. They look, smell, pour, and feel different. They have different packages.
One of the toughest things to change about the product is the package. If you change it too much, people don't have the same attachment (attraction) to the product.
When I would interview consumers who have used a product for years, it was like listening to a romance. The person had been through a lot with the product. The person was attracted to the ENTIRE product (WITHIN) and their attraction to the product had grown over time. However, what REPRESENTED the product was its appearance (BODY). When a person saw the appearance, EVEN if it was out of date and old fashion looking, the attraction was there.
The CAUSE was the ENTIRE experience (WITHIN).
The EFFECT was ATTRACTION to the package...even if the package (BODY) wasn't beautiful!
BEAUTY (IS) fades with repeated encounters.
ATTRACTION (OUGHT) increases with repeated positive encounters BECAUSE as a person gets more experience and understanding of the entire product (WITHIN) it CHANGES and IMPROVES...
...the appearance (BODY) represents the ENTIRE being (WITHIN): a being that you can't get bored with because it is constantly changing.
The background portion of this discussion concludes with an eye opening look at how our society views Sex and Marriage.
This week's background topics...
Monday: OUGHT vs. IS
Tuesday: Changing undesirable behavior
Wednesday: Fornication
Thursday: Pornography and Masculinity
Today's topic: Beauty vs. Attraction
BEAUTY
Beauty is defined as "a pleasing APPEARANCE". This has been well known for ages: "Beauty IS skin deep." Beauty IS about the image. Since NO ONE is perfect, the definition of "most beautiful" IS "having the least imperfections". Again, if we are focused on justifying what something is not, we are focused on IS.
Over ten years ago, I was involved in a beauty pageant. What I learned is the woman who wins the pageant is the one who is best at covering her imperfections. The most interesting part of the pageant for me was "the walk". The key to "the walk" is for the woman to have a lot going on and when she stops to pose she has to "pop the knee". Then she turns and walks back to her spot. The goal of "the walk" is to create a lot of activity so the judges never have time to settle on the imperfections.
Have you ever heard pastors/teachers tell men they HAVE to see their wife as beautiful? How would you see your spouse as more beautiful? Seeing her as beautiful is an EFFECT. How do you instantly have an EFFECT? What is the CAUSE of beauty? Lack of imperfections. How can the husband create that CAUSE? Intentionally overlook her imperfections? Isn't this preaching effects? Isn't this dishonest? How does this benefit the wife? Are we dealing with solutions (OUGHT) or justifying the current condition (IS)?
Yesterday we covered "pornography". When I help someone addicted to pornography, one of the first things I talk about is the difference between beauty and attraction. I ask them if they have found that perfect picture yet: The most beautiful woman in the world. Actually, a picture that seems perfect at first quickly begins to lose its appeal on repeated viewings...and the quest for the next perfect picture candidate begins. The same thing EFFECT is occurring with looking twice at women. The second look is because the man thinks he may have seen the PERFECT woman. Further examination shows she's not PERFECT...no woman is. However, the damage is done when the subsequent looks involve imagination...
Beauty is based on the Physical. The Physical runs down...it will NEVER be perfect. That is the problem with "beauty"...it fades. It will NEVER become better over the Long Term. Attraction is a different story...
ATTRACTION
Attraction is defined as "an invisible power within a body by which it draws anything to itself". Attraction deals with the invisible power WITHIN the body...the Spiritual. This is something that can grow. This is OUGHT because it is something we can DO.
Since attraction is based on the Spiritual, it can be perfect...it can become better REGARDLESS of how the outside looks. How is THAT possible?
My background is formulating consumer products: Joy dishwashing liquid, Liquid Tide laundry detergent, Shout!, Spray 'n Wash, Purex, etc. Each of these products have numerous attributes...well over 50. They clean different stains in different conditions. They have different stability profiles. They look, smell, pour, and feel different. They have different packages.
One of the toughest things to change about the product is the package. If you change it too much, people don't have the same attachment (attraction) to the product.
When I would interview consumers who have used a product for years, it was like listening to a romance. The person had been through a lot with the product. The person was attracted to the ENTIRE product (WITHIN) and their attraction to the product had grown over time. However, what REPRESENTED the product was its appearance (BODY). When a person saw the appearance, EVEN if it was out of date and old fashion looking, the attraction was there.
The CAUSE was the ENTIRE experience (WITHIN).
The EFFECT was ATTRACTION to the package...even if the package (BODY) wasn't beautiful!
BEAUTY (IS) fades with repeated encounters.
ATTRACTION (OUGHT) increases with repeated positive encounters BECAUSE as a person gets more experience and understanding of the entire product (WITHIN) it CHANGES and IMPROVES...
...the appearance (BODY) represents the ENTIRE being (WITHIN): a being that you can't get bored with because it is constantly changing.
The background portion of this discussion concludes with an eye opening look at how our society views Sex and Marriage.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Masculinity and Pornography
(This post is months old and continues to get read through "google searches". If you are looking for a way to permanently break an addiction to pornography, you have come to the right place. Today, all the books on this topic, that I'm aware of, tell you to stop doing pornography by either humiliating you or telling you aren't trying hard enough. This post is part of a series. It shows the key to stopping undesirable behavior is to do the opposite of the undesirable behavior. It turns out the opposite of pornography is Biblical masculinity. However, today most churches are teaching worldly masculinity...and worldly masculinity actually encourages masturbating with pornography. We have helped men permanently break an addiction to pornography. If you are interested in more information or one of our people giving a presentation, please e-mail me through the profile section on this blog.)
Among men, pornography is the fastest growing addiction today...WHY? Let's put the last three posts together...
Wednesday's Post: Pornography is the undesirable behavior of giving of one's self to an image.
Tuesday's Post: The way to stop undesirable behavior is get God's help to DO the OPPOSITE
Monday's Post: OUGHT involves solving the problem by DOING the OPPOSITE. IS involves focusing on stopping the APPEARANCE of bad behavior.
Sounds like the key to achieving OUGHT is to find out the OPPOSITE of pornography.
Again, the strategy of focusing on STOPPING a pornography addiction follows the IS strategy...accountability partners, APPEARANCE, lack of UNDERSTANDING, lack of RESPONSIBILITY for solving the problem.
For example, over fifteen years ago I learned how to deal with lusting after women. The answer was NOT to stop looking...how can you NOT look at a woman while you are driving or walking? This is an attempt to stop doing something by stop doing it. You have to do the OPPOSITE. I learned to look away and look back in 10 minutes...this is something I can do! The issue is NOT the first look...it is the second look. The purpose of the second look is to get one's imagination going...which Jesus declared as adultery if the person is imagining intercourse with the woman.
When I tell this to men, they'll say that after 10 minutes the woman is probably gone. I agree AND I ask them the next time they look away, wait 10 minutes and ask themselves what did they miss by looking away. They answer nothing...but at the time it APPEARED to be the most important thing in the world. Then I ask them how they felt when they looked away for 10 minutes. The answer basically sounds like this: "Different/Good because I didn't have to deal with the guilt I usually have when I look again." Even if the woman is still in sight after 10 minutes, the individual's decision to look again now comes with UNDERSTANDING of the purpose of looking again and 10 minutes of not feeling guilty that they are choosing to give up. Also, when the man looks away, he tends to notice how ridiculous other men look as they stare at the woman.
The same technique could be used with pornography that is put in front of you against your will...however, people addicted to pornography choose to view it...
MASCULINITY
What is your definition of "masculinity"?
Take a moment and define this term...write it down. IF you continue reading without defining this term, you are LUKEWARM.
Most people define "masculinity" with words that accentuate the Physical...manliness, strong, powerful, toughness, wild, warrior, fighter, courage, virility, dominance - able to impose his will to the point that there is no risk...
In "Wild at Heart", John Eldredge says Adam was created outside the Garden so God intended men to exist in the wilderness. He further states that every man is born "Wild at Heart" (wild, uncontrolled, brash, and wreckless) and there is something wrong if they are not.
In fact, this has led to a belief among "Christian leaders" that God wants men and boys to be "warriors". This is not supported by the Bible and comes from man-made tradition. In fact, it contradicts Jesus life. The ONLY time Jesus got physical was after He thought for a day and it was against inanimate objects. Everything Jesus taught was focused on us being LEADERS with His definition being "a servant"...not a BOSS or warrior.
Whether we like it or not, John Eldredge states the way it IS...masculinity today IS defined in this Physical manner. Was this always the definition of "masculinity"?
Actually, this definition of "masculinity" was created during the Industrial Revolution. Before the Industrial Revolution, home and work were in the same location. This is obvious with a farm, but even the downtown stores were both...the front was the family business and the back (or upstairs) of the building was the home. Before the Industrial Revolution men AND women worked...men AND women raised the kids. It was only once home and work were divided that "men worked" and "women stayed at home to raise the kids". At that point, men were encouraged to be "wild at heart" in order to compete in the pyramidal scheme known as "corporate" America.
It may interest you to know that ALL the parenting books written BEFORE the Industrial Revolution were to the FATHER. Look at the statistics for single fathers vs. single mothers. Kids are MUCH WORSE off if they are raised by a single mother than a single father. It would seem the quickest way to ruin society is for the FATHERS to be removed from the home AND encouraged to act like an animal.
The definition for "masculinity" BEFORE the Industrial Revolution was "the ability to put the interests of others above your own".
Think about it...this is BRUTAL...it would take a REALLY TOUGH person to put their spouse and kids' interests ahead of their own.
How many men fit this definition of "masculinity"?
Look at the "masculine" men of the Bible again with this definition...
God (OUGHT) made men to put the interests of others ahead of their own...that is when they can truly be called "masculine". This is the same as the definition of LOVE!
MANLY THRILLS
John Eldredge is not the only person who teaches IS masculinity...the world glorifies it...and most of the churches reinforce it. Listen to ANY sermon on "being a man"...ask your pastor/teacher their definition of "masculinity"...this is not just John Eldredge.
One of the things John Eldredge nails in "Wild at Heart" is males have this need to thrillseek...jumping out of planes, riding motorcycles, going to war, hunting, rockclimbing, gambling, racing, etc...all of these things tend to be activities men seek in order to fulfill their need to experience a thrill. God clearly made males to experience a thrill. What is the greatest thrill a man can experience?
The IS "masculinity" people constantly use movies to illustrate their points. Usually it is "Braveheart", "Gladiator", or "Lord of the Rings"...all of them involve an adventure, a battle, and saving a beauty as a passage into "masculinity". What was the greatest thrill in "Lord of the Rings"?
If you saw the trilogy, it was over ten hours of battles with people, spirits, forces of nature, animals, and people/animals...by the end of the last movie, it seems they had faced EVERY thrill a man could face. However, once all the "thrills" were over, the four hobbits are back in the shire having pints of ale. It is THEN that we see the greatest thrill a man can experience. Sam decides he is going to share the deep feelings he has always had for a woman who works at the pub...with THAT woman! As Sam gets up, his buddies (who have been on the GREATEST THRILL ADVENTURE KNOWN TO MAN) look at each other cringing. They have battled "EVERYTHING"...and THEY consider taking an emotional risk with a woman as SCARY!
An emotional risk is when a person shares something personal about themselves that they think will cause someone else to think less of them. This is contrastive. In the example above, Sam shares his feelings with this woman knowing she could be repulsed and completely reject him. This sharing is Fellowship. This vulnerable act is COMPLETELY the opposite of what society tells us is masculine! Only telling someone information that makes you look good is comparative...and isn't thrilling.
God made men to experience their greatest thrill in life when they take an emotional risk with a woman.
THE OPPOSITE OF PORNOGRAPHY
Our culture has turned masculinity into being an animal and thinking about yourself, especially sexually. Pornography is the ultimate example of IS masculinity: an act that ONLY benefits the man AND requires NO emotional risk.
The OPPOSITE of pornography is to take an emotional risk with a woman!
I have helped a handful of men eliminate their addiction to pornography by encouraging them to take an emotional risk with a woman.
All of them have told me that taking an emotional risk with a woman has been the toughest thing they have ever done and the most rewarding. All of them have said they needed to trust God in order to do it! All of them have describe the experience using a typical thrill example..."It felt like jumping out of a plane...without a parachute!"..."I felt like I had jumped off a cliff!"
NONE of these men WANT to look at pornography. They are trying to be "masculine". However, EVERY message they get (both inside and outside the church) makes pornography synonymous with masculinity. They are NEVER told WHY pornography is bad...because it is sin? WHY is it sin? What is the SOLUTION? These questions are NOT being answered and pornography continues to become more mainstream and a greater part of the fabric of society. In my area of the state, a woman who teaches a young adults group at her church told a story at a recent party about her and her boyfriend watching pornographic videos together. To this younger generation, we look legalistic if we can't give a bottom rung, non-contradictory explanation of WHY pornography is unprofitable.
Once they UNDERSTAND masculinity (OUGHT) and what to DO, they are relieved! There is something to accomplish...NOT avoid. It makes sense...all they were looking for was a non-contradictory answer that the church couldn't provide.
No "accountability" partners...no appealing to their "mental toughness" to stop undesirable behavior...just solving the problem with OUGHT.
Our culture has soft-sold OUGHT masculinity and tricked males into accepting the responsibility...and the EFFECT is we are raising generations of people who increasingly can't function in society...their fathers are ACTUALLY encouraged by the church and society to act like animals and be about their own interests outside the home.
The REASON pornography is unprofitable for ALL OF US is that we are depriving society of OUGHT masculinity...people who are created to be about the best interests of others and raise the next generation...
...and the church keeps preaching/teaching IS.
The background portion of this discussion can now deal with a concept we face everyday: Beauty vs. Attraction.
Among men, pornography is the fastest growing addiction today...WHY? Let's put the last three posts together...
Wednesday's Post: Pornography is the undesirable behavior of giving of one's self to an image.
Tuesday's Post: The way to stop undesirable behavior is get God's help to DO the OPPOSITE
Monday's Post: OUGHT involves solving the problem by DOING the OPPOSITE. IS involves focusing on stopping the APPEARANCE of bad behavior.
Sounds like the key to achieving OUGHT is to find out the OPPOSITE of pornography.
Again, the strategy of focusing on STOPPING a pornography addiction follows the IS strategy...accountability partners, APPEARANCE, lack of UNDERSTANDING, lack of RESPONSIBILITY for solving the problem.
For example, over fifteen years ago I learned how to deal with lusting after women. The answer was NOT to stop looking...how can you NOT look at a woman while you are driving or walking? This is an attempt to stop doing something by stop doing it. You have to do the OPPOSITE. I learned to look away and look back in 10 minutes...this is something I can do! The issue is NOT the first look...it is the second look. The purpose of the second look is to get one's imagination going...which Jesus declared as adultery if the person is imagining intercourse with the woman.
When I tell this to men, they'll say that after 10 minutes the woman is probably gone. I agree AND I ask them the next time they look away, wait 10 minutes and ask themselves what did they miss by looking away. They answer nothing...but at the time it APPEARED to be the most important thing in the world. Then I ask them how they felt when they looked away for 10 minutes. The answer basically sounds like this: "Different/Good because I didn't have to deal with the guilt I usually have when I look again." Even if the woman is still in sight after 10 minutes, the individual's decision to look again now comes with UNDERSTANDING of the purpose of looking again and 10 minutes of not feeling guilty that they are choosing to give up. Also, when the man looks away, he tends to notice how ridiculous other men look as they stare at the woman.
The same technique could be used with pornography that is put in front of you against your will...however, people addicted to pornography choose to view it...
MASCULINITY
What is your definition of "masculinity"?
Take a moment and define this term...write it down. IF you continue reading without defining this term, you are LUKEWARM.
Most people define "masculinity" with words that accentuate the Physical...manliness, strong, powerful, toughness, wild, warrior, fighter, courage, virility, dominance - able to impose his will to the point that there is no risk...
In "Wild at Heart", John Eldredge says Adam was created outside the Garden so God intended men to exist in the wilderness. He further states that every man is born "Wild at Heart" (wild, uncontrolled, brash, and wreckless) and there is something wrong if they are not.
In fact, this has led to a belief among "Christian leaders" that God wants men and boys to be "warriors". This is not supported by the Bible and comes from man-made tradition. In fact, it contradicts Jesus life. The ONLY time Jesus got physical was after He thought for a day and it was against inanimate objects. Everything Jesus taught was focused on us being LEADERS with His definition being "a servant"...not a BOSS or warrior.
Whether we like it or not, John Eldredge states the way it IS...masculinity today IS defined in this Physical manner. Was this always the definition of "masculinity"?
Actually, this definition of "masculinity" was created during the Industrial Revolution. Before the Industrial Revolution, home and work were in the same location. This is obvious with a farm, but even the downtown stores were both...the front was the family business and the back (or upstairs) of the building was the home. Before the Industrial Revolution men AND women worked...men AND women raised the kids. It was only once home and work were divided that "men worked" and "women stayed at home to raise the kids". At that point, men were encouraged to be "wild at heart" in order to compete in the pyramidal scheme known as "corporate" America.
It may interest you to know that ALL the parenting books written BEFORE the Industrial Revolution were to the FATHER. Look at the statistics for single fathers vs. single mothers. Kids are MUCH WORSE off if they are raised by a single mother than a single father. It would seem the quickest way to ruin society is for the FATHERS to be removed from the home AND encouraged to act like an animal.
The definition for "masculinity" BEFORE the Industrial Revolution was "the ability to put the interests of others above your own".
Think about it...this is BRUTAL...it would take a REALLY TOUGH person to put their spouse and kids' interests ahead of their own.
How many men fit this definition of "masculinity"?
Look at the "masculine" men of the Bible again with this definition...
God (OUGHT) made men to put the interests of others ahead of their own...that is when they can truly be called "masculine". This is the same as the definition of LOVE!
MANLY THRILLS
John Eldredge is not the only person who teaches IS masculinity...the world glorifies it...and most of the churches reinforce it. Listen to ANY sermon on "being a man"...ask your pastor/teacher their definition of "masculinity"...this is not just John Eldredge.
One of the things John Eldredge nails in "Wild at Heart" is males have this need to thrillseek...jumping out of planes, riding motorcycles, going to war, hunting, rockclimbing, gambling, racing, etc...all of these things tend to be activities men seek in order to fulfill their need to experience a thrill. God clearly made males to experience a thrill. What is the greatest thrill a man can experience?
The IS "masculinity" people constantly use movies to illustrate their points. Usually it is "Braveheart", "Gladiator", or "Lord of the Rings"...all of them involve an adventure, a battle, and saving a beauty as a passage into "masculinity". What was the greatest thrill in "Lord of the Rings"?
If you saw the trilogy, it was over ten hours of battles with people, spirits, forces of nature, animals, and people/animals...by the end of the last movie, it seems they had faced EVERY thrill a man could face. However, once all the "thrills" were over, the four hobbits are back in the shire having pints of ale. It is THEN that we see the greatest thrill a man can experience. Sam decides he is going to share the deep feelings he has always had for a woman who works at the pub...with THAT woman! As Sam gets up, his buddies (who have been on the GREATEST THRILL ADVENTURE KNOWN TO MAN) look at each other cringing. They have battled "EVERYTHING"...and THEY consider taking an emotional risk with a woman as SCARY!
An emotional risk is when a person shares something personal about themselves that they think will cause someone else to think less of them. This is contrastive. In the example above, Sam shares his feelings with this woman knowing she could be repulsed and completely reject him. This sharing is Fellowship. This vulnerable act is COMPLETELY the opposite of what society tells us is masculine! Only telling someone information that makes you look good is comparative...and isn't thrilling.
God made men to experience their greatest thrill in life when they take an emotional risk with a woman.
THE OPPOSITE OF PORNOGRAPHY
Our culture has turned masculinity into being an animal and thinking about yourself, especially sexually. Pornography is the ultimate example of IS masculinity: an act that ONLY benefits the man AND requires NO emotional risk.
The OPPOSITE of pornography is to take an emotional risk with a woman!
I have helped a handful of men eliminate their addiction to pornography by encouraging them to take an emotional risk with a woman.
All of them have told me that taking an emotional risk with a woman has been the toughest thing they have ever done and the most rewarding. All of them have said they needed to trust God in order to do it! All of them have describe the experience using a typical thrill example..."It felt like jumping out of a plane...without a parachute!"..."I felt like I had jumped off a cliff!"
NONE of these men WANT to look at pornography. They are trying to be "masculine". However, EVERY message they get (both inside and outside the church) makes pornography synonymous with masculinity. They are NEVER told WHY pornography is bad...because it is sin? WHY is it sin? What is the SOLUTION? These questions are NOT being answered and pornography continues to become more mainstream and a greater part of the fabric of society. In my area of the state, a woman who teaches a young adults group at her church told a story at a recent party about her and her boyfriend watching pornographic videos together. To this younger generation, we look legalistic if we can't give a bottom rung, non-contradictory explanation of WHY pornography is unprofitable.
Once they UNDERSTAND masculinity (OUGHT) and what to DO, they are relieved! There is something to accomplish...NOT avoid. It makes sense...all they were looking for was a non-contradictory answer that the church couldn't provide.
No "accountability" partners...no appealing to their "mental toughness" to stop undesirable behavior...just solving the problem with OUGHT.
Our culture has soft-sold OUGHT masculinity and tricked males into accepting the responsibility...and the EFFECT is we are raising generations of people who increasingly can't function in society...their fathers are ACTUALLY encouraged by the church and society to act like animals and be about their own interests outside the home.
The REASON pornography is unprofitable for ALL OF US is that we are depriving society of OUGHT masculinity...people who are created to be about the best interests of others and raise the next generation...
...and the church keeps preaching/teaching IS.
The background portion of this discussion can now deal with a concept we face everyday: Beauty vs. Attraction.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Fornication
The first two posts this week were lengthy. This post will be comparatively short.
Recall, we are covering five concepts from the next book that will help us understand Fellowship as it relates to Sex and Marriage. This post will cover "fornication".
FORNICATION DEFINITION
In the Old Testament, the word "fornication" occurs four times, with "fornications" occurring once. There are two Hebrew words that cover these usages.
zanah (Strong's 2181) a primary root; to commit adultery; figuratively to commit idolatry.
taznuwth or taznuth (Strong's 8457) from 2181; harlotry; figuratively idolatry.
The word itself literally deals with sex and figuratively with idolatry. Yet, ALL FIVE usages of the word LITERALLY deal with idolatry.
In the New Testament, "fornicator" is sometimes used literally to deal with sex, sometimes literally used to deal with idolatry, and sometimes it isn't specified.
porneuo (Strong's 4203) to act the harlot; figuratively to practice idolatry
porneia (Strong's 4202) from 4203; harlotry; figuratively idolatry
In the New Testament "idolator" means "image worshipper"...to give one's self to an image.
SEX AND IDOLATRY
There is a real danger to defining "fornication" as solely dealing with sex. Fornication is ANY act of giving one's self to an image...to the APPEARANCE...to the IS.
Sometimes this involves worshipping another God. Sometimes this involves sex.
Notice, the Greek word for "fornication" is the same root word as for "pornography". What is pornography? It is the giving of one's self to an image. Pornography DOESN'T involve a live person...it involves paper and ink, or color lights on a screen. What is a person REALLY looking at? An image of a person.
What is the link between idol worship and sex?
BOTH ARE COVENANTAL...
Fornication is the forming of a covenant with an image...APPEARANCE...IS.
EVERYTIME APPEARANCE is made pre-eminent it is FORNICATION.
Despite what some pastors and teachers today tell us, Jesus NEVER made APPEARANCE pre-eminent.
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." (Matthew 5:29)
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men." (Matthew 6:1-5)
"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?" (Matthew 6:25)
"And why take ye thought for raiment?" (Matthew 6:28)
"Wherefore if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?" (Matthew 6:30)
Focusing on APPEARANCE (IS) attempts to replace faith...
The background portion of this discussion begins to build with the next topic: masculinity.
Recall, we are covering five concepts from the next book that will help us understand Fellowship as it relates to Sex and Marriage. This post will cover "fornication".
FORNICATION DEFINITION
In the Old Testament, the word "fornication" occurs four times, with "fornications" occurring once. There are two Hebrew words that cover these usages.
zanah (Strong's 2181) a primary root; to commit adultery; figuratively to commit idolatry.
taznuwth or taznuth (Strong's 8457) from 2181; harlotry; figuratively idolatry.
The word itself literally deals with sex and figuratively with idolatry. Yet, ALL FIVE usages of the word LITERALLY deal with idolatry.
In the New Testament, "fornicator" is sometimes used literally to deal with sex, sometimes literally used to deal with idolatry, and sometimes it isn't specified.
porneuo (Strong's 4203) to act the harlot; figuratively to practice idolatry
porneia (Strong's 4202) from 4203; harlotry; figuratively idolatry
In the New Testament "idolator" means "image worshipper"...to give one's self to an image.
SEX AND IDOLATRY
There is a real danger to defining "fornication" as solely dealing with sex. Fornication is ANY act of giving one's self to an image...to the APPEARANCE...to the IS.
Sometimes this involves worshipping another God. Sometimes this involves sex.
Notice, the Greek word for "fornication" is the same root word as for "pornography". What is pornography? It is the giving of one's self to an image. Pornography DOESN'T involve a live person...it involves paper and ink, or color lights on a screen. What is a person REALLY looking at? An image of a person.
What is the link between idol worship and sex?
BOTH ARE COVENANTAL...
Fornication is the forming of a covenant with an image...APPEARANCE...IS.
EVERYTIME APPEARANCE is made pre-eminent it is FORNICATION.
Despite what some pastors and teachers today tell us, Jesus NEVER made APPEARANCE pre-eminent.
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." (Matthew 5:29)
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men." (Matthew 6:1-5)
"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?" (Matthew 6:25)
"And why take ye thought for raiment?" (Matthew 6:28)
"Wherefore if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?" (Matthew 6:30)
Focusing on APPEARANCE (IS) attempts to replace faith...
The background portion of this discussion begins to build with the next topic: masculinity.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Overcoming Temptation
This week we are covering five concepts from the next book that will help us understand how Fellowship relates to Sex and Marriage. Yesterday we dealt with OUGHT vs. IS. Today we will look at how to overcome temptation.
How OUGHT we to overcome temptation?
First of all, you can't DO nothing!
(You are ALWAYS doing "something".)
IS: Stop doing the undesirable behavior with God's help.
You can't stop doing something by focusing on stop doing it.
(Paul said this will just make you want to do it MORE. This is just an attempt to treat the symptoms. This is focused on EFFECTS...on APPEARANCE! Why do we accept this as a "Godly" answer?)
OUGHT: Get God's help to DO the OPPOSITE of the undesirable behavior!
Notice you are doing something and it is NOT focused on the undesirable behavior. This is a solution. This treats the CAUSE. Notice, the OPPOSITE of undesirable behavior is NOT to stop doing it...it has to be something that you can DO.
"Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the felling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:14-15)
Jesus OUGHT to be our example for overcoming undesirable behavior!
The passage says Jesus "was in all points tempted like as we are"...what does that mean? This is the ONLY usage of the word "points" in the New Testament and there is no definition for it. Notice the word wasn't "things", which is used A LOT in the New Testament. What would it mean for Jesus to be tempted in "all points"?
It CAN'T be "all things" as we are because I don't believe Jesus was tempted to play too much golf or video games. Actually, look at that example more closely...are you tempted to play too much golf? Some people are. In fact, you may be thinking, "I wish the enemy would focus on tempting me to play too much golf!" Why? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE EASY FOR YOU TO RESIST IT!
The enemy ONLY tempts people in areas that could possibly work! These areas are spiritual. The enemy is spiritual. The enemy looks at your gift (which is spiritual) and tries to come up with a way to use that gift to destroy...in a way that doesn't create. These specific areas (points) are different for you than for other people. This is uniqueness!
Jesus was tempted. Jesus had areas He could have been destructive in...What were Jesus' points?
JESUS' BAPTISM
There are two accounts of the same instance where Jesus is tempted by the enemy. Both begin with Jesus' baptism:
"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." (Matthew 3:16 - 4:1)
"And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness. Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered." (Luke 4:1-2)
(Notice the first passage gives the FIRST blatant/specific reference to the Trinity. All three Persons are specifically named.)
Jesus had the Sprit of God before baptism...He was born with the Holy Spirit. The baptism made Jesus FULL of the Spirit. (Now is not the time to argue this doctrinal point. However, if you feel the need, answer this question: What was the purpose of Pentecost? If you think it was so that the disciples would have the Holy Ghost, then read John 20:22 and spend some time removing the contradiction. Write to me if THAT keeps you up at night.)
The Spirit led Him into the wilderness SO THAT He would be tempted. Why would He do this intentionally? To intentionally find His POINTS! Jesus is actually using the devil in order to find out what the devil is going to CONSTANTLY be working on! Jesus' ministry OFFICIALLY begins with His baptism AND His first act is to get tempted! Jesus was intentional. He wanted to know IMMEDIATELY what He was dealing with...so did the Spirit of God.
JESUS POINTS
"And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." (Luke 4:3-4)
The first temptation dealt with the Physical...with eating!
A couple of background comments:
-Did Jesus turn the stones to bread? No. Why do the lyrics of "We are the World" say He did? Was that song rewriting history? Was it telling us Jesus gave in to the tempting of the devil?
-The devil poses his question as an "IF/THEN". The devil can't speak truth...this is IMPORTANT and COMPLETELY missed when this story is preached. The devil doesn't state that Jesus is the Son of God...that would be truth. The devil poses it just like he did in the Garden...as an "IF/THEN".
-Jesus response was GRACE...we OUGHT to live by EVERY WORD OF GOD. (Luke 2:40 said Jesus operated in GRACE even as a child...because He was born with the Holy Spirit.)
Jesus responded with scripture...Deuteronomy 8:3. We covered this in a previous post...THIS is when it becomes VITAL to understand TRUTH. Pastors and teachers will tell you that Jesus quoted scripture and you need to be able to quote scripture to handle temptation. This is WRONG!
Jesus quoted TRUTH. The devil can't quote TRUTH. You need to quote TRUTH to handle temptation. Is the Bible TRUTH? We dealt with that question in the TRUTH post. But just for the fun of it, let's be like these pastors/teachers and say that scripture is ALWAYS TRUTH...
"And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will, I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thing. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4:5-8)
The second temptation dealt with the Spiritual...with worshipping the devil in order to be a leader.
A couple of background comments:
- Whether the power and glory are really given to the devil are not the issue here. The devil connects the statement with his assertion that he will give it to Jesus. Clearly that was never going to happen...if you think the devil would do it YOU are falling for his empty promise!
- Again, the devil poses an "IF/THEN".
Jesus responded with scripture...Deuteronomy 10:20. Before going to the third temptation, take a moment to answer this question: Is scripture ALWAYS TRUTH?
"And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season. And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about." (Luke 4:9-14)
The third temptation dealt with the Emotional...trusting God.
The devil quoted scripture! Psalm 91:11-12! Does the devil speak TRUTH? Jesus said in the devil there is NO TRUTH! (John 8:44) How do you reconcile this contradiction?
EVERY pastor/teacher who says to quote scripture IS the embodiment of IS!!!! This is an attempt to treat the symptoms...to APPEAR godly...to avoid responsibility for the CAUSES.
You don't have to quote scripture to the devil...you have to quote TRUTH. "I don't want to do this!" will help you avoid temptation if it is the TRUTH. "I can't do this again." is NOT TRUTH...you CAN do it again!
AGAIN, the devil used an "IF/THEN". The devil was using scripture to destroy...TRUTH creates. However, you have to UNDERSTAND the scripture in order to create! Jesus understood the scriptures He used. The devil DOESN'T have understanding...he has knowledge. Do you UNDERSTAND the scriptures you quote? Did you understand that the first scripture Jesus quoted was concerning GRACE? Jesus quoted some very straightforward scriptures. Be careful when you quote scripture...the meaning of some of the scriptures aren't immediately obvious. Dealing with temptation by reading from the Bible out loud and NOT UNDERSTANDING is IS!
OUGHT solves the problem by quoting TRUTH. When OUGHT quotes scripture it UNDERSTANDS the non-contradictory meaning of the scripture.
How can ANYONE tell you to "quote scripture" when it didn't work for the devil? How can you be sure you aren't doing what the devil did?
One more HUGE point...
OUGHT solves the problem. Throughout the Bible, the people who followed God (OUGHT) FIRST solved peoples' problems, THEN SECOND pointed people to God and His Word. Whether it was Daniel, Joseph, Paul, Jesus, etc. the OUGHT people ALWAYS solved the problem first, then pointed to God and His Word. There is ONE EXCEPTION...this story! Jesus DIDN'T solve the devil's problem...He IMMEDIATELY pointed the devil to God and His Word. This is IS! Think about that!
When people avoid the responsibility of solving the problem and jump to EFFECTS, they are IS focused. Jesus was IS focused with the devil because the devil is IS! There is no OUGHT with the devil. However, when a person treats another person with IS, they are treating that person like the devil! Does God REALLY want us to quote scripture at people (IS) or take the responsibility to solve their problem (OUGHT)?
Quoting scripture is IS, it APPEARS to be an attempt to solve the problem...but it doesn't solve the problem. Be careful with people who quote scripture and don't UNDERSTAND what they are quoting...either because it is contradictory or they rationalize why they can't or don't have to give an explanation.
JESUS' RESPONSE
Jesus faced a Physical, Spiritual, and Emotional temptation. His response was Mental. He quoted TRUTH. He understood. This temptation of Jesus involved ALL of Him.
What did Jesus learn?
He learned that His weaknesses were going to be eating, leading, and trusting God...He was made for ALL of these!
Jesus LOVES to eat. The Bible ends with a FEAST...and it is paradise. Jesus HEARTILY celebrated the earthly feasts.
"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children." (Matthew 11:18-19)
Jesus was showing the contradiction in how people UNDERSTOOD John the Baptist and Jesus. The APPEARANCE was different, but it didn't change how people judged them. Wisdom is the decision (CAUSE)...and it is justified (PROVEN) by its EFFECTS.
Jesus enjoyed eating and drinking. This was a potential weakness. How did He respond throughout His time on earth? He did the OPPOSITE. He fasted throughout His time on earth.
Fasting ISN'T "not eating". Fasting is praying and focusing on God EVERYTIME your flesh says you are going to die if you don't eat. People who think "fasting" is just stop eating are focused on EFFECTS...on IS. People who realize the PURPOSE behind fasting and do the CAUSES are OUGHT. This is something you can DO.
Notice, Jesus was the ONLY one in His group that was fasting...His disciples DIDN'T fast!
"Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?" (Matthew 9:14)
"And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?" (Mark 2:18)
Jesus fasted in response to His weakness. His disciples didn't fast.
The second temptation focused on Jesus being a leader. Jesus was made to lead...
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder:..." (Isaiah 9:6)
"Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and justice from henceforth even for ever." (Isaiah 9:10)
Jesus was made to be our leader. The devil tried to tempt Him by offering it to Him now. This was a potential weakness. How did He respond throughout His time on earth? He did the OPPOSITE. He served!
"And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:27-28)
Jesus last teaching lesson to the disciples involved washing their feet:
"So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." (John 13:12-15)
The word "OUGHT" is at the center of the lesson! Jesus and God are ALL about OUGHT.
Jesus served in response to His weakness.
The third temptation focused on Jesus trusting God. Jesus HAD TO TRUST GOD COMPLETELY in order to serve His purpose.
"Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him." (John 8:28-29)
Jesus UNDERSTOOD because He was TAUGHT by the Father. Jesus realized He was NOT alone...even though it was possible to feel that way when you trust God. If Jesus had doubts it would have undermined EVERYTHING He was made to do...to give His life as a ransom for many.
"And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt." (Mark 14:34-36)
Jesus states IS: His soul IS exceeding sorrowful unto death. Yet, He pursued OUGHT: God's Will. He had to trust God.
Jesus was made to trust God COMPLETELY. The devil tried to tempt Him by trusting God in something Jesus would cause, which is NOT trusting God. This was a potential weakness. How did He respond throughout His time on earth? He did the OPPOSITE. He ONLY did what God told Him (GRACE) AND NOTHING ELSE!
Jesus was tempted in ALL of His weaknesses just as ALL of us are tempted in ALL of our unique weaknesses.
Follow OUGHT...Follow God, His Son, and His Word.
You can't DO nothing.
You can't stop doing something by focusing on stop doing it.
You can ONLY stop doing something by DOING the OPPOSITE!
This background portion of the discussion continues with a look at fornication.
How OUGHT we to overcome temptation?
First of all, you can't DO nothing!
(You are ALWAYS doing "something".)
IS: Stop doing the undesirable behavior with God's help.
You can't stop doing something by focusing on stop doing it.
(Paul said this will just make you want to do it MORE. This is just an attempt to treat the symptoms. This is focused on EFFECTS...on APPEARANCE! Why do we accept this as a "Godly" answer?)
OUGHT: Get God's help to DO the OPPOSITE of the undesirable behavior!
Notice you are doing something and it is NOT focused on the undesirable behavior. This is a solution. This treats the CAUSE. Notice, the OPPOSITE of undesirable behavior is NOT to stop doing it...it has to be something that you can DO.
"Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the felling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:14-15)
Jesus OUGHT to be our example for overcoming undesirable behavior!
The passage says Jesus "was in all points tempted like as we are"...what does that mean? This is the ONLY usage of the word "points" in the New Testament and there is no definition for it. Notice the word wasn't "things", which is used A LOT in the New Testament. What would it mean for Jesus to be tempted in "all points"?
It CAN'T be "all things" as we are because I don't believe Jesus was tempted to play too much golf or video games. Actually, look at that example more closely...are you tempted to play too much golf? Some people are. In fact, you may be thinking, "I wish the enemy would focus on tempting me to play too much golf!" Why? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE EASY FOR YOU TO RESIST IT!
The enemy ONLY tempts people in areas that could possibly work! These areas are spiritual. The enemy is spiritual. The enemy looks at your gift (which is spiritual) and tries to come up with a way to use that gift to destroy...in a way that doesn't create. These specific areas (points) are different for you than for other people. This is uniqueness!
Jesus was tempted. Jesus had areas He could have been destructive in...What were Jesus' points?
JESUS' BAPTISM
There are two accounts of the same instance where Jesus is tempted by the enemy. Both begin with Jesus' baptism:
"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." (Matthew 3:16 - 4:1)
"And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness. Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered." (Luke 4:1-2)
(Notice the first passage gives the FIRST blatant/specific reference to the Trinity. All three Persons are specifically named.)
Jesus had the Sprit of God before baptism...He was born with the Holy Spirit. The baptism made Jesus FULL of the Spirit. (Now is not the time to argue this doctrinal point. However, if you feel the need, answer this question: What was the purpose of Pentecost? If you think it was so that the disciples would have the Holy Ghost, then read John 20:22 and spend some time removing the contradiction. Write to me if THAT keeps you up at night.)
The Spirit led Him into the wilderness SO THAT He would be tempted. Why would He do this intentionally? To intentionally find His POINTS! Jesus is actually using the devil in order to find out what the devil is going to CONSTANTLY be working on! Jesus' ministry OFFICIALLY begins with His baptism AND His first act is to get tempted! Jesus was intentional. He wanted to know IMMEDIATELY what He was dealing with...so did the Spirit of God.
JESUS POINTS
"And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." (Luke 4:3-4)
The first temptation dealt with the Physical...with eating!
A couple of background comments:
-Did Jesus turn the stones to bread? No. Why do the lyrics of "We are the World" say He did? Was that song rewriting history? Was it telling us Jesus gave in to the tempting of the devil?
-The devil poses his question as an "IF/THEN". The devil can't speak truth...this is IMPORTANT and COMPLETELY missed when this story is preached. The devil doesn't state that Jesus is the Son of God...that would be truth. The devil poses it just like he did in the Garden...as an "IF/THEN".
-Jesus response was GRACE...we OUGHT to live by EVERY WORD OF GOD. (Luke 2:40 said Jesus operated in GRACE even as a child...because He was born with the Holy Spirit.)
Jesus responded with scripture...Deuteronomy 8:3. We covered this in a previous post...THIS is when it becomes VITAL to understand TRUTH. Pastors and teachers will tell you that Jesus quoted scripture and you need to be able to quote scripture to handle temptation. This is WRONG!
Jesus quoted TRUTH. The devil can't quote TRUTH. You need to quote TRUTH to handle temptation. Is the Bible TRUTH? We dealt with that question in the TRUTH post. But just for the fun of it, let's be like these pastors/teachers and say that scripture is ALWAYS TRUTH...
"And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will, I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thing. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4:5-8)
The second temptation dealt with the Spiritual...with worshipping the devil in order to be a leader.
A couple of background comments:
- Whether the power and glory are really given to the devil are not the issue here. The devil connects the statement with his assertion that he will give it to Jesus. Clearly that was never going to happen...if you think the devil would do it YOU are falling for his empty promise!
- Again, the devil poses an "IF/THEN".
Jesus responded with scripture...Deuteronomy 10:20. Before going to the third temptation, take a moment to answer this question: Is scripture ALWAYS TRUTH?
"And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season. And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about." (Luke 4:9-14)
The third temptation dealt with the Emotional...trusting God.
The devil quoted scripture! Psalm 91:11-12! Does the devil speak TRUTH? Jesus said in the devil there is NO TRUTH! (John 8:44) How do you reconcile this contradiction?
EVERY pastor/teacher who says to quote scripture IS the embodiment of IS!!!! This is an attempt to treat the symptoms...to APPEAR godly...to avoid responsibility for the CAUSES.
You don't have to quote scripture to the devil...you have to quote TRUTH. "I don't want to do this!" will help you avoid temptation if it is the TRUTH. "I can't do this again." is NOT TRUTH...you CAN do it again!
AGAIN, the devil used an "IF/THEN". The devil was using scripture to destroy...TRUTH creates. However, you have to UNDERSTAND the scripture in order to create! Jesus understood the scriptures He used. The devil DOESN'T have understanding...he has knowledge. Do you UNDERSTAND the scriptures you quote? Did you understand that the first scripture Jesus quoted was concerning GRACE? Jesus quoted some very straightforward scriptures. Be careful when you quote scripture...the meaning of some of the scriptures aren't immediately obvious. Dealing with temptation by reading from the Bible out loud and NOT UNDERSTANDING is IS!
OUGHT solves the problem by quoting TRUTH. When OUGHT quotes scripture it UNDERSTANDS the non-contradictory meaning of the scripture.
How can ANYONE tell you to "quote scripture" when it didn't work for the devil? How can you be sure you aren't doing what the devil did?
One more HUGE point...
OUGHT solves the problem. Throughout the Bible, the people who followed God (OUGHT) FIRST solved peoples' problems, THEN SECOND pointed people to God and His Word. Whether it was Daniel, Joseph, Paul, Jesus, etc. the OUGHT people ALWAYS solved the problem first, then pointed to God and His Word. There is ONE EXCEPTION...this story! Jesus DIDN'T solve the devil's problem...He IMMEDIATELY pointed the devil to God and His Word. This is IS! Think about that!
When people avoid the responsibility of solving the problem and jump to EFFECTS, they are IS focused. Jesus was IS focused with the devil because the devil is IS! There is no OUGHT with the devil. However, when a person treats another person with IS, they are treating that person like the devil! Does God REALLY want us to quote scripture at people (IS) or take the responsibility to solve their problem (OUGHT)?
Quoting scripture is IS, it APPEARS to be an attempt to solve the problem...but it doesn't solve the problem. Be careful with people who quote scripture and don't UNDERSTAND what they are quoting...either because it is contradictory or they rationalize why they can't or don't have to give an explanation.
JESUS' RESPONSE
Jesus faced a Physical, Spiritual, and Emotional temptation. His response was Mental. He quoted TRUTH. He understood. This temptation of Jesus involved ALL of Him.
What did Jesus learn?
He learned that His weaknesses were going to be eating, leading, and trusting God...He was made for ALL of these!
Jesus LOVES to eat. The Bible ends with a FEAST...and it is paradise. Jesus HEARTILY celebrated the earthly feasts.
"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children." (Matthew 11:18-19)
Jesus was showing the contradiction in how people UNDERSTOOD John the Baptist and Jesus. The APPEARANCE was different, but it didn't change how people judged them. Wisdom is the decision (CAUSE)...and it is justified (PROVEN) by its EFFECTS.
Jesus enjoyed eating and drinking. This was a potential weakness. How did He respond throughout His time on earth? He did the OPPOSITE. He fasted throughout His time on earth.
Fasting ISN'T "not eating". Fasting is praying and focusing on God EVERYTIME your flesh says you are going to die if you don't eat. People who think "fasting" is just stop eating are focused on EFFECTS...on IS. People who realize the PURPOSE behind fasting and do the CAUSES are OUGHT. This is something you can DO.
Notice, Jesus was the ONLY one in His group that was fasting...His disciples DIDN'T fast!
"Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?" (Matthew 9:14)
"And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?" (Mark 2:18)
Jesus fasted in response to His weakness. His disciples didn't fast.
The second temptation focused on Jesus being a leader. Jesus was made to lead...
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder:..." (Isaiah 9:6)
"Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and justice from henceforth even for ever." (Isaiah 9:10)
Jesus was made to be our leader. The devil tried to tempt Him by offering it to Him now. This was a potential weakness. How did He respond throughout His time on earth? He did the OPPOSITE. He served!
"And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:27-28)
Jesus last teaching lesson to the disciples involved washing their feet:
"So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." (John 13:12-15)
The word "OUGHT" is at the center of the lesson! Jesus and God are ALL about OUGHT.
Jesus served in response to His weakness.
The third temptation focused on Jesus trusting God. Jesus HAD TO TRUST GOD COMPLETELY in order to serve His purpose.
"Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him." (John 8:28-29)
Jesus UNDERSTOOD because He was TAUGHT by the Father. Jesus realized He was NOT alone...even though it was possible to feel that way when you trust God. If Jesus had doubts it would have undermined EVERYTHING He was made to do...to give His life as a ransom for many.
"And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt." (Mark 14:34-36)
Jesus states IS: His soul IS exceeding sorrowful unto death. Yet, He pursued OUGHT: God's Will. He had to trust God.
Jesus was made to trust God COMPLETELY. The devil tried to tempt Him by trusting God in something Jesus would cause, which is NOT trusting God. This was a potential weakness. How did He respond throughout His time on earth? He did the OPPOSITE. He ONLY did what God told Him (GRACE) AND NOTHING ELSE!
Jesus was tempted in ALL of His weaknesses just as ALL of us are tempted in ALL of our unique weaknesses.
Follow OUGHT...Follow God, His Son, and His Word.
You can't DO nothing.
You can't stop doing something by focusing on stop doing it.
You can ONLY stop doing something by DOING the OPPOSITE!
This background portion of the discussion continues with a look at fornication.
Monday, March 17, 2008
The Personality of God
We saw in a previous post that each of us is ACTUALLY a set of principles...we called it the "ARE".
Each of us constantly desires a set of principles...Right and Just. Each of us wants to be Right and Just, but we aren't.
The EFFECTS of these principles are what APPEARS to us...it is what we call "the person" (the personality).
Your principles come out and appear to others in four areas: mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual.
This is your personality...and the CAUSE is your ARE.
The book I'm reading by Moody Press on doctrine begins by distinguishing between God's Nature and His Characteristics (Personality)...and then makes excuses later in the book why it can't distinguish between God's Nature and His Personality.
God's Nature is RIGHT and JUST...the principles. (GRACE is our choice to allow God to flow through us which results in righteousness towards salvation.)
God's Characteristics are the EFFECTS of His Nature coming out in different circumstances...His Personality. In fact, the word "personality" comes from the Latin word persona which means MASK. This ought to show us that God's Personality is NOT God's Nature. God's Personality is what we see and can act like a mask preventing us from understanding God's Nature if we are satisfied with knowing God's Personality.
When you think of a person...you think of the EFFECTS of their set of principles. Their personality is what APPEARS to you: mercy, compassionate, loving, etc. People point to examples in the Bible where God shows "personality traits":
-anger (emotion)
-ear, eyes, mouth (physical)
-repentance (spiritual)
-remembers, knows (mental)
THIS is what people are saying when they state that God is a "person". However, most people can't explain this. God is DEFINITELY a person...and this is WHY. I have had a lot of people get upset that I wrote in "Modeling God" that God's Nature is a set of principles. People have accused me of "depersonalizing" God. Clearly, these are examples of people who are uncomfortable and rather than remain contrastive in order to grow, they are PROVING they are pursuing comfort by remaining comparative.
The same thing happens whenever someone who has read "Modeling God" tells others they know who God is...people who are insecure and uncomfortable PROVE their lack of LOVE by attacking the reader. See for yourself. Ask your pastor or teacher what it means that God is a person and ask them their explanation for God's Nature...see if it is contradictory.
Besides, it would be unjust of God for us NOT to be able to objectively know who God is...how could we tell if we are committing idolatry? Worshipping something different than God is idolatry. Why would knowing who God is be extremely complex? This would mean God ONLY meant the super intelligent to know Him. Besides, which God is truly superior? The one that is unable to make himself known to everyone or the One who is able to explain Himself to all? God not being able to be known is COMPLETELY contradictory to what the Bible says. People who argue for a God that is beyond our ability to objectively identify Him need to make sure they aren't leading others to commit idolatry.
Also, remember that it is CULTISH for someone to require YOU to believe something THEY can't define or explain. For example, people who tell you that YOU have to believe in and follow God, YET THEY CAN'T define God are exhibiting the traits of a cult leader.
Actually, the corrupting of this doctrine is proof we have lost our way. Listen to what AW Tozer wrote in "The Knowledge Of The Holy":
"Before the Christian church goes into eclipse anywhere, there must first be the corrupting of her simple basic theology. She simply gets a wrong answer to the question, “What is God like?” Though she may continue to cling to a sound nominal creed, her practical working creed has become false. The masses of her adherents come to believe that God is different from what He actually is; and that is heresey of the most insidious and deadly kind."
Knowing a person's principles (ARE) allows you to know ALL of them...to know the CAUSE. (Just like Jesus fulfilled the Law by doing the CAUSES.) However, knowing their personality (EFFECTS), that is, their response to EVERY specific instance takes an eternity.
I know who God is...I'm still learning His Personality.
Each of us constantly desires a set of principles...Right and Just. Each of us wants to be Right and Just, but we aren't.
The EFFECTS of these principles are what APPEARS to us...it is what we call "the person" (the personality).
Your principles come out and appear to others in four areas: mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual.
This is your personality...and the CAUSE is your ARE.
The book I'm reading by Moody Press on doctrine begins by distinguishing between God's Nature and His Characteristics (Personality)...and then makes excuses later in the book why it can't distinguish between God's Nature and His Personality.
God's Nature is RIGHT and JUST...the principles. (GRACE is our choice to allow God to flow through us which results in righteousness towards salvation.)
God's Characteristics are the EFFECTS of His Nature coming out in different circumstances...His Personality. In fact, the word "personality" comes from the Latin word persona which means MASK. This ought to show us that God's Personality is NOT God's Nature. God's Personality is what we see and can act like a mask preventing us from understanding God's Nature if we are satisfied with knowing God's Personality.
When you think of a person...you think of the EFFECTS of their set of principles. Their personality is what APPEARS to you: mercy, compassionate, loving, etc. People point to examples in the Bible where God shows "personality traits":
-anger (emotion)
-ear, eyes, mouth (physical)
-repentance (spiritual)
-remembers, knows (mental)
THIS is what people are saying when they state that God is a "person". However, most people can't explain this. God is DEFINITELY a person...and this is WHY. I have had a lot of people get upset that I wrote in "Modeling God" that God's Nature is a set of principles. People have accused me of "depersonalizing" God. Clearly, these are examples of people who are uncomfortable and rather than remain contrastive in order to grow, they are PROVING they are pursuing comfort by remaining comparative.
The same thing happens whenever someone who has read "Modeling God" tells others they know who God is...people who are insecure and uncomfortable PROVE their lack of LOVE by attacking the reader. See for yourself. Ask your pastor or teacher what it means that God is a person and ask them their explanation for God's Nature...see if it is contradictory.
Besides, it would be unjust of God for us NOT to be able to objectively know who God is...how could we tell if we are committing idolatry? Worshipping something different than God is idolatry. Why would knowing who God is be extremely complex? This would mean God ONLY meant the super intelligent to know Him. Besides, which God is truly superior? The one that is unable to make himself known to everyone or the One who is able to explain Himself to all? God not being able to be known is COMPLETELY contradictory to what the Bible says. People who argue for a God that is beyond our ability to objectively identify Him need to make sure they aren't leading others to commit idolatry.
Also, remember that it is CULTISH for someone to require YOU to believe something THEY can't define or explain. For example, people who tell you that YOU have to believe in and follow God, YET THEY CAN'T define God are exhibiting the traits of a cult leader.
Actually, the corrupting of this doctrine is proof we have lost our way. Listen to what AW Tozer wrote in "The Knowledge Of The Holy":
"Before the Christian church goes into eclipse anywhere, there must first be the corrupting of her simple basic theology. She simply gets a wrong answer to the question, “What is God like?” Though she may continue to cling to a sound nominal creed, her practical working creed has become false. The masses of her adherents come to believe that God is different from what He actually is; and that is heresey of the most insidious and deadly kind."
Knowing a person's principles (ARE) allows you to know ALL of them...to know the CAUSE. (Just like Jesus fulfilled the Law by doing the CAUSES.) However, knowing their personality (EFFECTS), that is, their response to EVERY specific instance takes an eternity.
I know who God is...I'm still learning His Personality.
Tim Snell on Amazon
(This is an old post done during the time when I considered that Tim Snell actually may have support for his Abuse of me. Here is a link to December 2009 proving that Tim Snell has NO SUPPORT for his claims about Modeling God: Tim Snell's Formal Support.)
(The most alarming claim by Tim Snell and the Christian Law Association (Dr. Gibbs) is that they don't believe that Jesus was fully man! They don't believe that Jesus could choose to do evil. This is stating Jesus was unable to bridge the gap for our Salvation. This is deception. Worse, this is a contradiction of the most famous Old Testament prophecy concerning Jesus:
"14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." (Isaiah 7:14-15)
It ALL begins with understanding God's Nature. I don't understand HOW anyone can teach God's Word when they deny God's Being.)
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Gnosticism Reinvented, March 25, 2008
By Timothy Snell (Appleton, WI) - See all my reviews
"Modeling God" is a book that deals very little with scripture and a lot with John G. Lenhart. It is a very poorly written book...and ultimately not even "Christian" in terms of holding to what is broadly seen as "orthodox Christianity." Lenhart's theological construct is gnosticism reinvented, heretical to its very core.
Here is what Lenhart teaches: 1) Sin is relative. 2) Grace is something you pay for. 3) Jesus is not fully divine by nature. 4)There is no event where one accepts Christ and is saved. 5) There is no need to receive Christ. 6) The cross has little meaning in salvation. 7)That unless you have gained a "value" from God, prayer is worthless. 8) Marriages can be dissolved if they are "unprofitable" to one of the partners. Considering how much of the core of the Christian faith he rejects, the fact that he considers his work "evangelical" and "Christian" is amusing in and of itself.
I have read his book and encountered people who have been personally mentored by John. As a pastor in John's community I can attest that his teaching is divisive. Several people influenced by John have had their marriages desinigrate because of John's teaching (including John's own marriage). John is not welcome at virtually any church in our metropolitan area and been asked to leave his own church. That will give you a little flavor of how this book feels as it is lived out in a local area.
My encouragement would be to save your money are buy a good C.S. Lewis book. You'll be far more blessed.
FACT CHECK
Paragraph 1
Sentence 1: "Modeling God" has 146 scriptural references
Sentence 2: It asserts the same beliefs as "Orthodox Christianity"...the difference is it gives the WHY behind the belief
Sentence 3: "Modeling God" states that the spiritual connection to God is pre-emient over understanding the concepts in the book.
Paragraph 2
Sentence 1: I have repeatedly explained through e-mail what I "teach". Notice, this review doesn't claim to say what is written in "Modeling God". It goes BEYOND that to claim what I "teach". I don't teach what he states. I literally teach the opposite of several of these points. This claim will become problematic for Tim in the future.
Sentence 1: Sin is that which is done apart from faith (Here is a link to explain this more clearly: What is Sin?)
Sentence 2: Grace is something God freely gives AND we are responsible for our response. (Here is a link to explain this more clearly: Grace)
Sentence 3: Jesus is Fully divine by Nature (The tables in Modeling God just before and just after the one sentence that Tim focuses on in Modeling God shows Jesus is divine by Nature.)
Sentence 4: Becoming "born again" is the event where the individual states their will to consider the spiritual man pre-eminent over the physical man.
Sentence 5: Jesus is the ONLY way to God
Sentence 6: The cross provided the infinite value needed to pay for everyone's sins who ever lived
Sentence 7: You can gain value from others AND praying without value initiates an opportunity to gain value (Modeling God states that praying without value is NOT worthless...Modeling God actually states that it allows God to bring opportunities for you to earn value so the prayer can come about! Tim COMPLETELY ignored several passages in Modeling God to project the point HE wanted to make ONTO Modeling God.)
Sentence 8: This is NOT covered in "Modeling God"!!!!! Is he making this up? (This is another issue that is problematic for Tim. At the time of this post, there was NOTHING PUBLISHED from me about this topic. Tim loves to use the excuse that he doesn't have to find out what I meant concerning topics that are published. He says the information is published so he doesn't have to talk to the author. Here is an example of him intentionally choosing NOT to talk with me about a topic that wasn't published. His excuse to NOT talk to an author about their position stated in a published work is a rationalization. Besides, three months later I published a position on this: "When the marriage is Unprofitable and the ability to be Profitable is proven to be impossible, the couple OUGHT to divorce in order to minimize the Unprofitability." Notice, there is an "and" meaning that BOTH halves of this statement should be factual. This statement more than all the others PROVES Tim is factually inaccurate and inconsistent with his rationalizations.)
Sentence 9: "Evangelical" means to appeal to people through emotion. I don't consider "Modeling God" evangelical...
Paragraph 3
Sentence 1: I have only mentored one adult and Tim Snell did not talk to him.
Sentence 2: The misinterpretation of my teaching is divisive.
Sentence 3: This isn't true on several fronts...and Tim stated to me in an e-mail he doesn't have to back up this statement.
Sentence 4: I was never asked to leave a church. Again, he needs to back up this statement.
Sentence 5: He hasn't talked to anyone who is living out this book AND is upset.
Paragraph 4
Sentence 1: His opinion.
Sentence 2: I can show you the contradictions in CS Lewis' book. Tim has yet to accurately show the contradictions in "Modeling God".
JG Lenhart: "The ONLY statement that is factually correct is: "My encouragement would be to save your money are buy a good C.S. Lewis book." ...and I think Tim may end up rethinking that statement."
The rest of this post is factually wrong. Some of it would take a long explanation...some of it has no basis in fact. When it comes to the things that are personal (which he attempts to make look related to the book), I have to ask the questions:
1. Did God tell him to write factually incorrect statements about my (and others') personal lives?
2. Did Tim make up these factually incorrect statements about my (and others') personal lives?
3. Did Tim write what others told him that was factually incorrect about my and (others') personal lives?
#1 would make him a hypocrite because he has a flawed process when it comes to hearing from God, yet he judges my process for hearing from God.
#2 would make him a liar
#3 would make him a gossiper
UPDATE: Tim had a link to his refutation that was lenharteatsrocks.com. He shared this link with several people...some of them even told him that it wasn't right to have a link like that. Tim immediately took down the link after getting a letter from my lawyer. On 9/27/09, Tim had an elder tell his congregation that the link was a light-hearted joke and that he took it down and apologized to me. Tim has NEVER admitted he has done ANYTHING wrong to me. This was a lie from the pulpit at Tim's church. Again, if it was light-hearted, why lie about apologizing to me...from the pulpit? When the dust settles over this entire situation, the question will be, "Why weren't people in Tim's church able to see their pastor was participating in ungodly behavior?"
Click The Rebuttal to return.
(The most alarming claim by Tim Snell and the Christian Law Association (Dr. Gibbs) is that they don't believe that Jesus was fully man! They don't believe that Jesus could choose to do evil. This is stating Jesus was unable to bridge the gap for our Salvation. This is deception. Worse, this is a contradiction of the most famous Old Testament prophecy concerning Jesus:
"14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." (Isaiah 7:14-15)
It ALL begins with understanding God's Nature. I don't understand HOW anyone can teach God's Word when they deny God's Being.)
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Gnosticism Reinvented, March 25, 2008
By Timothy Snell (Appleton, WI) - See all my reviews
"Modeling God" is a book that deals very little with scripture and a lot with John G. Lenhart. It is a very poorly written book...and ultimately not even "Christian" in terms of holding to what is broadly seen as "orthodox Christianity." Lenhart's theological construct is gnosticism reinvented, heretical to its very core.
Here is what Lenhart teaches: 1) Sin is relative. 2) Grace is something you pay for. 3) Jesus is not fully divine by nature. 4)There is no event where one accepts Christ and is saved. 5) There is no need to receive Christ. 6) The cross has little meaning in salvation. 7)That unless you have gained a "value" from God, prayer is worthless. 8) Marriages can be dissolved if they are "unprofitable" to one of the partners. Considering how much of the core of the Christian faith he rejects, the fact that he considers his work "evangelical" and "Christian" is amusing in and of itself.
I have read his book and encountered people who have been personally mentored by John. As a pastor in John's community I can attest that his teaching is divisive. Several people influenced by John have had their marriages desinigrate because of John's teaching (including John's own marriage). John is not welcome at virtually any church in our metropolitan area and been asked to leave his own church. That will give you a little flavor of how this book feels as it is lived out in a local area.
My encouragement would be to save your money are buy a good C.S. Lewis book. You'll be far more blessed.
FACT CHECK
Paragraph 1
Sentence 1: "Modeling God" has 146 scriptural references
Sentence 2: It asserts the same beliefs as "Orthodox Christianity"...the difference is it gives the WHY behind the belief
Sentence 3: "Modeling God" states that the spiritual connection to God is pre-emient over understanding the concepts in the book.
Paragraph 2
Sentence 1: I have repeatedly explained through e-mail what I "teach". Notice, this review doesn't claim to say what is written in "Modeling God". It goes BEYOND that to claim what I "teach". I don't teach what he states. I literally teach the opposite of several of these points. This claim will become problematic for Tim in the future.
Sentence 1: Sin is that which is done apart from faith (Here is a link to explain this more clearly: What is Sin?)
Sentence 2: Grace is something God freely gives AND we are responsible for our response. (Here is a link to explain this more clearly: Grace)
Sentence 3: Jesus is Fully divine by Nature (The tables in Modeling God just before and just after the one sentence that Tim focuses on in Modeling God shows Jesus is divine by Nature.)
Sentence 4: Becoming "born again" is the event where the individual states their will to consider the spiritual man pre-eminent over the physical man.
Sentence 5: Jesus is the ONLY way to God
Sentence 6: The cross provided the infinite value needed to pay for everyone's sins who ever lived
Sentence 7: You can gain value from others AND praying without value initiates an opportunity to gain value (Modeling God states that praying without value is NOT worthless...Modeling God actually states that it allows God to bring opportunities for you to earn value so the prayer can come about! Tim COMPLETELY ignored several passages in Modeling God to project the point HE wanted to make ONTO Modeling God.)
Sentence 8: This is NOT covered in "Modeling God"!!!!! Is he making this up? (This is another issue that is problematic for Tim. At the time of this post, there was NOTHING PUBLISHED from me about this topic. Tim loves to use the excuse that he doesn't have to find out what I meant concerning topics that are published. He says the information is published so he doesn't have to talk to the author. Here is an example of him intentionally choosing NOT to talk with me about a topic that wasn't published. His excuse to NOT talk to an author about their position stated in a published work is a rationalization. Besides, three months later I published a position on this: "When the marriage is Unprofitable and the ability to be Profitable is proven to be impossible, the couple OUGHT to divorce in order to minimize the Unprofitability." Notice, there is an "and" meaning that BOTH halves of this statement should be factual. This statement more than all the others PROVES Tim is factually inaccurate and inconsistent with his rationalizations.)
Sentence 9: "Evangelical" means to appeal to people through emotion. I don't consider "Modeling God" evangelical...
Paragraph 3
Sentence 1: I have only mentored one adult and Tim Snell did not talk to him.
Sentence 2: The misinterpretation of my teaching is divisive.
Sentence 3: This isn't true on several fronts...and Tim stated to me in an e-mail he doesn't have to back up this statement.
Sentence 4: I was never asked to leave a church. Again, he needs to back up this statement.
Sentence 5: He hasn't talked to anyone who is living out this book AND is upset.
Paragraph 4
Sentence 1: His opinion.
Sentence 2: I can show you the contradictions in CS Lewis' book. Tim has yet to accurately show the contradictions in "Modeling God".
JG Lenhart: "The ONLY statement that is factually correct is: "My encouragement would be to save your money are buy a good C.S. Lewis book." ...and I think Tim may end up rethinking that statement."
The rest of this post is factually wrong. Some of it would take a long explanation...some of it has no basis in fact. When it comes to the things that are personal (which he attempts to make look related to the book), I have to ask the questions:
1. Did God tell him to write factually incorrect statements about my (and others') personal lives?
2. Did Tim make up these factually incorrect statements about my (and others') personal lives?
3. Did Tim write what others told him that was factually incorrect about my and (others') personal lives?
#1 would make him a hypocrite because he has a flawed process when it comes to hearing from God, yet he judges my process for hearing from God.
#2 would make him a liar
#3 would make him a gossiper
UPDATE: Tim had a link to his refutation that was lenharteatsrocks.com. He shared this link with several people...some of them even told him that it wasn't right to have a link like that. Tim immediately took down the link after getting a letter from my lawyer. On 9/27/09, Tim had an elder tell his congregation that the link was a light-hearted joke and that he took it down and apologized to me. Tim has NEVER admitted he has done ANYTHING wrong to me. This was a lie from the pulpit at Tim's church. Again, if it was light-hearted, why lie about apologizing to me...from the pulpit? When the dust settles over this entire situation, the question will be, "Why weren't people in Tim's church able to see their pastor was participating in ungodly behavior?"
Click The Rebuttal to return.
E-Mails to Tim Snell
In the version of the refutation that was mailed out, I found over 200 factually incorrect sentences that are stated as fact...no qualifiers, no opinion. I tried to communicate with Tim Snell through e-mails because he wouldn't meet with me until he got a group of pastors. Here are excerpts from the e-mails I sent. I will leave it to Tim Snell to share his e-mails to me.
Here is the first e-mail I wrote to Tim Snell:
Thank you for reading "Modeling God".
Thank you for taking the time to document your thoughts.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
For the last four years I have actively asked Pastors to read the various drafts of "Modeling God" so they could show me where it is wrong AND so that I can understand how a Pastor views this work. Months before publishing, I asked ten Pastors that I personally know from across the U.S. to give me their thoughts on "Modeling God". Several of these were Pastors of churches I attended and left due to relocation. I left them on great terms. NONE of them would even read it! I have prayed for a Pastor to read this book and share their documented thoughts. I believe you are an answer to prayer.
I am not much of a chemist. My expertise has been in problem solving and modeling thought processes. The key to making a successful consumer product is to understand the customer...what they value...how they measure the value...how they think. Until you shared your thoughts, I had NO insight on a Pastor's thought process. I truly appreciate you. You are in a group of one...and THAT says a lot about you.
I have only read your work once, but it has led me to making revisions and contacting my publisher. Again, I have you to thank for improving this work.
While I learned a lot, I'm still confused about a couple of your points. Before I can take you up on your offer, I need to get some clarification because I don't want to project any wrong thoughts on you.
Is your central theme that I'm using a man-made process/belief/doctrine in place of God's Word?
If I THOUGHT you were using a man-made belief in place of God's Word how would you want me to handle it?
If a Christian leader THOUGHT you were using a man-made belief in place of God's Word how would you want me to handle it?
If another Pastor THOUGHT you were using a man-made belief in place of God's Word how would you want me to handle it?
If you ACTUALLY were using a man-made belief in place of God's Word how would you want me to handle it?
If you ACTUALLY were using a man-made belief in place of God's Word how would you want a Christian leader to handle it?
If you ACTUALLY were using a man-made belief in place of God's Word how would you want another to handle it?
You conclude I believe in a non-sovereign and non-omniscient God.
So that I know exactly how my definitions are not the same as yours, please tell me what you mean when you used the word "sovereign" in the context of your refutation?
What is your definition of "omniscient"?
Does God know all the possible things that can happen?
Does God ALWAYS (in every instance and detail) know for sure what will happen (and ONLY what will happen) before it happens?
Does God ALWAYS know what EVERYONE will decide before they think it?
Has the future already happened?
What is your definition of "omnipresent"?
What is your definition of "omnipotent"?
I appreciate your offer to hear me on these issues. I believe this will help clear things up for me so I can get back to you about your offer to meet with me.
However, if this doesn't result in me taking you up on your offer, I hope you will continue with your plan to get more leaders and meet with me.
Again, thank you for taking the time to make me better.
John
Tim did not answer any of the questions after the first one ("Is your central theme that I'm using a man-made process/belief/doctrine in place of God's Word?"). He gave answers to questions I didn't ask. I clarified that he misread the question. He responded by saying that he intentionally didn't answer the questions asked.
There were also several comments made in the work and on Amazon that had nothing to do with "Modeling God". The comments were personal attacks and weren't factual. When I asked him his source, he told me he didn't have to substantiate the claim. Tim Snell used church stationery to make these inaccurate claims. I had a lawyer contact me to say this an open/shut case of defamation, libel, and harassment...possibly on religious grounds. I have no intention of suing Tim Snell because I don't believe the Bible allows a brother to sue a brother and I believe in Justice. The ironic thing is that if Tim Snell doesn't consider me to be a brother then if he's right, he OUGHT to encourage me to sue him. (This post covers the time period before Tim Snell's defamatory Amazon post. Please see author's note at end of this post.)
The most troubling portion of those responses was over HIS definition of "sovereignty" and "omniscient". He refused to define them...yet he claims I don't believe in a sovereign and omniscient God. How can he judge me when he won't explain the standard?
So, I responded with an e-mail clarifying my position. Here is an excerpt:
Just so we are perfectly clear:
I believe in a sovereign God.
I believe in an omniscient God.
I believe my explanation of the previous two statements is non-contradictory and I shared them in my book. You stated as fact that I didn't believe in either of these and despite repeated attempts to get clarification from you about what you said, you have refused to answer me and help me understand the difference between us.
I believe Jesus is God.
I believe Jesus is the ONLY way to God.
I believe man's way of thinking is flawed. (If I believed that I was making man's way of thinking pre-eminent, I would agree with your conclusions.)
I believe the cross and the Holy Spirit are ENORMOUSLY important topics that I will work my way up to explaining in this three book series.
"But if we suffer for righteousness; sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of terror, neither be troubled; But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." (I Peter 3:14-16)
"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth." (John 4:23-24)
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment." (Mark 12:30)
I believe we are to give an answer to EVERY man that asketh us about our faith.
I believe we are to worship God in spirit and truth...with our soul, heart, strength, and MIND.
I believe people can hear from God (revelation) and their flesh. Do you think people who get revelation NEVER hear from their flesh? My question is how do you determine whether what you are hearing is from God or your flesh? How do you teach your people to discern between revelation and flesh?
The point of "Modeling God" is to teach people how to think like God instead of according to the flesh. It is an objective way to determine if one is hearing from God or their flesh. It is subservient to revelation from God.
Your ability to interpret the Bible was displayed for all to see when you attempted to interpret "Modeling God"...in fact, I believe most people would conclude that it is easier to interpret my book correctly than it is to interpret the Bible correctly. However, even people who don't agree with me are shocked at how much you misunderstood and misrepresented actual sentences in my book.
I believe Tim Snell and his congregation now has all the information and can make an intentional decision that they can be judge for...let's see the response.
(Author note: Well, his response was perplexing when one realizes we are speaking of a pastor. This post covered my perspective before Tim posted on Amazon. I truly thought there is no way that a pastor would be so ungodly as to break the law. About a week after this post, Tim Snell posts accusations on Amazon that are so false and defamatory, it causes me to reconsider my position for the benefit of others. Even then, it takes me almost 18 months to be convinced that Tim is completely unable to consider he was wrong. I've also learned the meaning behind I Corinthians 6:5...that if there isn't one wise man in the church to resolve this issue, we need to obey the laws of the land.)
Click The Rebuttal to return.
Here is the first e-mail I wrote to Tim Snell:
Thank you for reading "Modeling God".
Thank you for taking the time to document your thoughts.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
For the last four years I have actively asked Pastors to read the various drafts of "Modeling God" so they could show me where it is wrong AND so that I can understand how a Pastor views this work. Months before publishing, I asked ten Pastors that I personally know from across the U.S. to give me their thoughts on "Modeling God". Several of these were Pastors of churches I attended and left due to relocation. I left them on great terms. NONE of them would even read it! I have prayed for a Pastor to read this book and share their documented thoughts. I believe you are an answer to prayer.
I am not much of a chemist. My expertise has been in problem solving and modeling thought processes. The key to making a successful consumer product is to understand the customer...what they value...how they measure the value...how they think. Until you shared your thoughts, I had NO insight on a Pastor's thought process. I truly appreciate you. You are in a group of one...and THAT says a lot about you.
I have only read your work once, but it has led me to making revisions and contacting my publisher. Again, I have you to thank for improving this work.
While I learned a lot, I'm still confused about a couple of your points. Before I can take you up on your offer, I need to get some clarification because I don't want to project any wrong thoughts on you.
Is your central theme that I'm using a man-made process/belief/doctrine in place of God's Word?
If I THOUGHT you were using a man-made belief in place of God's Word how would you want me to handle it?
If a Christian leader THOUGHT you were using a man-made belief in place of God's Word how would you want me to handle it?
If another Pastor THOUGHT you were using a man-made belief in place of God's Word how would you want me to handle it?
If you ACTUALLY were using a man-made belief in place of God's Word how would you want me to handle it?
If you ACTUALLY were using a man-made belief in place of God's Word how would you want a Christian leader to handle it?
If you ACTUALLY were using a man-made belief in place of God's Word how would you want another to handle it?
You conclude I believe in a non-sovereign and non-omniscient God.
So that I know exactly how my definitions are not the same as yours, please tell me what you mean when you used the word "sovereign" in the context of your refutation?
What is your definition of "omniscient"?
Does God know all the possible things that can happen?
Does God ALWAYS (in every instance and detail) know for sure what will happen (and ONLY what will happen) before it happens?
Does God ALWAYS know what EVERYONE will decide before they think it?
Has the future already happened?
What is your definition of "omnipresent"?
What is your definition of "omnipotent"?
I appreciate your offer to hear me on these issues. I believe this will help clear things up for me so I can get back to you about your offer to meet with me.
However, if this doesn't result in me taking you up on your offer, I hope you will continue with your plan to get more leaders and meet with me.
Again, thank you for taking the time to make me better.
John
Tim did not answer any of the questions after the first one ("Is your central theme that I'm using a man-made process/belief/doctrine in place of God's Word?"). He gave answers to questions I didn't ask. I clarified that he misread the question. He responded by saying that he intentionally didn't answer the questions asked.
There were also several comments made in the work and on Amazon that had nothing to do with "Modeling God". The comments were personal attacks and weren't factual. When I asked him his source, he told me he didn't have to substantiate the claim. Tim Snell used church stationery to make these inaccurate claims. I had a lawyer contact me to say this an open/shut case of defamation, libel, and harassment...possibly on religious grounds. I have no intention of suing Tim Snell because I don't believe the Bible allows a brother to sue a brother and I believe in Justice. The ironic thing is that if Tim Snell doesn't consider me to be a brother then if he's right, he OUGHT to encourage me to sue him. (This post covers the time period before Tim Snell's defamatory Amazon post. Please see author's note at end of this post.)
The most troubling portion of those responses was over HIS definition of "sovereignty" and "omniscient". He refused to define them...yet he claims I don't believe in a sovereign and omniscient God. How can he judge me when he won't explain the standard?
So, I responded with an e-mail clarifying my position. Here is an excerpt:
Just so we are perfectly clear:
I believe in a sovereign God.
I believe in an omniscient God.
I believe my explanation of the previous two statements is non-contradictory and I shared them in my book. You stated as fact that I didn't believe in either of these and despite repeated attempts to get clarification from you about what you said, you have refused to answer me and help me understand the difference between us.
I believe Jesus is God.
I believe Jesus is the ONLY way to God.
I believe man's way of thinking is flawed. (If I believed that I was making man's way of thinking pre-eminent, I would agree with your conclusions.)
I believe the cross and the Holy Spirit are ENORMOUSLY important topics that I will work my way up to explaining in this three book series.
"But if we suffer for righteousness; sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of terror, neither be troubled; But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." (I Peter 3:14-16)
"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth." (John 4:23-24)
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment." (Mark 12:30)
I believe we are to give an answer to EVERY man that asketh us about our faith.
I believe we are to worship God in spirit and truth...with our soul, heart, strength, and MIND.
I believe people can hear from God (revelation) and their flesh. Do you think people who get revelation NEVER hear from their flesh? My question is how do you determine whether what you are hearing is from God or your flesh? How do you teach your people to discern between revelation and flesh?
The point of "Modeling God" is to teach people how to think like God instead of according to the flesh. It is an objective way to determine if one is hearing from God or their flesh. It is subservient to revelation from God.
Your ability to interpret the Bible was displayed for all to see when you attempted to interpret "Modeling God"...in fact, I believe most people would conclude that it is easier to interpret my book correctly than it is to interpret the Bible correctly. However, even people who don't agree with me are shocked at how much you misunderstood and misrepresented actual sentences in my book.
I believe Tim Snell and his congregation now has all the information and can make an intentional decision that they can be judge for...let's see the response.
(Author note: Well, his response was perplexing when one realizes we are speaking of a pastor. This post covered my perspective before Tim posted on Amazon. I truly thought there is no way that a pastor would be so ungodly as to break the law. About a week after this post, Tim Snell posts accusations on Amazon that are so false and defamatory, it causes me to reconsider my position for the benefit of others. Even then, it takes me almost 18 months to be convinced that Tim is completely unable to consider he was wrong. I've also learned the meaning behind I Corinthians 6:5...that if there isn't one wise man in the church to resolve this issue, we need to obey the laws of the land.)
Click The Rebuttal to return.
Factually Incorrect Statements from Refutation (Part 2)
Here is the list of factually inaccurate statements in the second half ("Lenhart's Theology") of Tim Snell's refutation as they appeared on 4/13/08. These statements are presented with page references from the hard copy ("Original") of the refutation that Tim Snell mailed out prior to the internet version. There are some differences. Where there are differences, the statement as fact from the "Original" is presented immediately following the statement from the internet version. So far, I've found one statement that occurs in the internet that is not in the "Original". I've put the headings of the different sections from the refutation in parentheses in order to help you find these statements in the internet version.
The inaccuracies in this section come mainly from overlooking key passages in "Modeling God" and projecting a flawed perspective onto the statements that are made. Some of these statements are blatant misrepresentations EVEN THOUGH Tim Snell gives a reference page number! For instance, Tim Snell states:
"Lenhart then goes on and constructs a model in which grace is limited to God's "divine influence upon the heart," and influence we must pay for so as to not violate God's justice."
The reference number points to page 67 of "Modeling God". On page 67 of "Modeling God" this is what is stated:
"Grace: The divine influence upon the heart and its reflection in the life (Charis 5485)"
Notice, he misrepresents the definition AND NEVER mentions that it was obtained from Strong's Concordance...the Strong's reference number is even given! The blatant ignoring of key passages from "Modeling God" throughout this HALF of the refutation are the most troubling parts of the refutation and, when dealt with, will bring into question Tim Snell's ability to interpret a more complex book like the Bible.
I wrote Tim Snell and sent him all of this before he put the refutation on the internet. I SPECIFICALLY pointed out this mistake and put it separate from the rest of the list...and he didn't change it, but changed other stuff. I have to ask: Was sticking with a misrepresentation of my book intentional or due to incompetence? You decide...
Here are the factual statements made in the second half of the refutation that are incorrect:
"A Summary and Refutation of Lenhart's Theology"
Page 18
1. I did that so we could see how Lenhart arrives at the "truths" he then feeds to his readers.
2. Lenhart's teachings are the natural result of his flawed process built on human deduction.
(Original #2: Lenhart's teachings are the natural result of his unbiblical process.)
"Lenhart's Teaching on Who God Is"
Page 18
3. Listen to some of Lenhart's statements about God which either diminish or deny central aspects of God's being as revealed in scripture:
Page 19
4. Depersonalize God
5. Reject God's absolute sovereignty
6. Reject God's omniscience (the idea that God can know everything - even the future)
7. In the end, such a god is significantly less than and other than the Biblical God.
(Original #7: In the end, such a God is significantly less than and other than the Biblical God.)
8. Yes, he still calls him God, but he is not the God of scripture.
9. Notice some of the these passages which contradict Lenhart's human deductions:
Page 20
10. In the end, Lenhart's god is simply not the great I AM of scripture.
11. He is something less, far less.
12. He is a god who is more a set of characteristics than someone who has the dynamic essence of being which we understand is possessed by living spiritual beings.
(Original #12: He is a God who is more a set of characteristics than someone who has the dynamic essence of being which we understand is possessed by living spiritual beings.)
13. He is not sovereign.
14. He is not all-knowing.
15. Such a god is simply not the God of the Bible.
16. Yet this is the god Lenhart would lead us towards.
17. Lenhart can easily develop a theology of God that is unbiblical because, in the end, it isn't drawn from the Bible.
18. As we pointed out earlier, Lenhart is primarily using human deduction to reach his conclusions.
19. But in the end, it is also non-Biblical.
20. But they do disagree with the one source where there simply cannot be disagreement in Biblical theology: God's inspired Word.
"Lenhart's Teaching on Jesus' Nature"
Page 20
21. What Lenhart has done here is deny that Jesus is fully God by nature.
22. Rather, he says, Jesus is only fully God because of how he chose to act while being man.
Page 21
23. To accept what Lenhart says here is to fundamentally undermine the entire core of the Christian faith and the message of salvation through the cross of Christ.
24. You see, to follow Lenhart’s thinking, if Jesus is God – even in part – because of his choosing to embody certain principles (not because He is God by nature) then when Jesus left heaven to come to earth he lost part of his divinity.
(Original #24: You see, to follow Lenhart's thinking, if Jesus is God - even in part - because of his choosing to embody certain principles (not because He is God by nature) then Jesus is not fully God at his birth.)
(Original #25: "After all," Lenhart would say, "at his birth Jesus has expressed no will as a human being.")
This section has been significantly re-written and takes the mischaracterization further to make 11 additional incorrect statements:
#25a. That is what Lenhart’s assertion means.
#25b. He was fully God before…but not anymore.
#25c. By saying Jesus attains his status as fully God by perfectly embodying God’s righteousness and justice by choice as a human, what Lenhart does is create a threshold where Jesus has to express his will and attain perfection in a full and complete way.
#25d. Therefore, by Lenhart’s construct, Jesus would still not be fully God at His birth.
#25e. So that means (according to Lenhart) Jesus could not have been fully God on the cross.
#25f. That means (again according to Lenhart’s assertion) Jesus wouldn’t be fully God even after the resurrection.
#25g. “After all,” Lenhart would say, “Jesus is only half God by nature."
#25h. "The other half he gets by how he chooses to act as a human being."
#25i. "He has to perfectly embody righteousness and justice by choice in order to be fully divine."
#25j. "If he fails, he never gets that other half of his divinity."
#25k. "So, since he still has the ability to choose wrongly, he still wouldn’t have attained the other half of His divinity.”
#26. Since he could theoretically still choose to not follow God, his ability to fully be God would still not be at the point of completion.
(Original #26: Because Jesus' obedience would not yet be at the point of completion.)
#27a. Ultimately, because (by Lenhart’s assertion) Jesus has to perfectly embody righteousness and justice by choice as a human to attain Godhood, as long as Jesus would have opportunity to not choose those, his obedience would not have reached a point of perfection and completion.
(Original #27: By Lenhart's assertion, Jesus actually can never reach such a threshold.)
#27b. If we are to carefully think through Lenhart’s assertion, Jesus actually can never reach such a threshold, for Jesus can still choose to sin.
#28. Even to take Lenhart’s assertion on it’s face, without thinking it through, one is left with Jesus still – at best - being only half God in His very nature.
(Original #28: Even to follow Lenhart's illogical reasoning, one is left with Jesus still - at best - being only half God.)
Page 22
29. If Lenhart is right, then what happened at the incarnation (when Jesus left heaven and took on flesh) is that Jesus (who prior to incarnation would have been divine) somehow lost his essential divine nature.
30. In the end, Lenhart has succeeded - through his flawed modeling process - to give us a non-omniscient, non-sovereign, impersonal deity...and a Jesus who is not fully God in the essence of his being.
31. He only becomes that by choice through his life and actions - which in reality creates a point of becoming God which Jesus could really never cross.
"Lenhart's Teaching on Sin"
Page 22
32. What one finds is that for Lenhart, sin is never the violation of objective standard which God gives to us, but is entirely dependent upon the individual and their understanding.
Page 23
33. Lenhart then goes and insists that because sin is individual, and not the breaking of a set standard, that we should never point out sin.
34. In doing so, he further ignores scripture about the hardness of people's heart by stating that guilt will always be felt if sin is truly present.
35. Despite Lenhart's claim that it can't mean "to miss the mark," (sic) indeed, this is what the term itself means.
Page 24
36. What Lenhart has done is undercut the entire Biblical model of salvation involving the cross.
37. By making sin something other than a violation of God's very being and of His holy standard, he has reduced sin to something personal, and ultimately - relative.
38. Please be aware, by Lenhart's standard, no one should ever say to Adolf Hitler, "Killing the Jews is wrong."
39. This would violate the very construct that Lenhart has developed.
40. For one, Lenhart would say that such a thing might not be wrong for Hitler.
41. Secondly, he would say it is not our responsibility to point out other's sin.
42. As shocking as that is, this is exactly what Lenhart is teaching!
43. He ignores the scriptural reality of the depth of our sin, the consequences of our falleness, (sic) the reality and extent of the Enemy's work, and the resulting hardening and twisting of our hear and mind.
44. He gets here because his modeling process is flawed.
45. Ultimately, it is flawed because its foundation is Lenhart's deductive mind, not by the careful study of the inspired Word of God, relying on the Holy Spirit for illumination, and utilizing the disciplines involved in sound hermeneutics.
46. He simply doesn't go back to the Word of God and allow it to inform his theology; instead he demands that God's Word be molded to his flawed construct.
"Lenhart's Teaching on Grace"
Page 24
47. As I have already pointed out, language doesn't work this way, and so his attempts almost universally end up some place other than the place given when one looks at the whole of God's Word.
Page 25
48. In other words, Lenhart has turned grace on its head!
49. Lenhart then goes on and constructs a model in which grace is limited to God's "divine influence upon the heart," an influence we must pay for so as to not violate God's justice.
50. This influence, Lenhart says, leads to proper actions which are "righteous" and therefore must be rewarded by God on the basis of the principle of justice.
51. As we will see in a moment, this undercuts the entire Biblical message of salvation through faith in Christ's finished work on the cross!
52. First he goes wrong by trying to get a one-size-fits-all definition of grace which can then be applied in every use of the word in scripture.
53. As we have pointed out, such an attempt will ALWAYS result in either moving UP the ladder of abstraction, or it will result in a definition that only fits certain places.
54. He is not using etymology and other hermeneutical tools to understand each individual usage of the word within its given context.
55. Instead, he simply attempts to slap some upper rung definition on the word and force it to fit.
56. Ultimately Lenhart's contention is that grace is something we control, not God - and therefore it can NEVER mean "unmerited favor".
Page 26
57. Secondly, Lenhart goes wrong because once again he is not relying on scripture to be his primary source, inputting God's revelation into the model...especially as it relates to salvation.
58. Instead, Lenhart is trying to rely almost entirely on deduction.
59. His appeal to scripture is essentially an effort to "proof-text" his position, rather than allowing a thorough and exhaustive study of scripture to inform and give him his position.
60. What Lenhart has done is constructed a model that says you earn your salvation.
61. Grace depends on you...not God.
62. Grace depends on you, not Jesus and His work on the cross.
63. Grace, in the context of how the scripture uses it in relationship to salvation, has been turned on its head.
64. The message of the cross has been set aside.
65. And the entire message of the gospel is compromised because of it.
"Lenhart's Teaching on Salvation"
Page 26
66. Because he has skewed things so severly (sic) up to this point, it is no surprise that his conceptualization of salvation is also foreign to Biblical truth.
(Original #66: Because he has skewed things so badly up to this point, it is no surprise that his conceptualization of salvation is also foreign to Biblical truth.)
Page 27
67. That there is NOT a salvation event where one receives Christ and is made a new creation.
68. That God's righteousness is NOT imputed to us and is not sufficient to save us.
69. That one's faith DOES NOT NEED to be placed in the person and work of Jesus to be saved.
70. That salvation entirely depends upon whether a person's ACTIONS are moving toward God or away from God at the moment of death, not their reception of Christ as Lord and Savior.
"Is there a Moment at Which We Are Saved?"
Page 28
71. He denies what all evangelicals believe: that there is a moment where one passes from death to life and is saved - where saved is a completed action.
72. There is no exegetical work.
73. There are no word studies done so that scripture can inform his theology.
74. No, Lenhart merely deduces it based on his pre-arrived at definitions and constructs.
75. So let's do what Lenhart failed to do.
Page 29
76. Lenhart has simply engaged in intellectual deduction and built his theology on his own flawed human wisdom.
77. Ultimately the reason he has done this, as we will see shortly - is because Lenhart doesn't believe you need to have faith in the person of Jesus.
78. He thinks there are multiple paths to heaven...all of which rely on human effort.
"Are We Saved by God's Righteousness or Ours?"
Page 29
79. Lenhart further paints his picture of salvation in unbiblical terms by making it a matter of our righteousness being needed rather than God's righteousness being imputed to us on the basis of Christ's death and resurrection.
80. Note that he speaks to our actions producing righteousness, and this it is our effort at righteousness that then somehow requires God to give us "value" on the basis of Lenhart's definition of God's justice.
81. Beloved of God, this is salvation by works!
82. Notice his blatant denial of what God clearly teaches in His Word on this important subject.
Page 30
83. What Lenhart has done is deny the very CORE of our entire hope and faith as believers: that IN CHRIST there is salvation based on HIM - not us.
"Do We Need to Trust In Jesus to Save Us?"
Page 30
84. By minimizing Jesus and elevating the process, Lenhart has dethroned God and enthroned His own version of human dynamics which produce the result of salvation by having us correctly plug into his salvation formula.
85. However, the better problem is Lenhart again explicitly espouses a teaching that is not only unbiblical, it is anti-Biblical.
86. He claims there are multiple paths to God - apart from Jesus!!
Page 31
87. In denying the centrality of Jesus in salvation, Lenhart has fundamentally denied the core of the gospel message.
88. He has begun to lay forth a false gospel.
89. Lenhart's teaching on this is so far off the mark, we can safely say: this denial of the person and the work of Jesus, this denial of the fundamentals of salvation by grace through faith IN Christ...is born - not of God - but was hatched in the pit of hell itself in order to keep lost people from knowing Jesus as Lord and Savior.
"So How Are We Saved According to Lenhart?"
Page 32
90. According to Lenhart, one does not need to have faith in the person of Jesus for salvation.
91. Rather, one's salvation depends on their own personal righteousness rather than God's righteousness.
92. It is something they earn by "gaining value" from God so that God's justice is all equaled out.
93. According to Lenhart, someone who has faith in Christ and who has entered into a covenant relationship with Him - but at the moment of their death falls into some personal sin (they take a step in the wrong direction, moving away from God) - that person is lost.
94. According to Lenhart, that person is saved.
95. Because he made a decision to make "progress" toward God at the point of death.
96. He expressed a desire to be more "God-like" in some small way.
97. He "drove toward the party".
98. This is what salvation looks like in Lenhart's model.
99. Faith IN Christ and his work on the cross has been set aside, and a gospel absolutely foreign to the scripture has taken its place.
100. A decision to "make progress" toward God...even if it is apart from Christ, is not the mechanism of salvation.
101. According to Lenhart, Jesus has been replaced by a process.
102. Grace has been replaced by works.
103. The cross has been replaced by "progress".
104. It is the gospel of John G. Lenhart.
"Where Is the Cross?"
Page 33
105. And yet Lenhart has simply given it away for a perspective of salvation that somehow depends on my "progress".
"A Summary of Lenhart's Basic Theology"
Page 33
106. We are left with a non-omniscient, non-sovereign diety.
107. We are left with a Jesus who is not fully God in his fundamental essence and nature.
108. We are left with an unbiblical concept of sin which makes sin relative to the individual, not the violation of God's essential being and His holy and revealed standard.
109a. Salvation by grace has been turned on its head.
109b. It is now something that must be earned rather than given by God's undeserved favor towards us manifested in Christ's death on the cross.
(Original #109: Salvation by grace has been turned on its head and is now something that must be earned rather than given by God's undeserved favor towards us manifested in Christ's death on the cross.)
110. We are left with a theology of salvation that denies the necessity of a personal faith in a real and living Jesus.
111. He believes there are multiple ways of being saved, all of which depend on human behavior and intent.
112. We are left with a theology of salvation which significantly sidelines the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the core of our salvation.
113. We are left with a formula and a process which must be worked, rather than a living Savior in whom we can place our trust.
114. What Lenhart has articulated is a theology based on deduction, not the revealed Word of God.
115. It is a theology built from a flawed modeling process.
116. In the end, it is a gospel which is substantially different from the gospel presented in the scripture.
Page 34
117. Lenhart's gospel: Has a different god than the Biblical God, Has a different Jesus than the Biblical Jesus, Has a different message of salvation than the one presented in the pages of scripture.
118. Because of the significant error in Lenhart's teaching, it is vital that we heed these words of warning from scripture:
119. We would also do well to remind ourselves that the gospel has never rested on human deduction or wisdom, as Lenhart has attempted to do.
"Conclusion"
Page 35
120. Lenhart's gospel has a non-sovereign impersonal god, a non-divine Jesus, and an unbiblical view of both sin and God's grace.
121. It significantly marginalizes the cross to mean virtually nothing and almost completely excludes the work of the Holy Spirit.
122. Salvation does not require faith in Christ and must be paid for by gaining "value" from God.
123. In the end, this is something entirely different from the gospel laid out in the pages of scripture.
124. In contrast to Lenhart's gospel, the gospel of Scripture is focused on Christ and his (sic) work on the cross.
Page 36
125. The victorious Christian life isn’t found through gaining “value” or living in your spiritual “ARE.”
(Original #125: The victorious Christian life isn't found through gaining "value" or living in your spiritual "ARE" but rather through abiding with and waling in step with the Holy Spirit of God as he applies Christ's finished work on the cross to our personal lives.)
126. Lenhart arrives at something far outside of this place.
127. It is a heretical teaching that is a violation of the central core tenants of the Christian faith.
128. As such, it must be rejected by all who profess Jesus as Lord.
Click The Rebuttal to return
The inaccuracies in this section come mainly from overlooking key passages in "Modeling God" and projecting a flawed perspective onto the statements that are made. Some of these statements are blatant misrepresentations EVEN THOUGH Tim Snell gives a reference page number! For instance, Tim Snell states:
"Lenhart then goes on and constructs a model in which grace is limited to God's "divine influence upon the heart," and influence we must pay for so as to not violate God's justice."
The reference number points to page 67 of "Modeling God". On page 67 of "Modeling God" this is what is stated:
"Grace: The divine influence upon the heart and its reflection in the life (Charis 5485)"
Notice, he misrepresents the definition AND NEVER mentions that it was obtained from Strong's Concordance...the Strong's reference number is even given! The blatant ignoring of key passages from "Modeling God" throughout this HALF of the refutation are the most troubling parts of the refutation and, when dealt with, will bring into question Tim Snell's ability to interpret a more complex book like the Bible.
I wrote Tim Snell and sent him all of this before he put the refutation on the internet. I SPECIFICALLY pointed out this mistake and put it separate from the rest of the list...and he didn't change it, but changed other stuff. I have to ask: Was sticking with a misrepresentation of my book intentional or due to incompetence? You decide...
Here are the factual statements made in the second half of the refutation that are incorrect:
"A Summary and Refutation of Lenhart's Theology"
Page 18
1. I did that so we could see how Lenhart arrives at the "truths" he then feeds to his readers.
2. Lenhart's teachings are the natural result of his flawed process built on human deduction.
(Original #2: Lenhart's teachings are the natural result of his unbiblical process.)
"Lenhart's Teaching on Who God Is"
Page 18
3. Listen to some of Lenhart's statements about God which either diminish or deny central aspects of God's being as revealed in scripture:
Page 19
4. Depersonalize God
5. Reject God's absolute sovereignty
6. Reject God's omniscience (the idea that God can know everything - even the future)
7. In the end, such a god is significantly less than and other than the Biblical God.
(Original #7: In the end, such a God is significantly less than and other than the Biblical God.)
8. Yes, he still calls him God, but he is not the God of scripture.
9. Notice some of the these passages which contradict Lenhart's human deductions:
Page 20
10. In the end, Lenhart's god is simply not the great I AM of scripture.
11. He is something less, far less.
12. He is a god who is more a set of characteristics than someone who has the dynamic essence of being which we understand is possessed by living spiritual beings.
(Original #12: He is a God who is more a set of characteristics than someone who has the dynamic essence of being which we understand is possessed by living spiritual beings.)
13. He is not sovereign.
14. He is not all-knowing.
15. Such a god is simply not the God of the Bible.
16. Yet this is the god Lenhart would lead us towards.
17. Lenhart can easily develop a theology of God that is unbiblical because, in the end, it isn't drawn from the Bible.
18. As we pointed out earlier, Lenhart is primarily using human deduction to reach his conclusions.
19. But in the end, it is also non-Biblical.
20. But they do disagree with the one source where there simply cannot be disagreement in Biblical theology: God's inspired Word.
"Lenhart's Teaching on Jesus' Nature"
Page 20
21. What Lenhart has done here is deny that Jesus is fully God by nature.
22. Rather, he says, Jesus is only fully God because of how he chose to act while being man.
Page 21
23. To accept what Lenhart says here is to fundamentally undermine the entire core of the Christian faith and the message of salvation through the cross of Christ.
24. You see, to follow Lenhart’s thinking, if Jesus is God – even in part – because of his choosing to embody certain principles (not because He is God by nature) then when Jesus left heaven to come to earth he lost part of his divinity.
(Original #24: You see, to follow Lenhart's thinking, if Jesus is God - even in part - because of his choosing to embody certain principles (not because He is God by nature) then Jesus is not fully God at his birth.)
(Original #25: "After all," Lenhart would say, "at his birth Jesus has expressed no will as a human being.")
This section has been significantly re-written and takes the mischaracterization further to make 11 additional incorrect statements:
#25a. That is what Lenhart’s assertion means.
#25b. He was fully God before…but not anymore.
#25c. By saying Jesus attains his status as fully God by perfectly embodying God’s righteousness and justice by choice as a human, what Lenhart does is create a threshold where Jesus has to express his will and attain perfection in a full and complete way.
#25d. Therefore, by Lenhart’s construct, Jesus would still not be fully God at His birth.
#25e. So that means (according to Lenhart) Jesus could not have been fully God on the cross.
#25f. That means (again according to Lenhart’s assertion) Jesus wouldn’t be fully God even after the resurrection.
#25g. “After all,” Lenhart would say, “Jesus is only half God by nature."
#25h. "The other half he gets by how he chooses to act as a human being."
#25i. "He has to perfectly embody righteousness and justice by choice in order to be fully divine."
#25j. "If he fails, he never gets that other half of his divinity."
#25k. "So, since he still has the ability to choose wrongly, he still wouldn’t have attained the other half of His divinity.”
#26. Since he could theoretically still choose to not follow God, his ability to fully be God would still not be at the point of completion.
(Original #26: Because Jesus' obedience would not yet be at the point of completion.)
#27a. Ultimately, because (by Lenhart’s assertion) Jesus has to perfectly embody righteousness and justice by choice as a human to attain Godhood, as long as Jesus would have opportunity to not choose those, his obedience would not have reached a point of perfection and completion.
(Original #27: By Lenhart's assertion, Jesus actually can never reach such a threshold.)
#27b. If we are to carefully think through Lenhart’s assertion, Jesus actually can never reach such a threshold, for Jesus can still choose to sin.
#28. Even to take Lenhart’s assertion on it’s face, without thinking it through, one is left with Jesus still – at best - being only half God in His very nature.
(Original #28: Even to follow Lenhart's illogical reasoning, one is left with Jesus still - at best - being only half God.)
Page 22
29. If Lenhart is right, then what happened at the incarnation (when Jesus left heaven and took on flesh) is that Jesus (who prior to incarnation would have been divine) somehow lost his essential divine nature.
30. In the end, Lenhart has succeeded - through his flawed modeling process - to give us a non-omniscient, non-sovereign, impersonal deity...and a Jesus who is not fully God in the essence of his being.
31. He only becomes that by choice through his life and actions - which in reality creates a point of becoming God which Jesus could really never cross.
"Lenhart's Teaching on Sin"
Page 22
32. What one finds is that for Lenhart, sin is never the violation of objective standard which God gives to us, but is entirely dependent upon the individual and their understanding.
Page 23
33. Lenhart then goes and insists that because sin is individual, and not the breaking of a set standard, that we should never point out sin.
34. In doing so, he further ignores scripture about the hardness of people's heart by stating that guilt will always be felt if sin is truly present.
35. Despite Lenhart's claim that it can't mean "to miss the mark," (sic) indeed, this is what the term itself means.
Page 24
36. What Lenhart has done is undercut the entire Biblical model of salvation involving the cross.
37. By making sin something other than a violation of God's very being and of His holy standard, he has reduced sin to something personal, and ultimately - relative.
38. Please be aware, by Lenhart's standard, no one should ever say to Adolf Hitler, "Killing the Jews is wrong."
39. This would violate the very construct that Lenhart has developed.
40. For one, Lenhart would say that such a thing might not be wrong for Hitler.
41. Secondly, he would say it is not our responsibility to point out other's sin.
42. As shocking as that is, this is exactly what Lenhart is teaching!
43. He ignores the scriptural reality of the depth of our sin, the consequences of our falleness, (sic) the reality and extent of the Enemy's work, and the resulting hardening and twisting of our hear and mind.
44. He gets here because his modeling process is flawed.
45. Ultimately, it is flawed because its foundation is Lenhart's deductive mind, not by the careful study of the inspired Word of God, relying on the Holy Spirit for illumination, and utilizing the disciplines involved in sound hermeneutics.
46. He simply doesn't go back to the Word of God and allow it to inform his theology; instead he demands that God's Word be molded to his flawed construct.
"Lenhart's Teaching on Grace"
Page 24
47. As I have already pointed out, language doesn't work this way, and so his attempts almost universally end up some place other than the place given when one looks at the whole of God's Word.
Page 25
48. In other words, Lenhart has turned grace on its head!
49. Lenhart then goes on and constructs a model in which grace is limited to God's "divine influence upon the heart," an influence we must pay for so as to not violate God's justice.
50. This influence, Lenhart says, leads to proper actions which are "righteous" and therefore must be rewarded by God on the basis of the principle of justice.
51. As we will see in a moment, this undercuts the entire Biblical message of salvation through faith in Christ's finished work on the cross!
52. First he goes wrong by trying to get a one-size-fits-all definition of grace which can then be applied in every use of the word in scripture.
53. As we have pointed out, such an attempt will ALWAYS result in either moving UP the ladder of abstraction, or it will result in a definition that only fits certain places.
54. He is not using etymology and other hermeneutical tools to understand each individual usage of the word within its given context.
55. Instead, he simply attempts to slap some upper rung definition on the word and force it to fit.
56. Ultimately Lenhart's contention is that grace is something we control, not God - and therefore it can NEVER mean "unmerited favor".
Page 26
57. Secondly, Lenhart goes wrong because once again he is not relying on scripture to be his primary source, inputting God's revelation into the model...especially as it relates to salvation.
58. Instead, Lenhart is trying to rely almost entirely on deduction.
59. His appeal to scripture is essentially an effort to "proof-text" his position, rather than allowing a thorough and exhaustive study of scripture to inform and give him his position.
60. What Lenhart has done is constructed a model that says you earn your salvation.
61. Grace depends on you...not God.
62. Grace depends on you, not Jesus and His work on the cross.
63. Grace, in the context of how the scripture uses it in relationship to salvation, has been turned on its head.
64. The message of the cross has been set aside.
65. And the entire message of the gospel is compromised because of it.
"Lenhart's Teaching on Salvation"
Page 26
66. Because he has skewed things so severly (sic) up to this point, it is no surprise that his conceptualization of salvation is also foreign to Biblical truth.
(Original #66: Because he has skewed things so badly up to this point, it is no surprise that his conceptualization of salvation is also foreign to Biblical truth.)
Page 27
67. That there is NOT a salvation event where one receives Christ and is made a new creation.
68. That God's righteousness is NOT imputed to us and is not sufficient to save us.
69. That one's faith DOES NOT NEED to be placed in the person and work of Jesus to be saved.
70. That salvation entirely depends upon whether a person's ACTIONS are moving toward God or away from God at the moment of death, not their reception of Christ as Lord and Savior.
"Is there a Moment at Which We Are Saved?"
Page 28
71. He denies what all evangelicals believe: that there is a moment where one passes from death to life and is saved - where saved is a completed action.
72. There is no exegetical work.
73. There are no word studies done so that scripture can inform his theology.
74. No, Lenhart merely deduces it based on his pre-arrived at definitions and constructs.
75. So let's do what Lenhart failed to do.
Page 29
76. Lenhart has simply engaged in intellectual deduction and built his theology on his own flawed human wisdom.
77. Ultimately the reason he has done this, as we will see shortly - is because Lenhart doesn't believe you need to have faith in the person of Jesus.
78. He thinks there are multiple paths to heaven...all of which rely on human effort.
"Are We Saved by God's Righteousness or Ours?"
Page 29
79. Lenhart further paints his picture of salvation in unbiblical terms by making it a matter of our righteousness being needed rather than God's righteousness being imputed to us on the basis of Christ's death and resurrection.
80. Note that he speaks to our actions producing righteousness, and this it is our effort at righteousness that then somehow requires God to give us "value" on the basis of Lenhart's definition of God's justice.
81. Beloved of God, this is salvation by works!
82. Notice his blatant denial of what God clearly teaches in His Word on this important subject.
Page 30
83. What Lenhart has done is deny the very CORE of our entire hope and faith as believers: that IN CHRIST there is salvation based on HIM - not us.
"Do We Need to Trust In Jesus to Save Us?"
Page 30
84. By minimizing Jesus and elevating the process, Lenhart has dethroned God and enthroned His own version of human dynamics which produce the result of salvation by having us correctly plug into his salvation formula.
85. However, the better problem is Lenhart again explicitly espouses a teaching that is not only unbiblical, it is anti-Biblical.
86. He claims there are multiple paths to God - apart from Jesus!!
Page 31
87. In denying the centrality of Jesus in salvation, Lenhart has fundamentally denied the core of the gospel message.
88. He has begun to lay forth a false gospel.
89. Lenhart's teaching on this is so far off the mark, we can safely say: this denial of the person and the work of Jesus, this denial of the fundamentals of salvation by grace through faith IN Christ...is born - not of God - but was hatched in the pit of hell itself in order to keep lost people from knowing Jesus as Lord and Savior.
"So How Are We Saved According to Lenhart?"
Page 32
90. According to Lenhart, one does not need to have faith in the person of Jesus for salvation.
91. Rather, one's salvation depends on their own personal righteousness rather than God's righteousness.
92. It is something they earn by "gaining value" from God so that God's justice is all equaled out.
93. According to Lenhart, someone who has faith in Christ and who has entered into a covenant relationship with Him - but at the moment of their death falls into some personal sin (they take a step in the wrong direction, moving away from God) - that person is lost.
94. According to Lenhart, that person is saved.
95. Because he made a decision to make "progress" toward God at the point of death.
96. He expressed a desire to be more "God-like" in some small way.
97. He "drove toward the party".
98. This is what salvation looks like in Lenhart's model.
99. Faith IN Christ and his work on the cross has been set aside, and a gospel absolutely foreign to the scripture has taken its place.
100. A decision to "make progress" toward God...even if it is apart from Christ, is not the mechanism of salvation.
101. According to Lenhart, Jesus has been replaced by a process.
102. Grace has been replaced by works.
103. The cross has been replaced by "progress".
104. It is the gospel of John G. Lenhart.
"Where Is the Cross?"
Page 33
105. And yet Lenhart has simply given it away for a perspective of salvation that somehow depends on my "progress".
"A Summary of Lenhart's Basic Theology"
Page 33
106. We are left with a non-omniscient, non-sovereign diety.
107. We are left with a Jesus who is not fully God in his fundamental essence and nature.
108. We are left with an unbiblical concept of sin which makes sin relative to the individual, not the violation of God's essential being and His holy and revealed standard.
109a. Salvation by grace has been turned on its head.
109b. It is now something that must be earned rather than given by God's undeserved favor towards us manifested in Christ's death on the cross.
(Original #109: Salvation by grace has been turned on its head and is now something that must be earned rather than given by God's undeserved favor towards us manifested in Christ's death on the cross.)
110. We are left with a theology of salvation that denies the necessity of a personal faith in a real and living Jesus.
111. He believes there are multiple ways of being saved, all of which depend on human behavior and intent.
112. We are left with a theology of salvation which significantly sidelines the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the core of our salvation.
113. We are left with a formula and a process which must be worked, rather than a living Savior in whom we can place our trust.
114. What Lenhart has articulated is a theology based on deduction, not the revealed Word of God.
115. It is a theology built from a flawed modeling process.
116. In the end, it is a gospel which is substantially different from the gospel presented in the scripture.
Page 34
117. Lenhart's gospel: Has a different god than the Biblical God, Has a different Jesus than the Biblical Jesus, Has a different message of salvation than the one presented in the pages of scripture.
118. Because of the significant error in Lenhart's teaching, it is vital that we heed these words of warning from scripture:
119. We would also do well to remind ourselves that the gospel has never rested on human deduction or wisdom, as Lenhart has attempted to do.
"Conclusion"
Page 35
120. Lenhart's gospel has a non-sovereign impersonal god, a non-divine Jesus, and an unbiblical view of both sin and God's grace.
121. It significantly marginalizes the cross to mean virtually nothing and almost completely excludes the work of the Holy Spirit.
122. Salvation does not require faith in Christ and must be paid for by gaining "value" from God.
123. In the end, this is something entirely different from the gospel laid out in the pages of scripture.
124. In contrast to Lenhart's gospel, the gospel of Scripture is focused on Christ and his (sic) work on the cross.
Page 36
125. The victorious Christian life isn’t found through gaining “value” or living in your spiritual “ARE.”
(Original #125: The victorious Christian life isn't found through gaining "value" or living in your spiritual "ARE" but rather through abiding with and waling in step with the Holy Spirit of God as he applies Christ's finished work on the cross to our personal lives.)
126. Lenhart arrives at something far outside of this place.
127. It is a heretical teaching that is a violation of the central core tenants of the Christian faith.
128. As such, it must be rejected by all who profess Jesus as Lord.
Click The Rebuttal to return
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)