As everyone but Christians knows, Christians apply a double standard to their own religious experiences versus similar experiences in other religions. But it's worse than that. The double standard is completely in-house.
Specifically, I'm addressing the inconsistency of the following three positions:
1. My experiences of God are a valid reason for thinking God is real.
2. The gift of tongues has ceased.
3. Many people who speak in tongues are solid Christians.
The doublethink is so glaring that I hardly need to do more than list the positions. Apparently, lots of Christians who are very close to God don't know the difference between a psychological phenomenon (or demons) and an experience of God. “But not my experience! I experienced God! How can you explain that?” With great ease...
If God really was in relationships with people, and God really did speak to people through a certain branch of a certain religion, you would expect them to agree on what God said. Or at least they should agree on a much easier question: how do you know God is the one who is speaking?
But if God doesn't exist or if he doesn't reach out to people through personal relationships, what we should expect to find is an enormous level of disagreement on the most basic questions about how it is that God really talks, and what it is that he says. This is exactly what we find.
One rationalization is that maybe God makes his voice unclear for some reason, or in other words, he likes making it look precisely the way it would look if he wasn't there. It's possible. It's also possible that the reason pictures of aliens are always really grainy is that, well, aliens are just really grainy.
The far better explanation is that Jesus' sheep do not hear his voice, and they do not follow him. Instead, they are scattered in every direction as they all insist that they are the ones' following the correct voice.
None of this excludes the position that tongues are fake and Pentecostal Christians are therefore borderline heretics. Perhaps exactly one of the scattered sheep are following the correct voice. But if this is your position, please hold to it consistently. Don't try to tell me that God is at work spreading the Gospel throughout the world. Third world Christianity is very Pentecostal – consistent cessationists and I are in agreement that all that's going on is the realignment of superstitions.
On the other side a different inconsistency is quite common:
1. Non-Christians disbelieve due to rebellion against God and his laws.
2. The gift of tongues is real.
3. Many cessationists are solid Christians.
The problem here is that cessationists who are solid Christians show that the reality of tongues can be denied for other than hedonistic or rebellious reasons. What would motive a cessationist to accept all the restrictions of Christianity while denying themselves the most dramatic parts? The answer is that it's not about “motivation,” but about actually thinking that tongues are not for real. Once this line of reasoning is accepted, it is extremely hard to maintain the impossibility of non-Christians disbelieving simply because they actually think that Christianity is false. Hell then becomes very difficult to justify when the litmus test is belief.
None of this excludes the position that tongues are real and cessationists are lukewarm believers or less. But if this is your position, don't try to tell me true Christianity existed between, say, 100AD and 1900AD.
It is noteworthy that the more consistent positions often result in more disagreeable people and more divisions in the church. This is the dilemma of trying to think of many different Christianities as some mystically unified “Christianity.” Churches and Christian organizations must choose among being intellectually shallow, segregated along theological lines, or a cauldron churning out apostasy whenever the wrong combination of views interact.
Tongues? No, I don't a problem with that: English, German, Italian, Spanish, Romanian... :-)
ReplyDeletetongues? since when is an expression of spiritual practice a marker of true christian belief? you are accepting the definitions and limitations of a particular group and casting it upon all of christian belief--like saying atheism cannot be true because one group uses a different argument than another. "cessation" is a limited classification chosen by a small portion of christians, to which you could not apply to any christian before the idea was even thought up.
ReplyDeletebut more importantly:
to dwell solely in the mind is only to fail to realize the depth and complexity of the human person. elevating intellectual reasoning above another means of human input and experience is only to put your own faith in a hierarchy established on the authority of...your own mind and personal reasoning, which is just as circular as you portend to judge christianity and declare its falsity and self-contradictions.
what freedom will the mind lead us to? where has it led us? "advancement" we call it, and watch the thinking western countries fall apart in depression and loneliness. and where did we learn to follow it above all other human faculty? or do you hold modern western (greek) values above the rest of civilization? no i do not advocate an opium or an ignorant pragmatism--though perhaps we may admit that the fruit of this labor is so often quite rotten? so truly, where do you hope to go?
>like saying atheism cannot be true because one group uses a different argument than another.
ReplyDeleteThere are two different Christian positions that I explicitly described that are consistent with my argument. In fact, any Christian position is consistent with my argument as long as it recognizes the invalidity of the argument from personal religious experiences.
But based on your response, I'm guessing that you hold none of these positions.
>to dwell solely in the mind is only to fail to realize the depth and complexity of the human person.
The foundational question is "but is it true?" As long as the answer is "no", there is no other aspect of Christianity that has any importance. To the extent that Christianity contains claims about reality, I'm going to think about it and compare it to reality.
But maybe there are other ways to God besides the mind. Maybe one of those ways is personal religious experiences. This is precisely what I am engaging with this post.
"If God really was in relationships with people, and God really did speak to people through a certain branch of a certain religion, you would expect them to agree on what God said. Or at least they should agree on a much easier question: how do you know God is the one who is speaking?"
ReplyDeleteJeffrey,
The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in not equatable with omniscience. We're still affected by sin on every level. Therefore, of course not all Christians are going to be in complete theological unity, especially in matters of less importance such as cessationism. When it comes to matters of salvific proportions, true believers are indeed unified. (see groups like Together for the Gospel - much theological variety, save the gospel)
Your first set of inconsistencies is a sweeping generalization.
I, as a believer in Christ do not hold to numbers 1 or 2 as valid, and number 3 is borderline. SOME people who speak in tongues are solid Christians, but only if the phenomenon is biblical. (Done with an interpreter and understood by the congregation, anything besides this is bunk)
Remember this: If indeed there is an infinite God who created your logical limitations, then you would never be able to reason away His existence from within a finite box that He Himself created.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of widsom.
Praying for you man. For real.
Let me know what you think.
>Your first set of inconsistencies is a sweeping generalization.
ReplyDeleteBecause you hold that tongues are for real in some cases, the potential inconsistency that's more relevant to you is the second, not the first.
>The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in not equatable with omniscience.
Sure. But I'm claiming more than believers lack omniscience.
Cessationists say you believe in tongues because your sinful desire for the theatrical blinds you to how fake it is. Presumably, you are saying that cessationists' sin blinds them to some of the Holy Spirit's work.
And yet both sides claim to be basing their views on the same book. It looks precisely the way it would look if the Holy Spirit provided nothing at all.
>especially in matters of less importance such as cessationism.
The number one most fundamental question about Christianity is "is it true?" If a relationship with God or sign gifts are part of how you answer this question, then cessationism is inextricably tied to the most fundamental question about Christianity.
(But if natural theology and resurrection apologetics are at the center for you, the problem of tongues can be rightly dismissed.)
>When it comes to matters of salvific proportions, true believers are indeed unified.
ReplyDeleteI think the elephant in the room between us needs to come up. When you learned I was a theistic evolutionist, your reaction was, and I quote, "stop right now claiming to believe in God." As much as I would like to claim that as soon as I figured out evolution was true, I also figured out Christianity was false, in truth I was a lot dense than that. It took more than two extra years.
I'm seeing a huge difference between the Christianity you are advertising and Christianity as I have experienced it to be.
The problem is that "matters pertaining to the Gospel" naturally extends to all theology once you think through the implications. To cessationists who ground their faith on a relationship with God, cessationism ends up directly effecting the Gospel. To you, six day creation and inerrancy cannot be separated from the Gospel. To many, Calvinism is about the very nature of God and thus cannot be separated from the Gospel. Similarly with the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and eschatology. There just isn't a way around the conflict without just pretending that you all agree.
You cannot simultaneously accept a religion where believing the wrong thing can result in hell, and still be accepting of people who believe differently.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Cessationists say you believe in tongues because your sinful desire for the theatrical blinds you to how fake it is. Presumably, you are saying that cessationists' sin blinds them to some of the Holy Spirit's work. "
ReplyDeleteFalse. Good cessationists believe the that gifts have ceased because they believe in sola sciptura, and they've come to their conclusion based upon their hermeneutic. It has nothing to do with a sinful desire of the theatrical. It has everything to do with the text and one's interpretation, which is open to error, even to believers. That's why Paul instructed believers to rightly divide the word, because there is a wrong way to divide, or interpret it.
Listen man, I don't remember what exactly I've said to you in the past, but if I was a jerk I owe you an apology. God's done a lot of work in my life since then, and I'm sure that my reactions to you weren't the greatest. Sorry about that.
Ok. There are several tiers of theological importance, and the gospel is at the top. The gospel is that God came to earth in the form of a man, lived a perfect life, died for our sins, was resurrected and ascended into heaven. Things like the trinity and the hypostatic union are wrapped up in the gospel, because they are completely necessary to it. There is no gospel without the trinity, or Jesus as fully man and fully God. Also, we would know nothing of this gospel without the word, and by faith we believe that it's inerrant.
This gospel is not wrapped up in second tier issues like creation, and certainly not in third tier issues like Calvinism and eschatology.
Yes, there is conflict, but not of first tier issues. (among those truly regenerated)
"You cannot simultaneously accept a religion where believing the wrong thing can result in hell, and still be accepting of people who believe differently."
You're critically mistaken here in lumping all matters of theology into one group of importance. Believing the wrong thing about first tier issues will result in separation from God, and yet matters of second and third tier issues will not. Even C.S. Lewis was a theistic evolutionist, (although his context was completely different) and I think that illustrates my point well.
I agree that cessationists are so due to what they think the Bible says. But the next question for them to ask is why some people disagree, and the answer is that other people's sin distorts their understanding of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteWith all the in-house bickering over who is blinded on this particular issue by their sin, I can't help but smirk at claims that the “real” reason I look at the Bible and see that it's false is because my sin is getting in the way. This was, in fact, the point of my second potential inconsistency.
>I'm sure that my reactions to you weren't the greatest. Sorry about that.
I appreciate the apology, but on the other hand, it's a little too late to try to reconcile with my less conservative theological stances. The problem is that I see just how naturally the rejection of theistic evolutionists comes out of YEC beliefs. On the flip side, I wasn't exactly nice to YEC, which flows very naturally out of the belief that evolution and Christianity are true.
It's one thing to claim to be accepting of different views, and another thing to do it. Maybe on paper a group can believe in inerrancy and YEC and still accept theistic evolutionists. I say try it. Study the case for evolution, learn that it's ture, and try being the only person in your church who (openly?) accepts evolution for a couple years and let me know how it goes.
>and by faith we believe that it's inerrant.
C. S. Lewis didn't hold the Bible to be inerrant. Either he wasn't a true Christian, or true Christians disagree on tier one issues.
The first contra-inerrancy quote from Lewis that comes to mind is:
“On my view one must apply something of the same sort of explanation to, say, the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua. I see the grave danger we run by doing so; but the dangers of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him 'good' and worshiping Him, is still greater danger. The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible.” (emphasis added)
Lewis thought that when his sense of justice conflicted with the Bible, the proper conclusion is that Bible was wrong. I don't see how that can fit with your first tier.
Experiences are a great reason to believe God is real--they're a great reason to believe anyone is real. I know when Jesus speaks to me because I feel loved--maybe that's not intellectual enough, but I doubt I'd feel love from a demon. It's not my imagination...it's very powerful. If you don't have the experience, then isn't Christianity just a philosophy? And, just because God speaks doesn't mean that you agree with Him, or that you have to. Why would that mean that? It seems like you've made all your decisions based on what you've seen in the church, and your lack of experience...going to a church doesn't make you an "insider". My opinion is that the corporate church doesn't really matter, but who is born again (John 3--if scriptures help validate you). Anyway, I believe God is going to give you an experience with Him, and you'll the difference. I saw a vision of Jesus with his sword drawn...He's going to fight for you and protect you...maybe that's foolishness to you, but God really loves you.
ReplyDeleteHey Jeffery. Sorry for the long delay...
ReplyDelete"I can't help but smirk at claims that the “real” reason I look at the Bible and see that it's false is because my sin is getting in the way."
First I would like to challenge your assertion that according to Christians your unbelief is due to sin getting in the way. In fact, I would vehemently reject that.
Jesus said this in Luke 5:31-32, "...those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."
No one owes their illumination to truth in the scriptures to a lack of sin in his life. God saves bad people.
Furthermore in 2 Cor. 4:3-4a Paul says this:
"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
Non-Christians disbelieve not because of their rebellion, (for we were all rebels and enemies of God - spiritually dead according to Romans) but because God simply has not opened their eyes. Synergistic soteriology (an oxymoron if there ever was one) causes a plethora of problems, and it happens to be the problem with your second set of inconsistencies.
With that in mind, I would submit that your second set of so called "inconsistencies" is a straw man. Sure, someone out there will make that argument. (#1) They would be wrong.
Secondly - I would like to concede a point to you. Belief in inerrancy isn't necessary for salvation. C.S. Lewis did in fact deny it, and we both witnessed the wedding yesterday of someone who denies it and yet is in love with Jesus.
To be sure, I think they were/are dead wrong. However, I will not say that someone who denies inerrancy isn't a Christian.
I definitely would still affirm that true believers are united on other first-tier issues.
>First I would like to challenge your assertion that according to Christians your unbelief is due to sin getting in the way. In fact, I would vehemently reject that.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that Calvinists don't have to worry about the second set of inconsistencies. My original claim was this is a common set of positions – and it is. That's doesn't make it a straw man. It makes it a position other than your own.
>Non-Christians disbelieve not because of their rebellion, (for we were all rebels and enemies of God - spiritually dead according to Romans)
Exactly! We are all rebels, so it makes no sense to say that only some people disbelieve due to their rebellion (or sin.) And then you effortlessly move from “it makes no sense” to “it's not true.” How could you do otherwise and still be considered in any sense sane? Whenever someone else's theology is under the microscope, Christians are usually so rational.
>Non-Christians disbelieve ... because God simply has not opened their eyes.
But you would also hold that man is responsible for his non-response to the Gospel. That's why God is justified in sending me to hell.
But it makes no sense to say that the difference between belief and unbelief is what God did, and yet man is responsible for his unbelief. If the difference is God's choice, and man is responsible, this implies that man is responsible for God's choices, which would make no sense. Here, because it's your theology under the microscope, I'll bet you effortlessly move from “it makes no sense” to “it's a mystery.”
Even Paul recognizes in Romans 9:19 that his views imply that God chooses to send people to hell unjustly. He avoids these implications in verse 20: “Thou shalt not think about these things.” (Loosely paraphrased.)
I guess there is an alternative to not thinking about it: you can think about it, as long as you are determined to ignore any logical conclusions, no matter how inescapable. I suspect this is the real difference between us – it's not that I've figured out it makes no sense and you haven't. If you've read Romans 9 and believe it, then we've both figured it out that it makes no sense. Similarly, we both reject the rebellion explanation due to it making no sense. The difference is that I do something with the knowledge that Calvinism makes no sense and you don't.