Back to Top
  1. Home
  2. 2009
    3. (Page 2)

Yearly Archives: 2009

The Elements of the Gospel: Faith

(This post is a continuation of the Pastoral Soteriology Series.  It assumes pre-requisite reading of earlier posts, and will be followed by additional posts.)

While grace is the overriding precondition of the gospel, scripture unyieldingly asserts that faith is the necessary component by which salvation is applied to the sinner’s account.  Ephesians 2:8 notes both elements quite clearly, asserting, “it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith.”  Likewise, Hebrews 11:6 notes that “without faith it is impossible to please God,” demanding that God’s acceptance of man in some way hinges on the existence of essential faith.  While faith in no way trumps grace – nor can it exist outside of grace – it is nonetheless a required component of the gospel which cannot be subverted.  One simply cannot be saved without faith. Continue Reading

1 Reply

The Elements of the Gospel: Grace

(This post is a continuation of the Pastoral Soteriology Series)

Grace:  The Overriding Condition of Salvation

Understanding the nature of the atonement expressed thus far – that Christ fulfilled the substitutionary blood atonement system of the Old Testament – leads one to next evaluate the elements of the gospel which bring one along the path into fellowship with Christ.  The mere knowledge of such glorious principles alone does not transform one automatically into conversion (James 2:19).  Rather, a transformational process which far supersedes intellect takes place to usher one into regeneration.  The next several posts will examine the “elements” which come into play during one’s conversion process.  These elements are each taught by scripture to be a part of the conversion experience. Continue Reading

1 Reply

Jesus: The Fulfillment of the Law

Understanding the substitutionary nature of Old Testament atonement is perhaps the single most important revelation concerning the work Christ accomplished on the cross on our behalf.  While such knowledge of the Old Testament system is certainly not a prerequisite for one’s salvation, it is the very foundation by which one may truly comprehend the work of the cross.  Jesus took great care to present the manner of his work as something which built upon that which God had already revealed.  He continually quoted the Law and the Prophets.  He made examples of the men of faith who had forged the work of the Kingdom in the Old Testament.  Salvation by grace through faith is not something new, but rather something which utterly permeated the scriptures prior to the time of Christ.  What became new was that the substance of such faith was finally revealed and fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ.  Jesus explained, Continue Reading

8 Replies

Obama? Nobel Prize? Peace?

I have to admit that the last piece of news I expected to wake up to this morning was that Obama would be receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.  This shock has nothing to do with my personal feelings for Obama, but rather with my obviously incorrect assumptions that the prize was actually somewhat difficult to win.  Clearly, nothing about this award could be hailed an actual “accomplishment” by Barack Obama.

The first and most ridiculous indication of this fact is that Obama was president of the US only two weeks before the deadline for the nomination of this year’s prize.  It is my understanding that his accomplishments up to that moment were the consideration for his winning of the prize.  Perhaps this explains some things.

One of the noted “accomplishments” of the then two-week-term president was his “pledge” to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms.  While I have no reason to doubt that Obama’s pledge is one of sincerity, it has thus far been little more than political speak.  Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to “work out” a reduction limit on nuclear warheads.  They even discussed the numbers of such future reductions.  What they have not done, however, is to have stipulated nor spoken further about the actual dates at which such reductions should take place.  Their “talks” have remained precisely that.  The world’s nuclear arsenal is not dwindling.  In fact, all evidence suggests, it is instead most likely soon to be growing; right into the hands of murderous mad-men like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man Obama “talks” about regularly.  (Ahmadinejad, once enabled, will not talk about his position; he will act.)  But, apparently “talk” is the substance of reward in the eyes of the Nobel committee.

Another noted reason for Obama’s nomination and win is his work to ease conflict between America and Muslim nations.  Of course, Obama pledged to end the Iraqi and Afghani conflicts.  Since his pledge, ironically, an actual increase in US presence in those nations has occurred, including 21,000 additional troops in Afghanistan alone.

Personally, I’m not in favor of reducing America’s nuclear arms or of getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq before the work in those regions which we began has been completed.  Yet I am swooning from the presumption that Obama has actually done anything concerning his promises – however ill-advised – on those matters. 

The Nobel Peace Prize, it seems, is about intentions rather than accomplishments.

A quote from the prize committee’s announcement describes, “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”  Since when is the “capture (of the) world’s attention” tantamount to actual success as it relates to the acquiring of peace?

Clearly, the Nobel Peace Prize fails to meet its charter, which was noted in the will of founder, Alfred Nobel.  In his last testament he specified that the peace prize should be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.”  

Clearly, no distinction is being made between one who “shall have done the most or best work” and one who shall “expressed the best intentions.”

In all fairness, the Nobel Peace Prize committee has historically demonstrated an aptitude for “lack of forward vision.”  Among former nominees are Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, while Yasser Arafat actually won the award in 1994.  Ironically, Mahatma Gandhi, though nominated five times, never won an award.

Perhaps it all makes more sense than we are admitting.


4 Replies

Rob Bell’s “Nooma 019 Open” – (Review)

I recently had the opportunity to view Rob Bell’s “Nooma 019 Open” video.  As I’ve taken several opportunities to write about Bell and his Emergent movement, it will come as no surprise that there is no love lost between myself and Bell’s movement (or Zondervan Publishers, for that matter, in so eagerly supporting it.)  Yet, I have determined to do my level-best at giving a fair and biblical review of this product which will reveal the very best and worst which this evolving “conversation” has to offer via Bell’s contribution of Nooma 019. 

The first and most obvious impression of Nooma 019, as with all of Bell’s Nooma videos, is the exceptional production quality with which it was prepared.  The use of music, mood and the seemingly extemporaneous narration delivery are truly artful and impressive.  Of all possible issues which one may take with Bell’s Nooma productions, quality of craftsmanship is certainly not one of them.  In fact, the overall sensitivity of expression is so compelling that it is quite possible for one to be enraptured by the sentiments and completely miss the subtle theological nuances which underlie the premise. 

Almost as impressive is Bell’s apparent understanding of the underlying human uncertainty which permeates our post-modern culture.  As he frequently does so well, Bell addresses very real and valid issues which tear at the heart of human confidence in God’s sovereignty.  He opens the video by introducing a true story of a friend who had lost a baby in the neonatal unit of a local hospital, despite extensive and passionate appeals in prayer.  In his buildup of the issue at hand, he very compassionately poses questions we all have asked at one time or another.  Essentially, he appeals to know why God seems not to answer our prayers at times.  Why does a bona-fide miracle follow prayer on one occasion while utter silence seems to be God’s response at others?  He asks,

“What do you do with that?  I mean, does God answer prayers some, but not all?  Sometimes but not all of the time?  Or does God always answer prayers – it’s just that sometimes God says ‘no’”

These are great questions that appeal to the heart and soul of everyone who has ever experienced personal loss in the midst of intensive prayer.  Bell sincerely gets an “A” for asking solid questions which saturate the conscience.  He obviously has his finger of the pulse of our culture.  He clearly understands the dynamic of suffering and asks good questions about such in light of God’s permissive will. 

At this point, Bell had the bases loaded with a high and outside slow pitch just waiting for a competent swing.  I personally envy Bell’s ability to prepare a difficult subject for its suitable teachable moment.  Invariably, however, his perfectly grand-slammable pitch produces a dinked foul over the left field line.  (He runs the bases anyway.)

After an exceptional introduction, he manages to equally impressively misrepresent the nature of prayer and suffering respectively as he attaches a culturally-discernable relevance and man-centric intention to them both. Bell, it seems, has a knack for high quality production of poorly constructed theology.

He begins the discovery phase of his “answer” with a great scenario; the prayer of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.  Who better to illuminate the nature of suffering than the Lord himself?  Who better to explain how prayers are heard and answered than Christ, who prayed,

Matthew 26:39 (NIV)
39 … “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Before getting to Bell’s weird expose’ on this text, let it first be noted what Jesus prayed.  First, he prayed that if it be possible, may this cup be taken from me.  This is the logical prayer of a subordinate to his master, for Jesus had subordinated himself to God (Phil 2) that he may be “obedient unto death.”  “If it be possible” was the preparatory attitude of Jesus’ request.  He desired not to die, yet only if such “be possible” under God’s plan; thus, his second request, “yet not as I will, but as you will.”  In Jesus’ prayer, he expressed his own desire while yielding to God’s wishes with no self-interest at all.  While he desired not to endure the horrific experience of substitutionary atonement on a cross, he desired more to be obedient unto death.  In short, it was God’s plan, God’s will and God’s glory that he sought in his prayer, all-the-while knowing that he would suffer and die on that cross.

Bell gets some of this right, noting that Jesus did not desire to endure the pain of the cross if it were not essential.  Surely Jesus shared everyone else’s aversion to nail punctures and a slow, painful death.  He even got it right that Jesus put God’s will ahead of his own.  Yet, Bell fails utterly when he attempts to answer the “why” of Jesus’ prayer.  Bell notes,

“Now to understand why Jesus prays like this we have to understand that Jesus took very seriously the creation poem of Genesis; that the Bible begins with.  And in this creation poem God creates – God creates things that are capable of creating more.”

Here we go.

First of all, how do you even say, “Jesus took very seriously the creation poem” with a straight face?  In Bell’s non-literal view of Genesis, the creation is always relegated to the status of “poetry,” which of course, expresses an idea rather than a historical account.  What an incongruity to note Jesus as one who takes seriously the creation account when you deny it’s literality yourself.  Yes, Jesus did take the creation account seriously.  Jesus stated in Mark 10:6 (NIV), 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’  (God made man at the beginning of creation, not a billion years afterward as Bell professes)  Jesus also took literally the account of Noah, stating, Luke 17:26 (NIV), 26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.  (Bell claims the flood is another part of a strange “poetic discussion” on “the humanity project” – but not a literal event)  And, most eerily, Jesus claimed judgment on those who did not take seriously such accounts, stating, John 5:46-47 (NIV), 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

But, I digress.  Bell was, after all, correct (on this part):  Jesus did take very seriously the creation poem narrative.  And, it is in this creation poem narrative that Bell presumes to find the reason why Jesus prayed the way he did.

Prepare yourselves.  Weirdness approaching…

Bell claims that the creation account was about a continuing process of creation (in spite of Genesis 2:2 noting that “God had finished” his work).  Going off of his quote (above) that “God creates things that are capable of creating more,” God, in Bell’s words, “leaves the world unfinished and invites people to take part in the ongoing creation of the world.”  He notes that this creative process is endless, “bringing design, order and beauty” to God’s unfinished creation. 

As difficult as this train of thought is to follow, Bell immediately explains his “creation poem” rabbit chase with these words:  “And so, when Jesus prayed, he’s tapping into this divine creative energy that made everything.”  “Tapping into?”  “The divine creative energy?”  Bell’s Emergent mind must be what it would be like for Shirley McClain to cross with Benny Hinn!  It’s clear that Bell at least considers this “creative energy” to be one and the same as God himself.  He notes that, “Jesus’ assumption is that there is some role for him to play in this creative, ongoing work of God in the world.”  So, the question must be raised, “what is Bell teaching about who God is?” 

Is God a “creative energy” that formed the world (and left it unfinished), or is he an infinitely powerful being with personality, purpose and sovereignty?  Does God not have intellect, emotion and will?  Bell seems to attempt to marry the two ideas of “personhood” and “energy” in his language.  On one hand, God is the worker of this unfinished creation; an “energy” by which creation was made and on the other, he obviously has a will, as he notes the “ongoing work of God” in the world.  

A second, and equally alarming question is, “what is Bell’s understanding of the nature of Jesus?”  He claims that Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane was about Jesus’ finding his role in God’s ongoing creative process?  This is utter nonsense.  Jesus knew his role well in advance.  He knew the prophecies of Isaiah 53.  He stated on numerous occasions to his disciples,

Luke 9:22 (NIV)
22 And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

 Jesus already knew what his role was in God’s plan.  He was not confused by it.  His prayer in no wise illustrated some existential search for his place in the world [Michael W. Smith playing quietly in the background].  Rather, his prayer was an intentional assent for God’s will to be done, all the while acknowledging his own desire that another way were to be possible.  Jesus’ expression was one of intimacy and trust in God, who had called him to the darkest and most difficult hour of his life.  It was not a quest for his own enlightenment of the future, but a submission to God’s will concerning the certain future he already knew. 

So, while Bell introduces his video with exceptionally good leading questions, in the quest for answers he creates additional uncertainty; primarily, “what on earth does this guy believe, anyway?”

Such is the nature of the Emergent movement which Bell represents.  In this movement, questions without answers are common.  In fact, they are embraced.  It is preferable to have an unanswered question rather than an answered one for fear of sounding too “modern” in one’s certainty.  Knowledge is the root of all evil in this system where all claim to be engaging in a cosmic conversation, yet none will commit to a discernable postulate.  Instead, Bell adds a new dimension to prayer altogether, complete with a new purpose for praying which has nothing at all to do with either calling on God’s response nor receiving his instructions.  Instead, his deduction is,

“So prayer is being still, it’s meditating, it’s reflecting, it’s listening, it’s waking up and it’s when you never stop asking the question, ‘what is God up to right here, right now, and how can I be a part of it.’”

Ironically, what begins as one of the greatest preludes to an unanswered question ends with no answer at all.  Instead of answering his introductory questions, he concludes that prayer itself is an unending quest of one to “never stop asking the question, ‘what is God up right here, right now, and how can I be a part of it.’”  Admittedly, it is a good question to ask “what is God up to” and “how can I be a part of it.”  But, is this the end of the matter?  What happened to the thesis question of why God answers “yes,” or “no” or if he even hears us at all?  Was this not the rhetorical introductory thesis of his work?  Is there no answer in scripture as to why God says “no” at times?  Is there no revelation in scripture as to why God at times does not answer?  Of course there is.  But, you will not find the answers to Rob Bell’s questions about prayer in Rob Bell’s video on prayer.  Instead, you find a completely different frame of reference from the thesis – according to Bell – as to what prayer is all about. 

“God’s desire is that the divine energy that made the world would flow between us, and in the process draw us closer together.  Prayer is tapping into the same energy that formed the universe.  That’s why people say that they can feel prayer; it’s because we can.  Praying connects us to the people and things we are praying for.” 

God’s desire is that the divine energy that made the world would flow between us?  Can we have a chapter and verse on that, Rob?  And the purpose of prayer is found in that while this “divine energy” does its thing it will “in the process draw us closer together?”  Does prayer draw us closer to each other or closer to God?  What book of the Bible teaches this nonsense?  And, once again we’re “tapping into the energy that formed the universe?”  The universe was formed at God’s command.  It was not some random “energy” but the power of the Word of almighty God.  One does not “tap into” God’s power as he might chug back a Red Bull for that extra burst of energy when needed.  Prayer is calling on the personal GOD who owns Bell’s cosmic “energy”- that HE may make HIS WILL known to HIS SUBJECTS! 

Bell, who so eloquently asks good questions concerning God’s answers to prayer, ends his diatribe of inconsistency and uncertainty exactly the way you would expect – if you knew Rob Bell at all – with a big fat, “I don’t know.”

“So when people ask all sorts of questions: ‘why didn’t God do this,’ ‘why did God do this,’ ‘why did God show up then,’ ‘why’d God make a miracle happen there,’ ‘why’s God say “yes” to this prayer and “no” to that prayer,’  I    DON’T    KNOW.”

Now THAT is an answer I trust.  Ironically, THAT is also the answer to the very question Bell indicated in his thesis that he would be pursuing in this video.  Once again, one of the chief leaders of this leader-less movement had deduced that “not knowing” is better than knowing.  The mysteries of God are somehow more comforting than His clearly declared truths.

In conclusion, the apple does not far fall from the tree.  Rob Bell produced another Nooma video which accurately represents the touchy-feely, perplexed and incapable-of-a-straight-answer perspective of the Emergent movement. 

  • It asks great questions but refuses to answer them. 
  • It presents speculative theology solutions based on Rob’s uniquely metaphorical understanding of those great “poems” of scripture. 
  • It casts Jesus in a light of confusion; even concerning the certainty of his own self-prophesied crucifixion. 
  • It reduces Jesus’ atoning work on the cross to “some role for him to play in this creative, ongoing work of God in the world.” 
  • It reduces prayer to “the divine energy that made the world (flowing) between us, and in the process draw(ing) us closer together.”  He must be doing that “centering prayer” thing again.  (His version – based in TM)

Not only do I fail to see any merit of this video for any forum, I seriously doubt the salvation of its creator.  Overall (beyond this single work), I have yet to hear Bell present an articulate (and scripturally accurate) sentence dealing with the purpose Christ played in history as it relates to his own salvation.  Instead, Bell continually teaches contrary to the substitutionary atonement of Christ.  I have heard him decry that “God is not angry” for man’s sin.  I have read his works which come exceptionally close to preaching universalism and clearly denying the existence of a literal Hell. 

I should have expected no less confusion in his poetic exegesis concerning man’s relationship to God through prayer.

7 Replies

“Return of the King” Study Course

 

image

“The Return of the King” Study Course

Click Here to Register
View Flyer

Dates:  September 15, 2009 – November 17, 2009

Location:  First Baptist Church, Old Ocean, Texas

Phone: 979-647-4609
Website: http://www.fbcoo.org


Duration:  6:30 PM – 8:30 PM (with break each week) 

Jeff Kluttz, the author of “The Return of the King: a Prophetic Timeline of End-Time Events” will be presenting “The Return of the King” study course at First Baptist Church in Old Ocean Texas. 

The study course is a roughly 20 hour instructional course which follows “The Return of the King” Teacher/Student Workbook set.  The course will run weekly for 10 weeks.

The first class will be Tuesday, September 15, 2009 and will meet weekly until course completion on Tuesday, November 17, 2009.  Class will meet from 6:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. each week, with a short break mid-class.  A question and answer time will follow each class meeting.  Questions will be limited during course sessions due to time constraints.

The Return of The King (ROTK) is a detailed timeline of end-time events as prophesied in the Bible.  Unlike some studies of this nature, ROTK will be presented for a non-technical audience, providing full definitions of all theological terms used in the course.  This course is based on “The Return of the King” book, written by a minister of over 20 years who is accustomed to breaking complicated theological content down for its simplest digestion. 

ROTK is written, and the course presented, from a premillennial perspective, which understands scripture to be literal in nature, and prophecy to be interpreted via normal and customary interpretational methods rather than being relegated to symbolic in its nature. 

View Flyer 
Register Now





4 Replies

A Vacation Update & Funny

Many of you may have noticed that ReturningKing.com has been quiet the past few weeks.  This is due to my having been involved in our annual youth camp (www.onecamp.org) and now my participation in our family vacation. 

We will resume our regular posts very soon!  But, I thought I would leave you this week with an email I received from a church member and dear friend.  It is funny, yet strangely accurate – which, of course is true of all good humor. 

Here is “How Many Christiand Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb.”  (although there are come decidedly non-christian groups noted, I will leave the title as it was given to me)

The email I received was not credited.  If you know who is responsible for this bit of wit, by all means let me know and I’ll properly give due.

How Many Christians Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb?

  • Charismatic: Only 1
    Hands are already in the air.
  • Pentecostal: 10
    One to change the bulb, and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness
  • Presbyterians: None
    Lights will go on and off at predestined times.
  • Roman Catholic: None
    Candles only.
  • Baptists: At least 15
    One to change the light bulb, and three committees to approve the change and decide who brings the potato salad and fried chicken.
  • Episcopalians: 3
    One to call the electrician, one to mix the drinks and one to talk about how much better the old one was.
  • Mormons: 5
    One man to change the bulb, and four wives to tell him how to do it.
  • Unitarians:  [[And, most Emergents of any persuasion]]
    We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that light bulbs work for you, you are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your light bulb for the next Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, 3-way, long-life and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.
  • Methodists: Undetermined
    Whether your light is bright, dull, or completely out, you are loved.  You can be a light bulb, turnip bulb, or tulip bulb. Bring a bulb of your choice to the Sunday lighting service and a covered dish to pass.
  • Nazarene: 6
    One woman to replace the bulb while five men review church lighting policy.
  • Lutherans: None
    Lutherans don’t believe in changing things.


2 Replies

The Mystical Theory of Atonement

(A continuation of the series, A Pastoral Soteriology.)

Continuing the historical foray into the waters of poorly constructed atonement theories leads us to what can only be understood as a truly heretical contribution known as the “Mystical Theory” of atonement.  This theory has been contributed to by many philosophers and pseudo-theologians over the years.  Central among them was Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), who utterly denied any aspect of a vicarious atoning work of Christ.

Before diving into the nuts and bolts (loose as they are) of this theory, the nature of mysticism should first be defined clearly.  By definition, that which is “mystic” is that which is “of the nature of or pertaining to mysteries known only to the initiated.”  (“mystic.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 06 Jul. 2009.)  Thus, if you are a participant in a mystic encounter can you “hear” from God.  Such mysteries transcend ordinary human knowledge, by direct communication with the divine. 

To be perfectly clear, a mystical element does indeed exist in the life of legitimate believers in Jesus Christ.  Strictly speaking, any direct impartation of information from God to man is mystical by definition.  If a man hears from God in his spirit, then he has participated in a legitimate mystical encounter.  The Holy Spirit utters truths which are only revealed to the initiated- those who belong to him- through his own impartation.

John 14:26 (NIV)
26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

It must be clearly pointed out, however, that this legitimately mystical aspect of our walk with the Lord is the result of atonement, not the source of it.  It must also be pointed out that such genuine mystical practices are taught in scripture to be subject to biblical testing, so that men are not misled.

With this understood, the mystical encounter defined by the Mystical Atonement Theory is not akin to the normal fellowship between the believer and the Holy Spirit.  Rather, this theory presupposes a mystical union which is more akin to the panentheistic and demonic doctrines of Zen Buddhism and other predominantly “eastern” originated mystic practices. 

The Mystical Theory shares one facet of its substance with the Moral Example Theory in that it presumes that the work of redemption stems from Christ’s influence rather than his substitutionary sacrifice.  In this belief system, Christ’s incarnation is of more importance than his death on the cross.  The idea is that Christ’s incarnation brought divinity to the human realm.  By Christ entering the human sphere at his advent, he elevated man to his own divine plane, making access to God achievable.  Salvation is attained through man’s entry into this open portal of access. 

Additionally, according to this theory, Christ – being human in nature – possessed all of the inherent corruption and sinful tendencies of man, yet without allowing such predisposition to lead him into actually engaging in sin.  He was in effect, one who successfully navigated the inborn sin nature, yet without succumbing to it.  At the moment of Christ’s death, then, he officially conquered and eradicated his original sin nature, thus completing his victory over sin.

As this theory has evolved into its modern form, a panentheistic (all is in God) element has been more clearly defined.   In essence, it is understood by many today that “God became man so that man could become God.”  The redeemed are elevated to the status of “God-men” through participation in the divine nature which Christ opened up to them.  Man is no longer subservient to God, but participants with him while sharing his attributes.  Those holding to this view today indicate that man’s real issue is not with his sin, but with his inability to connect to his “god-consciousness” and be thus freed from his human limitations.

(Please excuse me while I go throw up and take a shower.) 

There are simply too many issues with this theory to take them all to task in a singular post.  More is wrong with the theory than is right.  In fact, nothing at all is right with it. 

To begin with, Christ did not have a propensity to sin.  He was not born with a sin nature.  Rather, his nature was utterly contrary to sin from his advent by merit of his being the God who defines what sin is.  Perhaps oversimplified, one functional definition of sin is “disobedience to God.”  How can one be disobedient to his own nature?  Christ was God incarnate.  To that end, sin was not his propensity, but the exact antithesis of his will. 

Indeed, scripture does note that Christ was tempted:

Hebrews 4:15 (NIV)
15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin.

However, to be tempted does not equate with one having a sinful propensity.  Jesus himself stated,

John 14:30-31 (NIV)
30 I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, 31 but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

And, the very same author of Hebrews notes,

Hebrews 7:26 (NIV)
26 Such a high priest meets our need–one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.

While being tempted on this earth, perhaps for the benefit of man’s recognition of his righteousness, scripture teaches entirely contrary to the idea that Christ had an inclination toward sin.

Secondly, the Bible unwaveringly attests to the work of redemption as having been carried out on the cross rather than through Jesus’ completion of a sinless human life.  While the sinless attribute of Christ’s life was essential, redemption came not from the fact that the Son of God never sinned.  Redemption came from the fact that He who never sinned offered himself on a cross as payment for those who had sinned.  As Paul notes,

2 Corinthians 5:21 (NIV)
21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

And Isaiah prophesied,

Isaiah 53:6 (NIV)
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Certainly Jesus’ sinless life was a requirement of his ability to atone for the sins of man, but it was not the functional substance of that work.  The actual application of his righteousness to sinner’s account came from his death on the cross.  Paul notes,

Colossians 1:19-20 (NIV)
19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Make no mistake, redemption was attained through Jesus’ death on the cross.  Had he only lived a righteous life- and had not died for man’s sins- there would be no salvation for man.  God’s wrath against sin would remain.

This ultimately leads to the next major failure of this heritical theory, which is the annoying tendency of humanistic philosophies to attempt to relegate the atonement to something which enables man to overcome his sin through properly guided human efforts.  According to this theory, sin is not atoned for by Christ at all.  Rather, Christ grants man an opportunity to somehow “rise above” his sin by his mystical union with the deity.  (How can one purport to define an “atonement theory” for which there is no atonement??)  If Christ’s death were not vicarious – in man’s place – how then is man to pay for the sins committed before his magical elevation?  Does not the scripture say,

 Romans 3:25 (NIV)
25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished–

Even if man were enabled (through mystical union with Christ) to utterly conquer his sinful nature from the moment of conversion throughout the remainder of his life, who pays for the sins he committed prior to that magical encounter?  If one becomes righteous through a mystical communion with God after a life of sin, does his previous sin no longer count against him?  This theory makes no provision for such payment.  Yet, even proponents of this seriously flawed theory recognize and admit that man is infected with a sinful nature from birth.  How does a mystical elevation eliminate the sins of one’s previous existence if Christ’s death was not substitutionary in nature?

These issues alone identify the Mystical Theory as an utterly unbiblical – and ineffective- remedy for man’s problem of sin.  Yet, one cannot possibly give this theory a serious theological once-over without also pointing out the gross error of its message of mystical elevation.  The underlying postulate of such will ultimately lead back to a panentheistic view of God.  If taken to its logical conclusion, all who are redeemed – according to this theory – become participants in the overarching fellowship that is God.  Such false elevation promises in this theory relegate man back to his most base sinful tendency: the desire to be (his own) God.

There was, and will only ever be ONE God-man.  He was and is the person of Jesus Christ.  The atonement is not a means to elevate man to God’s level of consciousness, insight or authority.  it certainly was not the means by which God would share his glory with His creation.  Such aspirations, in no uncertain terms, are a demonic pursuit.

Isaiah 14:12-14 (NIV)
12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 13 You said in your heart, “I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”


Most faithful readers of ReturningKing.com would quickly have relegated this flawed theory to the heresy that it is.  One may even wonder why time was taken to write against such an obviously erroneous postulate.  Sadly, the answer to that question is that it is very necessary in the body of Christ to reveal the error of this particular theory; for it is being reconstituted, rebranded and diligently served before our very eyes as daily table fare of several modern neo-Christian movements.

The Word of Faith movement is seriously committed to the idea that man becomes a “little God” through the atonement.  They do not subscribe to the Mystical Theory, per ‘se, but the god-man element of this theory fits perfectly into the theology of Hinn, Hagin, Copeland, Crouch and the rest of the high-roller preachers club.  The mystical elevation of man according to their (false) gospel includes man’s full power over the very elements of nature through his properly utilized “word of faith.” 

More frightening is the Emergent movement, perhaps the fastest growing subculture in the church today, which seems to have a literal disdain for valid atonement theory.  From the outside, Emergent congregations seem merely a post-modern “trendy-church” model by which the next generation may be reached.  From the inside, their mentors and un-official leaders are teaching doctrines which are actually defining the cutting edge of Mystical Atonement Theory.  They teach that atonement is not substitutional in nature.  They whole-heartedly affirm and teach a mysticism which is consistent with the views of the Mystical Theory.  As panentheism will tend to lead to, they have furthermore attempted to erase the lines between Christianity and other world religions, claiming that Christ is anything but exclusive in his work of atonement. 

The Mystical Theory of Atonement is one which will unconditionally lead to an apostasy which misrepresents God’s character, purpose and glory.  As obviously flawed as it is, this theory is being adopted at alarming rates – right from within the church itself. 

May the reader be inspired to contend for the faith that was once and for all entrusted to the saints.  We have been warned in scripture that apostasy will come.  We have been challenged to accurately handle the Word of truth. 

2 Timothy 4:3 (NIV)
3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

5 Replies

ReturningKing.com Blog on your Kindle

image

ReturningKing.com is now available to Kindle users as a subscription service.  This new option for Kindle users will provide ReturningKing.com wirelessly to your Kindle device; updated regularly throughout each day so that you will never miss a new post. 

The price (currently $1.99 per month) set by Amazon is very affordable for free wireless Whispernet delivery while you travel and comes with a free 14-day trial.  Kudos to Amazon for embracing the blog community on their outstanding e-reader devices.

Subscribe to ReturningKing.com on your Kindle at this link.

Of course, don’t forget that our books are also available on the Kindle platform!

Leave a reply