Just to get you thinking...
Do you believe in predestination or free will in regards to salvation?
Do you believe that Christians are secure in their salvation, or can a believer fall from grace?
Are all spiritual gifts mentioned in the Bible still in operation today, or have some ceased?
Should women be ordained as pastors?
Is alcohol consumption wrong?
Is it more spiritual for a church to be non-denominational, or part of a historically-respected association?
What constitutes modest clothing, and does modesty really matter anyway, or is it just legalism?
Now that I've asked all these questions to get you thinking, I ask another question: How do you arrive at your personal convictions on these and other issues? You probably have an opinion about some of these things (possibly all). I'll say up front that, while I may mention some of these things in this post (and actually have covered a few in other posts in the past), I will not attempt to answer most of them here. My goal today is to focus on how Christians should arrive at their convictions--not on what convictions they should have. That's up to you to do that work, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Before I jump into any of this, I want to state that there are godly, spiritually-mature believers on both sides of all the theological quandaries I mentioned (read Romans 14 for a breakdown of how this works when believers have opposing convictions). The very first step of forming any biblical belief is to recognize that there are wonderful Christians who may have drawn different conclusions than yours. There are essential doctrines of what it means to be a Christian. These are truths we must all agree upon to be a Christian (by the biblical definition). These essentials include the inerrancy of scripture, the deity of Christ, salvation through Christ alone, salvation being received by grace through faith, the death and bodily resurrection of Jesus, monotheism (the belief that there is only one God), and the Holy Trinity. Those who share these beliefs are Christian brothers and sisters to one another. There is room for disagreement on lesser things, as long as we agree on these essentials. John Wesley is often crediting for the now-commonly used statement: "In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." Regardless of who originated the quote, it is very true. We can't form our beliefs correctly if we villainize our brothers and sisters in Christ. In fact, be very wary of leaders who speak against fellow Christians who differ on these non-essentials. Every single question I started this post with would fit into the category of non-essentials, by the way. No one who differs from you on any of those things is your enemy. If we have that straight, we can move on.
Having said that, are our beliefs on non-essentials simply unimportant? Not at all. They matter greatly. What you believe about these and other theological positions will often determine what church you're led to attend, or what ministry opportunities to take advantage of, and other choices you make. They matter. Just not to the extent that we devalue Christians who take a different position.
Rather than just examining how we are to draw the right conclusions about things, let us look at how people often do so--incorrectly--followed by the right response! I am going to give four examples, and as I do, I'll be delving deeper into some of these theological issues--but even as I do this, I am not telling you which side to believe in these doctrines.
Incorrect Process 1: Reaction to another belief
During the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic church tried to assert their trustworthiness as a true church by claiming to have experienced miracles. Reformer John Calvin responded that the purpose of miracles was to authenticate divine revelation and the church's doctrines. He argued that, since the Reformation was getting people back to the beliefs of the apostles (which had already been authenticated in the book of Acts), no miracles were necessary, and therefore (he concluded) the alleged miracles claimed by the Catholic church could not be real. This argument launched the doctrine of cessationism (the belief that miraculous signs, such as prophesy, speaking in tongues, healing, and other such things were no longer needed for today, because we have the complete word of God, and it has already been authenticated). By the way, the opposing belief to this is continuationism, which teaches that God has not changed from how He has worked in the Bible, and all gifts are available today, and, if done biblically, should be accepted. Some continuationists take this belief further than that, and go into unbiblical experiences in the name of spirituality.
In the centuries to follow, other theologians would agree with Calvin's cessationism, and even add to his assertions on this subject. In the 1700's, the Wesleyan-Methodists (a protestant group founded by John and Charles Wesley) started emphasizing the work of the Spirit in believer's lives to give them assurance of their faith. As a result of this spiritual (and subjective) experience the Methodists were claiming to have, those who followed cessationism claimed this violated the truth. All experiences that were not read directly out of the Bible were suspect. This concern grew even more so at the rise of the Pentecostal Movement in the early 20th century. It has been pointed out by cessationists that the founders of false religions (from Islam to Mormonism) have claimed to have these spiritual experiences, and, according to some cessationists, this is evidence enough that spiritual experiences of any kind are not to be trusted at all.
Today, many Christians follow cessationism as a belief. One of the biggest proponents of this belief right now is John MacArthur. Many people today who follow cessationism express discomfort when other Christians claim to experience things like divine guidance, hearing God's voice, or any personal relationship with God. Some have even gotten concerned when someone claims to have had God speak to their personal situation during their Bible reading. In other words, from what could be gathered, these particular cessationists believed that the Bible was an infallible guidebook, and we needed to obey it, but that it didn't address us personally, or speak into our lives directly. The Holy Spirit was de-emphasized by those in these interactions. Man's relationships with God seemed more formulaic and robotic than personal.
I am not going to make a declarative stance right now about cessationism or continuationism here. There are, however, a few facts worth noting. This belief was started by John Calvin as a reaction to claims made by the Catholic Church. Calvin drew his conclusions as a reaction, as have other cessationists through the years. It is never wise to make your beliefs based on an "equal and opposite reaction" to something you disagree with. That's still letting that other belief control you. I believe the right thing for Calvin (or anyone) to have done would be to completely disregard the alleged miracles being claimed (speaking neither for nor against them), and instead to just look at the Word of God for truth. I believe John Calvin was faithful in many, many ways, and was a true hero of the faith. But he wasn't perfect, just as we are not, and I think he made an error by forming a doctrinal belief about miracles and signs.
On the other hand, at the opposite extreme of cessationism, we have people (like the Catholic church in the scenario with John Calvin) claiming their experiences authenticated truth, rather than the other way around. There are churches today that believe God gives people new revelations equal to scripture, and that God is continuing to reveal new truths to people. One church, which I visited with friends many years ago, has this belief listed on their website: We believe that God in His sovereignty, is progressively giving fresh and deeper revelation of the truth contained in His Word. This leaves the door open for leadership to claim they understand the Bible differently than it was intended, and creating their own doctrines. When I visited this church, the pastor claimed to be an Apostle, just like Paul and Peter. He put himself above accountability. People in the church gave each other "prophecies" for one another, which were just manipulative statements that the person wasn't allowed to disagree with, because it was allegedly from God. One woman there told me that God has given her a secret about me. Nothing I saw there was of God, even though it was made to look very spiritual. There were no boundaries. None of the orderliness the Bible calls for (First Corinthians 14:40).
So how would you form the right belief between very guarded cessationism and utter chaos? As I said, I'm not going to tell you what to believe. I am telling you not to choose your belief (whatever it is) as a reaction to wrong things. I shouldn't say, "I don't like how strongly cessationism seems to limit what we can expect from God, so I'll go to this extreme church that believes in everything, and allows me to interpret my experiences however I want." Nor should I say, "I don't like these ungrounded, emotional churches with no order. I'll become a cessationist, so I can believe that's all fake." If you choose either side (or somewhere in the middle) I hope it is after a lot of study in God's word, under the guidance of the Spirit. First Thessalonians 5:21 says, Test all things; hold fast what is good. Examine what the Bible says on a given subject. Look in the Old and New Testaments. Read commentaries (but also realize the writers of commentaries have their own biases). Interpret any experience you have in light of the Bible, not the other way around. I'm still not advising you to believe a certain way, but I will say this: Unlike a strict cessationist, I do believe our experiences have some value in teaching us about life, and our relationship with God, but (unlike those on the opposite end of the spectrum from cessationism) I do not believe these experiences are our source of truth. The Bible is our guide, and as we interpret what happens around us in light of it, we come to know God better (you can read a lot more about that in the very biblical book, Experiencing God, by Henry Blackaby). You may look at it or order it here.
Incorrect Process 2: Choosing your beliefs based on your own liking or disliking.
As a young woman, I was exposed to the Calvinism/Arminian argument. If you are not familiar, you can read a lot about it online, but basically, Calvinism (named after John Calvin) is the belief that God pre-ordains our salvation by His own Sovereign choice. Proponents of Calvinism also assert that a Christian cannot lose his or her salvation (this doctrine is known as Perseverance of the Saints). The opposing side, Arminianism, also takes its name from its founder, Jacobus Arminius. Arminianism emphasizes man's free will in choosing to receive Christ in salvation (this theological position does believe in election, but they would say that election is based on God's foreknowledge of who would respond favorably to the Gospel, whereas Calvinism teaches God arbitrarily chose who would be saved, not based on foreknowledge of anything people would do, but just His own Sovereignty). When taken to its logical conclusion, Arminianism concludes that a Christian can lose his or her salvation. It should be noted that, while a lot of Christians debate this, it is still a non-essential issue, and most Christians fall somewhere in the middle, believing some of the points of Calvinism, and believing the Arminian arguments on other points.
As I said, I was exposed to this debate as a college student. My own background was more on the Calvinist side, but my Bible college was Arminian in their theology. Our profs were very, very fair to all Christians of varying positions on this, and explained it very respectfully, humbly sharing where they stood on the issue, and encouraging everyone there to read the Bible, and form their beliefs on that. When our professor explained some of the very fine points of both sides, I said, "Wow, I don't like that," about certain things. I was ready to pick my side based on whether or not I liked it. My very wise professor said, "Well, you shouldn't choose your theology on whether or not you like it. You choose to believe what is true, whether you like it or not." He was so right.
We may not like everything God has said, but it is no less true. When Walter and I were engaged, I didn't like that God's word required us to remain celibate until marriage, but it does (First Corinthians 6:18, Hebrews 13:4), and we needed to obey. I don't always like the political leaders over me, and I don't like that the Bible says I need to pray for them anyway, but it does (First Timothy 2:2), and I must do it. Do you see what I'm getting at? My liking or disliking something doesn't make it true or false. I needed to choose my belief about Calvinism/Arminianism by reading the Bible and studying what both positions teach in light of that--not because I like or dislike them. We need to do away with our own personal biases, and go straight to what the Bible is really teaching. Before we get into deep study, we need to pray the prayer found in Psalm 139, Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. We want God's truth, not our own prejudices. There are people out there today completely denying God's word, because they dislike what God has said. We can't be like that. We are to hold fast to the hope we profess... (Hebrews 10:23). Don't choose your beliefs based on your likes and dislikes.
False Process 3: Choosing beliefs of your favorite Bible teachers.
Another way you should be careful choosing beliefs is to not fall in the trap of choosing your beliefs based on your favorite Bible teachers. They may be wonderful, and theologically sound, but this does not mean they are perfect. They are human, just like us. They have their own biases. If you decide you agree with them, make sure it is because you, too, have searched it out scripturally, and drawn the conclusion for yourself, not just blindly followed your favorite teacher. First Corinthians 3:4 warns that the same problem was going on in the first century. Believers were aligning themselves with Paul and Apollos, and then arguing over who was better. The point is, neither! They were being carnal. We are to be like the Bereans. Acts 17:11 says, Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. We are to examine scripture, not blindly believe any leader.
A good leader will urge you to go to the Bible and check him out. 3 John verse 4 says, I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth. The Apostle John deeply loved these people, and it gave him joy that they were walking in the truth. That's what a godly leader wants. Pastor Jon McCartney, of First Baptist Church of Tooele, UT said, "One of the things I tell our congregation almost every Sunday is, you have sermon notes. Virtually every verse I quote from scripture is on there, because you need to go home and check me out. You need to see what the Bible has to say. Not what Jon says. Not what Joseph says. Not what anybody says but God. What does God say about these issues? You need to check these things out. It is your soul--your eternal soul--that is on the line. And, there is no reset button at the judgment. There is no finger-pointing, 'but he misled me.' You have an obligation for the sake of your soul, as well as to be able to share the truth with your family--the people you love--to check out what God's word has to say on these issues, and not what somebody else had to say. And the answers are only found within the Word of God, which is the Bible."
False Process 4: Choosing beliefs based on how proponents of those beliefs treat you
One final thing I am going to point out is that we should not choose our beliefs based on how proponents of that belief have treated us. There are kind people with false beliefs, and cruel people with true beliefs. They can make a certain belief attractive or unattractive, but that should not be why you choose to believe it. If the nicest person you ever met believed humans could breathe underwater, would you try it, since the person was so kind? Of course not! When I was in high school, I was invited to a very charismatic church by some friends. In fact, this is the church that I mentioned earlier that claims to believe in continuing revelation. Back then, there was no internet to look this church up and see how odd their beliefs were, so my parents let me go with these friends. While I was with them, I had some very negative experiences. Their pastor (claiming to be an apostle) made some very offensive statements. Their father yelled at me and told me I had no faith, while at the same time, manipulating me into buying their gasoline on the way home. A woman in the group said God had told her a secret about me, and it wasn't good. These experiences hurt my feelings. But would it be right to conclude that their extreme charismatic beliefs were wrong just because they offended me? No. I needed to look at the Bible. Hopefully, I would have found that their belief about continuing revelation is false (...If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. -Revelation 22:18), and that if their so-called prophecies were true, they would have lined up with the Bible, not furthered the agenda of the speaker. That kind of critical thinking and searching of scripture is the right way to solve these concerns, not just choosing to think it's wrong because of how bad the experiences is.
I have examined some common but incorrect ways people (myself included at times) have picked their beliefs. As stated, they may react to a wrong belief by going to the opposite extreme. They may choose beliefs because they like them. They may simply adopt the beliefs of their favorite teachers or role models. Finally, they may choose their beliefs based on how proponents of this belief have treated them. What we should do is examine the Bible for itself, under the direction of the Holy Spirit. We are told that the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, even penetrating as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12), and to Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (Second Timothy 2:15). Let's get at it!
No comments:
Post a Comment