Subjectivism

This was sent to me by a guy who goes by the user name "FazFX" on the official forum of the Holy Rollerz Christian Car Club, which claims to be the largest Christian car club/forum on the internet. He's been a loyal reader of this blog (though it hasn't received its due attention lately) and wanted to share. Therefore, I'm posting it just as it was sent:

I originally posted this on a Christian forum I've been active on for the last several years. But anyway... my thread was intended to accomplish a few different things:

1. Attack the pussyfooted approach to any theological discussion in fear of "offending anyone"
2. Encourage spiritual growth in a direction that most people are lacking, and/or don't even know exists.
3. Respond to a few particular critics of mine who all have basic similarities in their rebuttals of my approaches.

I understand that not all people think that I do, but sometimes I grow tired of being told that I'M wrong because I differ in my methodology, in my approach to Christianity. My accusers want to throw aside their differences with everybody and fellowship together, but only so long as people agree with THEM. Thought the same could be said about me, I'm definitely in the minority. I just believe that if everyone systematically studies the scriptures (in order to avoid eisogetical conclusions) and sets aside their self-based rationalism, then we'll all eventually end up in the same spot, or at least the same vicinity.

C'est la vie.

SUBJECTIVISM

For better or worse, FazFX is back. I've spent about a week "fasting" from theological discussion and fellowship...I've been saturating myself with the "peace, love and joy" that's supposed to come with the Christmas season (carols & all), doing quite a bit of soul-searching, having a lot of internal dialogue with God, and I feel more convicted than ever to speak this message. I've touched on this subject before, but now I'm going to make a mega-thread of it and lay it ALL out on the table. I thought I could sit and write this out in 20-30 minutes, but I ended up spending days working on it because I truly believe that my calling is to share this message. Watch out. LOL.

I've been noticing a disturbing trend in today's version of Christianity. This Christianity is completely different than the Christianity of 50 years ago...the 18th century revival movement...the Reformation...the days of the Roman Catholic / Eastern Orthodox schism...than the Christianity of the Bible. NEVER before in history has there been such a move away from absolute truth into the realm of subjectivism, of relativism, of humanism which at root is against the holy Word of God itself. For the record, I'm not talking about "new approaches" to church services, outreaches, etc. I'm actually kinda partial to them, though I'm also a big fan of oldschool Lutheran services, pipe organs, chants and all. I'm talking about "new approaches" to theology that compromise the authority of scripture itself.

Yes, these are broad claims to be making. To assert the possibility that this may even be true, it forces the question of what's right/wrong. To say that something is exclusively true, one automatically implies that anything else is excluded, and therefore false. It is what it is. I'm not going to sugar-coat it with semantics, because I feel that dancing around the issue and "walking on egg-shells" every time the subject is broached is actually detrimental to the body. Yeah, yeah, "I'm not perfect," "I don't claim to have all the answers," "I could be wrong..." Whatever. Let's cut all the garbage out. The world will continue to mock us for our beliefs, and will try to cut to the core with their insults. If I can't add a little callous to people with a straightforward approach that's madein love for God and His people, then how are they going to take on the world? If we can't take a little well-intended constructive criticism, then how are we going to be a light in the darkness that forever tries to consume us?

If any/all of that may offend anyone to the point that they're angry/stumbled, then I plead that they simply don't read any further.

***I CAN'T FORCE YOU TO READ THE REST OF THIS, SO DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK.***

WARNING: If you're still reading, then you might want to grab a Kleenex before you continue. Better yet, grab a whole box. Spiritual growth sometimes causes growing pains, so I'm warning you now that it could hurt, especially if it's been stunted for so long. This isn't an unmarked, hot cup of Mickey D's cup of coffee. The warning is right here. If you can't handle it and get burned in the process, then you can sue yourself.

Some people will probably just go ahead and keep living in their relativistic bubbles. Some people have this obscure, bizarre, foolish (*gasp*) notion that the individual has some innate, untainted ability to determine for him/herself what is right/wrong. In doing so, there is only one logical conclusion: there can be no truth but NO TRUTH (basically a lack altogether), since everything is completely relative to the individual. This is not a Christian concept by any means. This concept originated in the Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, rose to prevalence during the Renaissance, and has been simmering ever since, ready to boil over into mainstream thought. The Greeks, as some of you may know, believed that the gods themselves fought each other for their own selfish purposes, so "absolute" was simply relegated to whoever won. Though the ancient Greeks brought much to the table in the way of rational thought, that very thought is worthless without some sort of substantial foundation - which the philosophers lacked, believing that Reason itself (note the capitalization), the individual's ability to comprehend and infer, was some sort of absolute standard though it was completely relative to the individual.

Might I add that nowhere in this mindset is there any concept of the fallen state of mankind, and no provision we might be biased in the way that we see the world due to the effects of sin. It was believed that this idea of Reason was universal, and everyone somehow had a capability to come to "truth" or "self-enlightenment" by means of rationalization. For this reason, the so-called "Age of Enlightenment" soon followed the "Age of Reason." This concept of "self-enlightenment," is shared (to some degree or another) by many other religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism (to name but a few), all of which share some degree of moral relativism, in that the "good" one does is weighed against the "bad" in the hopes that it will be overcome. Even Athiests believe in self-enlightenment (in the form of acquiring knowledge), having no other moral basis to stand upon, much less a concrete standard of perfection from which to measure everything else.

Furthermore, these ideas were echoed and expanded upon during the European Renaissance, at which time they became accepted ideals to the general masses. It was at this time, I believe, that the church's previously-unquestioned role as the center of truth really began to come in to question (though scholars following the method of scholasticism still tried to resolve the ancient Greek philosophies to the Bible) - but even the church had been compromised when it was believed that traditions of the church could be written + practiced even when they distorted or even contradicted the Bible itself. Therefore, the time of Reformation also began. Though it's commonly misunderstood that humanism was the root of Luther's dissention from the papacy, it was truly a call back to scriptural truth that he proclaimed, through careful and systematic studies, based on established scriptural principles, NOT individual notions.

The question is: how can this rationalism compare or be reconciled with an omniscient, omnipotent God who is the "Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" of all that is existence? Tertullian, an early Christian scholar sometime around the 2nd/3rd century, once asked "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?" Almost 1800 years later, I will ask the question again.

The whole idea that people differ so much (and it's ok) is not a Christian concept. There is only one (albeit triune) God, whose attributes never change. When people disagree over a concept, and "agree to disagree," and believe that "we're all imperfect and won't know until we're in heaven" (quoted from a friend of mine), we're basically giving up. We've decided that we're just going to stick to whatever methodology we've been taught (and hope it's right) instead of continually seeking the truth. Instead of seeking to grow, and understand that intense debate can be a positive thing if taken within the right context, we merely stagnate.

I understand that some people have trouble reading...so talk about it. I understand that some people have trouble talking about it...so read commentaries, debates, and other materials of both people you agree with and people you don't. I've sometimes changed my own views when trying to look objectively and read some of my dissenters' materials. Whatever you do, DON'T keep coming up with excuses for why you can't get that kind of interaction in one way or another. There was an anonymous quote in one of my high school classrooms that said "EXCUSES ARE THE PILLARS OF MEDIOCRITY, THAT BUILD A MONUMENT TO NOTHING." Think about it.

One of the things that bothers me the most is that some people shy away from debate or conversation about controversial topics because they're not so "loving..." and Jesus loved, God loves, the Bible love, love loveloveloveblahblahblahyaddayaddayaddaspewspewspew... Some people get offended when you try to seek the truth if they disagree with them, but Dr. Robert Morey (whom I quoted in the Satire thread) made a good point in that we should be more worried about pleasing God than people. Trying to disagree in a "loving" way that both doesn't make them defensive AND gets the message across is a tight-rope act, at best. At worst it can be like dividing by zero, because the two concepts are at root completely at odds with each other when you're dealing with people who are more concerned with preserving their egos than admitting the possibility that they might be wrong.

BTW, Don't try and turn that on me - I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. It's just that after analyzing and challenging my own beliefs for so long, I'm slowly arriving at a place where I can be fairly confident that I have a solid grasp on many different areas of discussion. HOWEVER, I'm always seeking after new arguments, and I relish the opportunity to review materials that may bring new light to old discussions.

Back to the main subject - "LOVE" shouldn't even be an issue in a discussion about a theological topic (though it may be the topic). It's irrelevant. Bringing up "love" as an excuse (because that's all it is) to avoid these kinds of discussions ONLY SHOWS SPIRITUALY IMMATURITY, particularly in fear that one's own beliefs will be questioned and/or challenged outright.

Yeah, I said it. I'm calling you guys out. If you're offended by it, then re-read my disclaimer above. If you're too bound by your own emotions to have a theological conversation, then it's time to do a little soul-searching. I'm not condemning you for it, but I'm telling you there's a problem that's hurting your spiritual growth, and you can do something about it. If you choose to do nothing, then you condemn yourself because I took away your "claim to ignorance" excuse. Nevertheless, that's still being more loving than trying not to offend your sensibilities. If someone in your family is overdosing on drugs, do you let him do it anyway because it feels good and he's ok with it, or do you try to get him to realize that it's a dangerous habit that's hurting him, and try to offer him help? This constant "love-spew" is nothing more than an addicting, emotional rush of "warm & fuzzy feelings" that give one a temporary, spiritual euphoria - that one rides for a while, eventually crashes from, and then searches after more with a growingly-unquenchable craving, while being destructive to the body. Just like drugs, eventually one gets so addicted that they'd rather have a quick "high" while their body wastes away, than enjoy good, spiritual food and exercise that will strengthen them for battle.

Having conversations or even debates shouldn't somehow hurt or cripple a person's spiritual walk. In having a constantly growing, deeper understanding of the God we worship, a person should only bear more fruit, and mature fruit at that...not just little pieces that are sometimes inedible altogether. Jesus compared our spiritual fruit to that of a tree on several occasions, so I'm going to use my own analogy here. A small, young peach tree may bear a few small peaches. As it grows in age, it may bear more fruit, and each peach may be somewhat larger. HOWEVER, give a tree some good fertilizer, and guess what? It will give you much better fruit regardless of how old it is. We should constantly be striving to serve God, but without spiritual supplementation, we'll never achieve our true potential. Just like the fertilizer, sometimes it's unpleasant when it's laid down, but it's essential to maximum growth. As the expression goes, "the grass is greenest nearest the septic tank."

I'm not going to front - there are some specific people I have in mind right now as I'm typing this post, both in real life AND on these boards, though it's NOT intended to be a personal attack for believing differently than I do. I'm not going to call you out by name, though if you think I'm writing it just for you, then I probably AM, and I'm ok with that. PM me if you're genuinely wondering (if you'd like). There's a reason for this. I've seen a genuine need for a return to strong, solid biblical teaching. I've been criticized for studying theology because it's led me to disagree with some people. I've been criticized for studying hermeneutics because I'm pulling out a "deeper" meaning from the text when people want to take literary devices and certain words in a particular translation at face value. I've even been warned that I'm "in danger" of hell-fire because I used certain terms, because the person warning me misunderstood the intent of that section scripture and pulled a verse completely out of context. This begs the question: what's worse, telling someone they misunderstood the text, or telling someone they're going to Hell for saying someone else was "foolish?"

Tony Campolo once made a good point. To quote:
"I have three things I would like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a s***. What's worse than that, third, you're more upset with the fact that I said s*** than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night!"

Though the topic here is a little different, the point is the same. People are so focused on whether or not they're being offended that they don't care about the important things. Don't give me that nonsense about how "doctrine never saved anybody." I can tell you quite a bit about the archaelogical findings that validate the historical evidence that a man named Jesus existed, but that won't say anybody. However, as soon as you try to say who Jesus is, you're getting into the very realm of doctrine! Jesus even emphasized the importance of this very thing by asking the disciples in Matthew 16:13–20! Read it, I dare ya! There needs to be ENCOURAGEMENT to study the Bible further, to develop strong exegetical conclusions, to compare them to those of established Christian scholars, and to readily defend the Word against imitators who lean on their own understandings.

We're not doing anyone any favors by "accepting" everybodys' beliefs. Theological liberalism based on secular humanism has paved the way for heresy, and the line that separates what's "tolerable" and what's "not" becomes more diminished every day. Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be Christian, though many deny that claim. Mormons claim to be Christian as well. Catholics make a distinction between them and Protestants, though their teachings are more similar to each other's than those in the New World Translation or the Book of Mormon. Where do we draw the line? Do we base it on salvation? Some say that JW's salvation is based on the actions of the individual...but isn't "asking" Jesus into your life and saying a "sinner's prayer" some sort of assisted salvation? How is this different, in principle if not practice, than the Catholic concept of "merit?" What about the 5-point Calvinists? They're an altogether different breed. So who gets to make the distinction, and on what authority? Some people want to call everyone together in some sort of superficial agreement, but even they exclude others on a relativistic basis on their own ideas of doctrine.

Speaking of doctrine... I have another issue here. Some people seem to think that doctrine in ITSELF is a bad thing. Some people think that "theological constructs" can somehow limit God. What these people fail to understand (for whatever reason or another) is that doctrine (or "theological construct," etc.) is really a fancy way of studying the Bible and making an observation of God's attributes and things He will/won't do. For example, can God sin? The answer is a clear "no," because it's a logical inconsistency. Sin is acting against God's command. Can God act against Himself? Think about that one...it's really no different than asking if God could make a rock so big He couldn't lift it (only Chuck Norris could do that, and then he'd lift it anyway to prove he's Chuck Norris - j/k). As I already mentioned, even attempting to answer the "simple" question of, "Who do YOU think Jesus is?" requires some sort of theological doctrine in order to answer correctly, because answering who He is also covers who He isn't. This ties right back into the concerns with the JW's and Mormons, because these doctrines are really what separate some of the "wheat" from the "chaff."

I'm not trying to make a call back to a single unified church, but we need to focus on what truth is, and how to determine it outside our own preconceived notions. The only way we can do this is through an objective study of the Bible, which quite a few people here thus far have rejected. I'm not trying to force MY view on anyone. I'm just asking that we return to what our faith is truly based on, the Holy Word of God, and really try to study it objectively. There is but ONE God (triune and all) who is a God of order, who does NOT want confusion amongst His believers. Therefore, if you're hiding behind your superficial notions of "unity" (which is really not unified under the surface), then remember that God gave you a backbone for a reason and be the Christian you're called to be. Jesus certainly told people to love one another, but He also warned that families themselves would be divided by His message. Ecclesiastes 3 tells us that there is a time for everything. If you just want to read scripture "plainly," then read that.

Go ahead and poo-poo this message if you disagree. Tell me I'm confused. Tell me I'm going to Hell. Don't say at all. Just know that you were warned about how "offensive" standing up for truth can be. Just don't say that I offended you. If I did, then it's your fault. Yes, you read that correctly. I warned you not to read any further, didn't I? If there's a warning on a bottle of bleach that says DON'T INGEST, and you drink it anyway, is it Clorox's fault? Let me get this straight, though: being offensive and irritating people was NOT the reason for this rant. My intentions were merely to share the truth of the Gospel, even to those who believe, while attempting to clear up some prevalent misconceptions in our modern, compromised version of Christianity (as a whole).

While I'm at it, let me get this out of the way (thought I've said it before): I'm NOT saying that everyone should necessarily believe the exact same thing as I do, though I'm fairly prepared to defend my views. I'm not shy about describing myself as a "partial-preterist/idealist," a Covenant Theologian as described by Gruden and "5-point Calvinist," Lutheran in my views of the "Sacramental Union" of the Eucharist (Hoc es corpus mayem!), a combination of Van-Tillian/Classical apologist, general pisser-offer and anti-"evanjellyfish" like Morey, and otherwise Neo-Reformer as I see fit to use the term (since I coined it) ... but I don't care if you're a Dispensationalist Prosperity Arminianist Consubstantiation-believing Naturalist preacher so much as whether or not you're constantly studying and analyzing the scriptures in the manner they were meant to be taken, and asking the Holy Spirit to guide you in the process, and willing to share, discuss, and debate the issues with the intent to grow and edify one another. But while I'm on the subject, let me hit on something else: the Holy Spirit. WHERE do people get the notion that the Holy Spirit "reveals" truth to them apart from scripture? I heard someone use the argument recently that the "guidance of the Holy Spirit" is the utmost standard. What is that supposed to mean? That's nothing more than a "spiritual" twist on the idea of Reason. If I claim to hold to predestination, and someone else claims to hold to free-will, and we BOTH believe that we're "being led" by the Holy Spirit, then what?

There are only three options:
1. Both people are telling the truth.
2. One person is telling the truth (and the other is either lying or self-deluded)
3. Both people are lying.

There's only ONE Holy Spirit, and our God is not one of confusion, so that eliminates 1 right off the bat, leaving only 2 & 3. The next question is: How do we test the message to see if it's really from the Spirit? Since we know God can't contradict Himself, we have to test each person's claim to see if it's consistent with the Holy Word of God, the Bible. Guess what? We're back to my previous point again about the scripture being the final standard. Thomas Merton once said, "we should never underestimate our ability to deceive ourselves." For those of you who insist on taking the Bible "just as it's written," go ahead and read Jeremiah 17:9 - it's pretty straightforward.

If you want to argue this point, then go right ahead - just know that I'll blast you right out of the water with a defense based on exegetical scriptural support. What else are you going to base your argument on? Did you have some sort of esoteric revelation? Do you dare claim some authority higher than scripture, as if you're so "special" that the Holy Spirit speaks to you more so than any other devout believer? If so, then try to prove it. I will only need to refute it with two latin words: sola scriptura. Any message of God won't contradict the Word which He so carefully preserved for thousands of years. Read 2 Corinthians 11:1-14 (3-4 & 13-14, in particular) for some backing of this point. Don't worry, it's straightforward enough to speak for itself. Don't you see how even someone who has "sincere and pure devotion" can "somehow be led astray?" As a matter of fact, while we're on the subject of purely "spiritual" revelation, I'm going to throw another one at you: Galatians 1:6-12. You can read this one "as it is written" if you'd like, too. I do find that part about being "accursed" rather interesting.

To quote Luther: "Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me."

I don't care whether or not you have a "gift," or whether or not you like to read or write or debate. Ask God to give you the abilities to study wholeheartedly, and I guarantee He'll hear your prayers.

Let me leave you who actually took the time to read all of this with an encouragment: IF you're really studying the scripture, and I'm really studying the scripture, and we're both/all doing it in an earnest attempt to grow in our relationship with our holy God, then the SAME truth will eventually be revealed to both of us by the same Holy Spirit that resides in each of us, and our fellowship will TRULY have the Lord's presence among us as we gather, and as we seek to do His will every day. Amen.