What Love Is This? book comments

I finished reading the book What Love Is This by Dave Hunt about 2-3 months ago. I thought it might be repetitive after reading George Bryson's The Dark Side of Calvinism, but that wasn't the case. I got a lot out of the book, and at 533 pages it takes a bit of time to get through it all. I haven't been in a hurry to write this blog post, because of the time it took to decide which quotes to use; since there were so many good ones to choose from. In addition I've had to wrestle with the question of whether a 'little leaven' in my beliefs about God and what I was being taught about God was acceptable or not. I'm still working on that, but this book helped me gain clarity on some of those issues.

The book starts off with some of the history of Calvinism, as well as it's basis under the teachings of Augustine and Augustine's ties to the Roman Catholic church. Apparently Calvin (and Luther) and other 'protestants' were against some of the R.C. church doctrine, but they held to other (unbliblical) doctrines, such as infant baptism. It also highlights some of the similarities and differences between Calvin and other Reformers, such as Luther. I'd already read a good deal about how Augustine's writings had greatly shaped Calvin's theology in Bryson's book; what was new and rather disturbing to learn about in this book were some of the details about Calvin's propensity to use violence and the power of the (civil / state) government to silence dissent.

Calvin followed his mentor Augustine in enforcing church attendance and participation in the sacraments by threats (and worse) against the citizens of Geneva. ... Sadly, Calvin put into effect in Geneva the very principles of punishment, coercion, and death that Augustine advocated and that the Roman Catholic Church followed consistently for centuries. (pg. 52-53)

One of the major doctrines of Calvinism is that of 'sovereign grace', which isn't actually part of the TULIP acronym per se, but it underpins much of the structure of Calvinism and ties in with the U (unconditional election) and moreso with the I (irresistable grace). I already wrote a bit about that topic in my article about whether the devil needs God's permission to attack a believer? and will probably write more about it, as I gain more clarity on the topic. Here are some quotes that I liked from the book that I want to share here:

And the solution is so simple: acknowledge that God sovereignly gave to man a genuine power of choice, and God is exonerated and honored. ... Irresistable grace is a human invention imposed upon the Bible. (pg. 396)

So God could cause anyone and everyone to believe the gospel and irresistibly draw them to heaven -- but He only does this for a select number? This is Calvinism -- whether one calls it moderate or extreme! It has been imposed upon the Bible in violation of the entire tenor of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. It is a libel upon the character of God, a denial of the nature of love, and an offense to the conscience which God has placed in the heart of every man. (pg. 423)

Here is an interesting quote on the topic of infant baptism, and Calvin's belief that it was sufficient to effect forgiveness of sins and grant one entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven:

Had he not maintained this Roman Catholic false doctrine, Calvin would have had to resubmit to rebaptism, which was repugnant to him. He derided the Anabaptists for opposing infant baptism. Their valid, biblical reason -- that an infant has not believed in Christ -- was scorned by Calvin, and his wrath and that of the other Reformers came upon the Anabaptists. These true evangelicals were persecuted and martyred by both Catholics and Protestants for being baptized by immersion after they were saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. (pg. 429)

The section on the 'P'erseverance of the saints was rather short at only about 8 pages, I wish there had been more but perhaps there isn't as much written material about it available. However, from what I've gathered it leads to a sort of 'works' mentality. Salvation by works is of course in contradiction to the truth about grace and free gifts.

How does the Calvinist know he is one of the elect who have been predestined? His performance plays a large part in helping him to know whether or not he is among that select group. (pg 481)

On page 482 there is a quote by Piper and his staff having written "[W]e must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith." The theme of 'obedience' (to God) seems to be prevalent in Evangelical circles. In some respects that's not a bad thing -- it can help steer you out of danger or into wonderful blessings -- but it can and has become a tool of tyranny and manipulation in some cases. I think the difference is whether one is being led by the Holy Spirit or the doctrines of men.

I know I'll want to read this book again, and will certainly use it for reference in the future. I think it's very much worth reading.

About The Message Bible paraphrase

I was shopping at my local Christian Supply store a couple of weeks before Christmas, and noticed that several devotionals, calendars, etc. are quoting from The Message. When looking at Bibles for sale, I didn't see any of the NASB (which I'd purchased a few years ago at the same store), but there was a pretty large display of The Message as well as a NIV / Message combo. (There were also a good amount of KJV and NKJV translations available...)

So, while reading an article on the Berean Call web site, I ran across the following that I wanted to share. I won't be adding this paraphrase to my collection.

Response: Unfortunately, the errors in this paraphrase (it's not a translation) are numerous and serious. The Message cannot be relied upon to tell the truth and, in fact, is dangerously misleading. If Promise Keepers endorses it, that is one more mark against that organization.

Let me give you only a few examples. John 1:1 actually says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Message renders it, "The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one." That garbling is an improvement?! It is confusing at best and misleading at worst, changing the meaning. "In the beginning was the Word" is changed to "The Word was first." First before God? And what does "in readiness for God" mean? In verse 5, "the darkness comprehended it not" is rendered, "the darkness couldn't put it out," changing the meaning entirely.

In verse 14, "full of grace" becomes "Generous inside and out," while "truth" becomes "true from start to finish." "Generous" and "grace" do not mean the same, nor does "true from start to finish" convey the rich meaning of Christ being "full of truth." In verse 29, "which taketh away the sin of the world" becomes "He forgives the sins of the world." There is a world of difference between taking away the sin of the world by paying the debt mankind owed, and forgiving sins! In John 3:5, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit" becomes, "unless a person submits to this original creation-- the 'wind hovering over the water' creation, the invisible moving the visible, a baptism into a new life," again obscuring, complicating, and changing the true meaning. In 3:17, "but that the world through him might be saved" becomes "He came to help, to put the world right again," a destructive change in the meaning.

"Saved" means to be redeemed, rescued from the judgment we deserve for our sins; whereas "to help, to put the world right again" sounds like social or political reformation. In verse 36, "the wrath of God abideth on him" becomes, "All he experiences of God is darkness, and an angry darkness at that." How can anyone experience darkness from God, when 1 John 1:5 says of God, "in him is no darkness at all"? Serious error is added to serious error!

In 1 Corinthians 1:17, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" is perverted to read, "God didn't send me out to collect a following for myself but to preach the Message." It is important that Paul, a former rabbi, is a follower of Christ--The Message says "of God." The main point Paul makes is that baptism is not part of the gospel--The Message misses that completely. "Lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect" is changed to "...lest the powerful action at the center--Christ on the Cross--be trivialized into mere words." There is a vast difference between the eternal effect of "the cross of Christ" as the Bible states it and "Christ on the Cross" as The Message puts it and Catholicism depicts it. Christ is not on the cross; the work is finished! In verse 30, "sanctification, and redemption" is changed to read "a clean slate and a fresh start"--both trivializing and misleading. In Hebrews 11:1, "the substance of things hoped for" becomes "the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living," a totally different meaning, with hope for eternity expunged. In verse 4, regarding the lamb, which speaks of Christ, the "more excellent sacrifice" offered by Abel, the comment is interjected, "It was what he believed, not what he brought, that made the difference." On the contrary, the sacrifice he brought was important to his belief, and without the proper sacrifice there could be no forgiveness no matter what was believed.

In verse 7, "became heir of the righteousness which is by faith" is changed to "became intimate with God," again an entirely different meaning which leaves out the vital phrase "righteousness which is by faith." In verse 16, "God is not ashamed to be called their God" is twisted into "God is so proud of them." Never! Attributing the human evil of pride to God is blasphemy and leaves the dangerous impression that if God is proud then it isn't so bad for man to be proud as well.

In verse 35, "that they might obtain a better resurrection" becomes "preferring something better: resurrection." Again the meaning is changed completely. It makes it sound as though resurrection is dependent upon good works. It was not a question of whether they would be resurrected, but of the reward they would receive in the Resurrection.

These are only a few among many errors, some extremely serious. It is appalling that any mere man would change or ignore the meaning of God's Word under the vain delusion that he could improve upon what God has said and the way He has said it! It is even more appalling that a leading evangelical publisher would publish this blasphemy, Christian bookstores would sell it, and Christian leaders would praise instead of denounce this perversion!

The gospel is good news?

I just finished reading a couple of books by Pastor Joseph Prince, and now I can finally say that Yes, the gospel of Jesus Christ is indeed good news! (gospel means 'good news' -- and according to this article it means 'nearly-too-good-to-be-true news!' More from the article later.)

The 2 books I read are: Destined to Reign, and Spiritual Warfare. I'll have more in subsequent blog articles on info. from both of those, because they really helped clarify some things for me. Much of what I've heard of the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been a mixture of 'law' and 'grace' and the 2 are just not compatible. No wonder it didn't always feel like 'good news'.

I'm still learning to discern the voice of the Holy Spirit (Emmanuel, if you will), but one day at church almost a year ago (May 27, 2007 - I wrote it down in a journal I write in sporadically) I was at church and we were standing up singing a song; which I now wish I'd also noted what song it was, but it probably doesn't matter -- and inside my head I heard a loud (almost booming) male voice say "Cia - hope!". (Cia being my first name and hope being a command of sorts.) It was just those 2 words. Wow. I looked around to see if anyone else heard anything, it was so loud. But they were all still singing.

You see, I'm studying this spiritual warfare issue because it's something I need for myself, too. That had never happened before, and so far it hasn't happened since. Maybe He wanted to make it dramatic enough that I couldn't miss it. I had meant to do a search for scriptures about 'hope', but it's one of those things that has been sitting on the back burner. All I wrote in my sermon notes for that day was that we studied Romans ch 6. Usually I write a little more than that, but that day I didn't.

I was reminded of that and looked back in my journal for the date, because Joseph Prince discusses hope in the Spiritual Warfare book, beginning on page 71:

[quoting from 1 Thessalonians 5:8] ... putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation." So what is "hope"? In the Bible, hope is a positive or confident expectation of good. Today, we use the word hope too glibly. ... So when God says "have hope", he wants you to have a confident expectation that good things will happen.

Is that great, or what? I also just looked it up in my Strong's Concordance, and in most of the New Testament uses of 'hope' it comes from the greek 1679 or 1680 - 1 Thes 5:8 is 1680. The definition for 1679 says it's from 1680, and means to expect or confide and is translated in the KJV as hope or trust. Strong's definition of 1680 is that it's from another word that means to anticipate, usually with pleasure; expectation or confidence and is translated in the KJV as faith, hope. I need to take that to heart.

And in closing, I'll quote a few paragraphs from the article linked below.
Grace: The Power Of The Gospel - Article - Andrew Wommack Ministries

Many people around the world who embrace “Christianity” have never heard the true Gospel.
They believe Christianity is nothing but a different set of rules, substituting Christian "dos and don’ts" for those of other religions. They continue to believe they must earn their way to God and then do their best to deserve the benefits of salvation. That’s not the true Gospel.

The Gospel is directly related to the grace of God. That's the only way this forgiveness of our sins can be obtained. It isn't through our holiness or good works. God doesn’t take the 'good' people and save them; He justifies (extends salvation toward) the ungodly (Rom. 4:5).

This causes many problems for religious people. They say, "Wait a minute! I believe you must do this and that to be holy." Religion—false religion, man's concepts—teaches that right standing with God and His blessings come as a result of our own goodness and works.

Salvation is a package deal and it's all accomplished by the grace of God, not our works. However, Satan is always trying to deceive us. He is the one who wants us to believe we must earn things from God. He is the one causing us to doubt the Lord’s willingness to use His ability on our behalf, and unfortunately, the church is often reinforcing that belief.

There's more, it's a good article.

book review and Iraq war

I'm reading an interview with Rush Limbaugh and Vice President Cheney, about funding and the Iraq war. I've also been reading a book called 'Unholy Alliance' by David Horowitz (subtitled: Radical Islam and the American Left.)

The link to the interview follows, but here's a snippet from it:

"RUSH: You and the president both, have derided the theatrics of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and a number of the Democrats, and I don't know if you're being politic with the statement because I, frankly, need to ask you if you really think it's "theatrics" or is this who they really are? Is this what they really intend: to lose this war, to make sure we come home defeated?

RUSH: Do you understand that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's the fundamental difference.

RUSH: Can you share with us whether or not you understand their devotion, or their seeming allegiance, to the concept of US defeat?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I can't. It seems to me so abundantly clear, Rush, that we really need to prevail in this conflict, that there's an awful lot riding on it. It's not just about Iraq. It's about our efforts in the global war on terror, and that entire part of the world, affects what's going on in Iran where we're trying to make sure they don't develop a nuclear weapon. You can imagine the extent to which the Iranians would be heartened in that effort, if they see us withdraw from Iraq next door."

For the whole interview - see here:

I'm going to pull out one question: RUSH: Can you share with us whether or not you understand their devotion, or their seeming allegiance, to the concept of US defeat?

And my answer is, I do understand their devotion to the concept of US defeat -- they hate this country and would like nothing better than to see it destroyed. Here's a couple of quotes from the book I mentioned above, and the book answers the question and the whole mindset or thinking is (imho) satanic. There's also a quote by M. Scott Peck about nihilism in my booklet , and it's also a term used in Unholy Alliance. I think the issues are very much related.

These quotes are from the hardcover edition of the book (which I found at my local library while finishing up research for my booklet):
pg. 83 "Patriotism by this tormented logic is associated with opposing one's country rather than supporting it. In other words, precisely the definition of Paul Robeson and Eric Foner." (They re-define words to mean something different than what the rest of us think it means, or what the dictionary definition might be.)
pg.113 "America can do no right. Even the right America does is wrong, and the wrongs America is responsible for are monstrous. This syllogism encompasses the entire logic of the anti-American mind."
pg. 129 "The socialist's faith is in using state power and violent means to eliminate private property and thereby usher in the millennium."

I've only finished 1/2 of the book so far, but since it ties into the interview I was reading, I figured I'd throw this out there, in the event that anyone wants my opinion, it is: Read this book!

p.s. The change in fonts and sizes, etc. is not intentional, I'm still learning this whole blog composition thing. Just putting together and formatting my booklet gave me fits. Advice is welcome!