The Basis of my Theology: On Harry Potter, What it takes to be taken
Seriously, Evangelism, and The Nature of Man.
(From a letter I wrote a while back…)
We do not merely want to see beauty, though, God knows,
even that is bounty enough. We want something else which can hardly be put
into words—to be united with the beauty we see, to pass into it, to receive
it into ourselves, to bathe in it, to become part of it. That is why we have
peopled air and earth and water with gods and goddesses and nymphs and elves—
that, though we cannot, yet these projections can, enjoy in themselves that
beauty, grace, and power of which Nature is the image. That is why the poets
tell us such lovely falsehoods. They talk as if the west wind could really
sweep into a human soul; but it can’t. They tell us that ‘beauty born of
murmuring sound’ will pass into a human face; but it won’t. Or not yet. For
if we take the imagery of Scripture seriously, if we believe that God will
one day give us the Morning Star and cause us to put on the splendour of
the sun, then we may surmise that both the ancient myths and the modern poetry,
so false as history, may be very near the truth as prophecy. At present we
are on the outside of the world, the wrong side of the door. We discern the
freshness and purity of morning, but they do not make us fresh and pure.
We cannot mingle with the splendours we see. But all the leaves of the New
Testament are rustling with the rumour that it will not always be so. Some
day, God willing, we shall get in.
C.S. Lewis, Transposition and Other Addresses, ch.2
Dear _____
I’m going to cover a variety of subjects that I want you to know what I think
about them. I communicate more effectively in written form, at least I think
so. The message(s) I wish to convey are mostly built in a sometimes subtle
progression. Rarely, do I convey a thought that stands on it’s own in one
sentence, or even one paragraph. It is those statements, which are all too
common in our sound-bite world, that are so easily misunderstood.
This is how I view the pursuit of truth. Truth starts as a whisper, that
becomes louder as you focus on it. Truth is sometimes subtle. I am not truth,
nor do I hold it or define it. Yet I know much, with certainty. What a claim
huh?! How can I know? Before you misunderstand, remember this is only part
of the first piece. I will explain them but must apologize ahead of time
for my lack of brevity. As I have learned much from you, 1 I write
not only to share my heart but also, maybe, to convey things that you
can learn from me. It is my hope that there can be a greater understanding
between us, to foster fellowship. In addition to all of this, I also wish
to explain a little about how I grew to think the way I do.
I know that I’m going to say some things that you are going to disagree with.
I make no claims to superiority and/or special/exclusive knowledge. Remember
that I mean well and that it is my desire to be useful in what I am called
to do. As iron sharpens iron, I welcome your response.2 I too seek
God’s approval, and I exercise my passion because I love Him. Hear my heart
in this, as I appeal to yours. Please listen carefully as I build my case
for my own (and my kind’s) relevance in the church today.
First, I would like to address the Harry Potter "thing." You wrote as though
I am a fan, I am not. I am mostly indifferent to Harry Potter. The series
is not literature, as the Left Behind series is not literature. They are
light fictional reads. The fantasies of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and Homer
are literature however; within those stories there are noble truths to convey
that are timeless. Personally speaking, I think that making a big deal out
of Harry Potter is a tactical mistake. (I respect your ideal of purity, but
I’m thinking more like a warrior concerning this.) I find it ironic
that the "real" witches aren’t happy with it either. An outspoken British
witch put a hex on the Harry Potter movie set.
Witchcraft in both practice and theory is irrational. It seeks to know and
control things (against God’s will) that can be only controlled and known
by God. The reason for it’s resurgence is primarily due to our move into
a post-modern world. (To each his own, for there is no absolute truth.) Our
materialistic schools and compromising churches are primarily responsible
for this.
I’ve read Harry Potter and the Bible by Richard Abanes. I bought the
book after our exchange. I agree with his arguments that witchcraft is evil,
didn’t have to convince me of that. The problem is that we make "Muggles"
of ourselves by attacking fictional fantasy. I don’t buy Abanes’ argument
that Harry Potter should be censored because it has "real life" witchcraft
practices in the story. The witchcraft practiced is in a fictional setting,
which is far different than a child reading an actual Wiccan spellbook. In
addition, most of the nine arguments for censorship in chapter thirteen are
poorly reasoned.3
The Christian strategy in fighting "cultural phenomena" such as Harry Potter
("Rock-n-roll," Catcher in the Rye, Dungeons & Dragons, etc. ) have been
ill-conceived, in my opinion. There are far more damaging ideas being taught
in the schools. It is not that what we are fighting against is not bad, it
is that our counter-attacks have been misguided.
These "cultural phenomena" are mere diversions, in the way I see it. From
a military-tactical point of view, diversionary forces are indispensable
for victory, though they are far from being the most powerful. They are mere
nuisances. If we go chasing diversionary forces around, that allows the main
force of our enemy to "capture ground," taking resources from us. This weakens
us by creating confusion, because people will not understand Christians’
intent in this matter. These "resources" are the foundations upon which we
stand. We do not guard these well, (but I’m getting ahead of myself.) If
our foundations are perceived as weak and our tactics seem confused, we are
less apt to be taken seriously in the world arena. Let me explain…
As I was growing up, it was common for me to hear Christians declaring that
rock music had a causal relation with fornication and that the song Hotel
California was demonic in origin. As a fornicating, heavy-metal listening
young person, I found those assertions to be very silly and insulting since
they implied that I was essentially robotic, to the point of mindlessness.
Plug stuff in, get certain stuff out, how elementary.
Trouble is, people aren’t that simple. Everything is built upon the foundation
we stand on. I was a pragmatic atheist (on primarily emotional grounds) mostly
because I didn’t like Christians. (And I didn’t like myself.) Heavy metal
was a non-violent vent for my angst. Fornicating was just plain fun. Christians
seemed profoundly interested in what I did, read and listened to and I had
no idea why. The "control -freak" explanation was the only one which made
sense. So, I dismissed Christians as mindless charlatans with an innate sick
desire to control others who had as well a profound fear of competing systems
opposed to Christianity. I saw church as nothing more than a little
game to try to break me. What little bit of independence, bravery and cleverness
I could muster up, was all I had to be proud of.
There are many in the world who see us as unthinking, power-hungry, puritanical
stoics, 4 who seek to have us suppress all that is human within us,
including our imaginations. I boldly state that we give them good reason
to think this of us. I understand the worldly frame of mind. 5 We
attack without understanding the nature of what we are attacking. All we
understand is that our intentions are good.
In an attempt to explain further how I came to regard church and Christians
in such an unflattering manner, allow me to relate a few stories that
really stand out for me. I realize that they are really insignificant poor
excuses now, but to the young me, I used them for justification for what
I thought.
Some friends of mine and I went to a Baptist church camp. It was a neat location
and was a way to get away from my family for a week. We sure spent a lot
of time in church however. And a lot of "hell-fire and damnation" was fired
at us to scare us into becoming Christian. At the time, I was an emotional
wreck and I knew it. 6 By this time I had read every word of the Bible
yet I only understood the wrath side of the picture. You survive all the
pains and trials of life, only to have God get you in the end. That sucked
and I didn’t want to hear it.
This "hellfire" preacher was teaching that after the rapture (which could
be any second) there would be absolutely no chance for salvation. (So, you
had better do it now.) My hand went up; he didn’t want to be interrupted
but I persisted. I told him that I was familiar with only two unforgivable
sins; blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (I had no idea what that meant however)
and "taking the mark of the beast." I then asked him to provide a Scripture
that would verify what he was saying, that it not only mattered what you
decided but when. He stuttered. (I knew I had him then.) I then asked him
if it was true that Revelation 20:4 suggests there are going to be "tribulation
saints." That is, those who would not take the "mark" and were killed for
it. (He stuttered again) I then moved in for the coup-de-grace. I said, "If
the rapture takes place before the rise of the beast and that all are damned
after rapture, as you say, how could you reconcile those two beliefs with
what the Bible says in Revelation 20:4?" (I am much nicer now, am I not?)
That man was embarrassed and speechless. A woman very skillfully took over
the show. Later, the preacher cornered me alone and said to never cross him
again. He said that I was arrogant and didn’t understand that he was trying
to do something good. I didn’t bother to defend myself. I was very pleased.7
The second experience relates to perception and worship. I grew up in a Pentecostal
church. We had an evangelist who I thought was full of himself. 8
Sunday morning church services typically went on for what seemed to be forever,
with our relatively conservative pastor. This was an evening service, and
Roger, the evangelist, was leading. The service went on for what seemed like
hours. Everyone was raising their hands and singing (and there were a lot
of "tongues" being spoken.) All except me. (I didn’t know this God.) Roger,
was eyeballing me. So, he poured what I saw as "cheer-leading" on harder.
I stood on my convictions. On the service went… Roger keep eyeballing me
and my mother noticed it too. She ribbed me and gave me the look, "Will you
raise your hands so we can go home!" I ignored her. I didn’t care how long
it took and it took awhile…9
My education was based upon force of authority, rather than on force of argument;
Christian and otherwise. I only understood God to be a wrathful bully. People
spoke of love, but they contradicted themselves. There was still a God there
who was dangling everyone over hell. No one could explain to me why hell
was necessary. The question remained, even though Christianity appears to
be cruel, is it true?
I went to a Christian school and I remember attempting to dialog with a teacher
about creationism. She was both unable and unwilling to answer my questions.
Others explained to me that Adam and Eve were allegory. I knew the implications
of this. The advice I received as a adolescent helped to form my temporary
belief that Christianity was irrational and that nobody had a corner on truth.
So I then set out to see if I could justify my fledgling atheism. I wrote
poems about hopelessness, duality, hell and damnation. I didn’t understand
the origins of these "things" called feelings and moral awareness. I developed
an intense interest in evolution and behaviorism. In college, I set the curve
in my human evolution class. I got A’s in those classes that had the remotest
chance to answer my questions; ethics, anthropology and sociology. I never
was fully convinced by the humanists’ arguments for the spontaneous generation
of morals and matter, no matter how hard I tried.
By the time I returned home from college I had matured enough to not be so
openly militant and rebellious. Getting a career was my primary focus in
life. My relationship with my parents improved dramatically. I take a lion’s
share of the responsibility for our difficulties. They had no idea of what
my struggles were, because I hid them. (I owe my parents a lot. I know they
love me.)
I saw atheism, by then, as being stupid also, so I was in a quandary. I had
an openly pantheistic girlfriend for awhile in college. We talked about "ultimate
issues" to some extent. It was interesting, but pantheism cannot account
for personality, as well as it having a terrible problem of vicious regression
in causality. (And the Bhagavad Gita was ridiculous.) So, I rejected it.
Agnosticism was for jelly spines, so back I was to Christianity. Is it true?
I read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. I was deeply impressed by his apologetic.
There can be no morals nor moral awareness without God. Nor could there be
any meaning. I also began to understand God’s love for man, and that was
what really got to me. He put it in terms I could understand, and it made
sense. The Holy Spirit had never let me go. He drew me by never letting me
settle for anything less than the truth. In my subsequent true surrender
to God, I found truth. And I also found out that I could hold on to the truth
and not have to throw away my brain. My life changed profoundly, and it was
then my education really began. Deprogramming all the bad information accumulated
has taken over ten years.
After becoming a Christian, I held on to my evolutionary beliefs (and believe
me this is very confusing for a guy who likes to have all of his ducks in
a row) because it was what I was raised to believe. However I couldn’t reconcile
that belief with the Bible—I had the personal witness of the Spirit telling
me the Bible is true but yet science was saying it was not. !Aye Caramba!
A friend of mine, who was a ‘young-ager,’ started me on my journey
to becoming a creationist by lending me Philip Johnson’s book ‘Darwin on
Trial.’ It was a good book which shredded Darwin’s case (and philosophic
naturalism as well.) But since negative apologetics is only partial effective
my friend introduced me to Answers in Genesis. AiG gave me positive materials
so as to build a new foundation for my thinking about ‘scientific’ issues.
I came to realize that the observations scientists aren’t necessarily wrong,
it was the framework upon which those observations were interpreted that
was. It took a little time to deconstruct the framework that had been built
over my lifetime and to build a new one, a Biblical one. With this new foundation
things metaphysically, philosophically, theologically and scientifically
are starting finally to come together to make sense with one another. Scientific
observations are indeed compatible and understandable in the Biblical creationist
worldview. This is very liberating.
I’m now paying very careful attention to foundations, particularly where
the Bible relates as real history to the real world. This is crucially important
to our young people. They (as I was) are being immunized against the Gospel
by evolutionary teaching both in our schools and in our churches. What we
believe and accept has a strong impact on our lives whether we realize it
or not. Properly equipped we have nothing to fear, spiritually or intellectually.
It is time to come out of the closet of fundamentalism and engage the world
on their turf—The Truth is on our side.
Negative apologetics has value but must be matched with positive apologetics
as well. If we debunk a lie but fail to build a case for the truth we would
have not finished the job. For instance, if we were to convince a Mormon
that Mormonism is not true (which isn’t all that hard to do) but not lead
him then to the Truth of the Gospel, we will then have done nothing ultimately
to help the man--Same goes for the creation/evolution debate.
I also found out that the intellectual culture and foundation, which the
Christians held for over 1700 years, was stolen out from under our noses,
and was replaced with a cheap lie. I tried my best to believe that lie, but
could not. After my surrender, it took years for me to deprogram from even
my "Christian" education. I escaped from my programming and I am ashamed
of the atheism I tried to believe. But, what I’ve learned in recent years
about Christianity has appalled me.
It was the Christians, who finally taught men to appraise poetry
by a pure aesthetic standard—a standard which enable them to reject most
of the moral and religious teaching of the classical poets as false and ungodly,
while accepting the formal elements in their work as instructive and aesthetically
delightful.10
The Christians ruled the intellectual world, we simply could outthink any
other system that opposed us. It was the Christians who preserved the ancient
Greek myths, and the teachings of the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers, the
ramblings of the skeptics, and the poetry about the amoral gods who played
with men and their wives. Without the church valuing these aforementioned
"things," they would have been destroyed by the barbarians. Why did we save
them? In short, because we knew that if these ideas and stories were put
into their proper perspective, there was nothing to fear from them. What
the Greeks regarded as true stories were recognized for what they were, myths.
Myths were then used as an educational tool to convey the truths within them.
11
Christians never took seriously skeptic philosophy, there is no reason to.
Augustine destroyed academic skepticism three centuries after Christ, using
reason. Now skepticism is the becoming the dominate philosophy of our day.
What happened? Why did Christianity surrender to something so empty, godless,
hopeless and self-refuting. Before we declare, "This is the work of Satan!"
perhaps we should ask a more useful question like, "how does Satan work?"
12
Education today looks at the teachings of Aristotle as being of no worth
other than as an item of history. How could someone from so long ago, who
held a wrong view of the universe, have anything relevant to say to us, the
"enlightened ones?" Greek Philosophy, from a modern educational perspective,
is viewed as "what those old guys believed." Augustine, respected Aristotle
(as do I,) for he recognized that Aristotle had many truths and approaches
to truth to teach, even though the man was a pagan who had a wrong view of
the universe.
I no longer fit the modern educational model. 13 I utterly reject
an education of dry facts, color pictures and one line "truths." Modern educational
has all the subtlety of finding truth in a tea cup by using a bulldozer.
(In fact, stopping the bulldozer to pick through shards [if they should happen
to hear the "crunch" over the roar of the motor] would be a waste if time.
Because the hills and mountains of inequality in front of it are still to
be leveled. And why would you want to muddy yourself in the process?)
Christianity today, gathers up it’s dry pile of "shoulds," and negotiates
with the world for it’s significance and even survival. The nature of grace
is not understood and is rejected. We trade the dry bones of empty
moral edicts to earn the approval of a compromising people. This grieves
me terribly… More than I can express. Both you and I hate the evils of witchcraft
and apostasy. What we differ on is how we should combat them.
Parents need to make clear that Christians are not Muggles. In
other words, Christianity is not a narrow, materialistic, boring worldview
such as the one satirized in the Potter novels and taught in today’s schools.
It is Christianity that has the open universe with room both for the natural
and the supernatural, for the ordinary and the miraculous. It is Christianity
that recognizes unseen truths of goodness and beauty and that believes in
a genuine battle between the forces of darkness and the forces of light.
The account of how God became man in Jesus Christ, defeating Satan and atoning
for our sinfulness by dying on the Cross and rising again, is the most wonderful,
mind-blowing story of all — having the profound advantage of also being true.
The Bible asserts it, history confirms it, and the Holy Spirit brings us
to believe it. Those who think in biblical terms have a far bigger, more
stimulating worldview than any of their materialistic and occult competitors.
The best way to inoculate children from being confused by Harry Potter or
seduced by the fantasies that are far worse, in addition to giving them a
solid grounding in the Word of God, is to expose them to good literature,
including good fantasy To use C. S. Lewis’s terms, a child who knows about
dragons — and witches — from "the right books" will know to stay away from
them and will know that he or she doesn’t want to become one. 14
Harry Potter, should be regarded for what it is, a myth. And witches should
be regarded for what they are, silly people, who believe silly things. 15
We lend our power to them when we take them seriously. Much the same as we
allowed the secular humanists to steal our moral system. We allowed the theft
and have given the endorsement of silence. They are preparing for the coup-de-grace.
We now address felt needs and we are about to lose that ministry as well.
What the world does take seriously however, is science and it’s baby, modern
education. We should take this threat very seriously but we don’t. Science
was ours as well, but we compromised with darwinism at the monkey trial and
we compromise today. Scientists are now our philosophers and theologians,
they have programmed us all to believe that is possible for science to answer
all questions. This assertion is absurd, but we believe it anyway. Science
in actuality, is a tool in the quest for knowledge, as is philosophy. When
you attempt to answer scientific questions using philosophy, you are doomed
to fail. The reverse is also true, but most do not know that. 16 Christianity
has regarded this theft (and deception) as not relevant, not a threat. We
have bought their lie, that scientific knowledge is in a totally different
realm, that science has no bearing on religious faith. 17 Our enemies
know the relevance of this lie far better than we do.
"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to
fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys
utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made
necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you
will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer
who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity
is nothing."
G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American
Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.
Since we have surrendered science to them, we are left with empty assertions.
They are the gatekeepers, they accredit the institutions, and control how
things are taught, 18 and they ordain with the Ph.D. Some of our schools
(Seminaries) pass out Doctorates proudly proclaiming that the Bible is the
only textbook. As a result, our "degrees" are a laughingstock. No wonder
we aren’t taken seriously. These "doctors" have no idea how the world thinks.
They are also at the mercy of the bias instilled into their upbringing and
previous education, for they have no other tools to evaluate, interpret and
apply what they are taught. Their "tool chest" is a small one. In addition
to these perils, those Christians who rely upon these "doctor’s" authority
to interpret the Bible for them are at their mercy as well. Narrowness is
not a virtue. (It is this kind of thinking that gives birth to destructive
little groups like the King James Only movement who have made an accusation
against the rest of Christianity using poor reasoning and as result spread
legalism and doubt.) 19 20
A "Bible-thumper" is a person who appeals to the authority of a book that
the world does not recognize as an authority. All a "Bible-thumper" can do
is preach to those who already recognize the authority of the Bible. (Don’t
take me to mean that that niche does not need to be filled, or is not important.
I do mean however, that we should never give a doctorate to someone ignorant
of the world and send them out into it to appeal to the Bible as if it is
a Primary Particular in and of itself. This discredits us all.)
All knowledge, including scientific, rests upon particulars, truths unseen
that are discerned through philosophical reasoning and evidence. Particulars
are impossible to discern through scientific method, for science rests upon
those assumptions it makes about the nature of reality and how something
can be known to some degree of certainty. (Particulars are unquestionable
certainties that I would consider a large part of God’s general revelation
to man. I will expound upon this later.) Most do not know this, and are purposefully
trained not to know (or care.)
Science is now based on authority, rather than upon the Particulars and Universals
of a created universe. The lie is now packaged by people in lab coats; eloquent,
knighted, and endorsed as the "Knowers," they are our new expositors of reality.
The "Knowers" publish study guides for our congregations, and we consume
them, editing the Word to be acceptable to the world. 21 We
have become syncretists. 22 Adam and Eve are reduced to mere metaphors,
as we declare to the world, "God is the Creator, Jesus is Lord and Genesis
is allegory!" (Maybe we should now ask, "How does God choose to work in this
world?") 23
Here we are today believing that nothing is objectively knowable. Even amongst
Christians themselves, we say that no one has a corner on truth. Besides,
knowledge puffs up and those who claim to have it don’t yet know as they
ought to know. 24 Every man has a philosophy, so every man is
a philosopher we have been taught. In 1984, people were not allowed to read
books or think independently. In the Brave New World, nobody wants
to. We are the people of the image, we are all interpreters of art
and reality. We have been taught well, to wholeheartedly believe that truth
is in the eye of the beholder.
Philosophy (or rather the history of…) is a useless pursuit for both pagans
and Christians because all knowledge is said to be existential now. (Reality
is what you make it.) For example: When witnessing, I have made the statement,
"Jesus claimed to be God and the Jews understood exactly what he meant."
They retort, "Well, that is just your interpretation. There are 400 other
denominations who would differ with you. How do you know your interpretation
is the right one?" I reply, "Why should I think that your interpretation
of the nature of the exchangeability of knowledge is right--that concepts
cannot be objectively conveyed through the vehicle of language?" They looked
at me as though I was crazy. How arrogant of me to go against what everybody
knows is true! Objective! Outrageous! Truth has become no more than an interpretation,
a mere product of how the observer feels about it.
I am nothing more than an arrogant man who thinks he is smarter than everyone
else. The really ironic thing about me is that I call myself a philosopher.
(You know, like those old farts who thought the universe was square.[sic])
I hold nothing more than a catalog of old information, much like a twenty
year old phone book. I possess "useless" knowledge that is non-transferable.
I am arrogant for even claiming any knowledge at all, even useless knowledge.
Do you see my frustration? It’s not just that no one cares anymore, but that
no one knows! 25 This is a disquieting state to live in.
Things are knowable! That is my task, the challenge given to "my kind." Not
only are things knowable, but every man has the potential to have knowledge.
You do not have to be knighted by the lords in academia to be "Knower." I
do not care if you do not have much formal theological training. I
don’t either. Maybe that is a good thing, there is a lot of terrible theology
being taught in Christianity today. Modern education does not equip men with
the tools to evaluate what they hear, only to believe what they hear if the
teacher has been properly knighted. It is a control freak’s dream! Is it
a Brave New World! If it truly is, then where does this leave a "savage"
like me?
My dream is that men will want to think and will be given the tools to do
so. I’ll be honest with you, I hate baseless authority.26 I’ll
also admit that the only God that I can accept is one that allows me freedom.
27 But the price of freedom is terrible and terrifying. Most
people do not understand why they cannot have both freedom and security,
including in the eternal sense. I want people to understand why they cannot.
Understanding why hell is necessary has certainly improved my relationship
with my Creator, for instance. People are asked to believe that hell is necessary
but I am profoundly saddened when I see that they do not understand. I know
from personal experience the hurt, fear to the point of terror, guilt, shame,
anger and rebellion that are nurtured by the ignorance of why certain things
(such as hell) are necessary.
We are made in the image of God, we are the jewels of His creation. He became
one of us, and suffered and died for us! To assert that certain things are
necessary and leaving them at that or giving the "God is God, so He can do
whatever He wants!" explanation is simply unacceptable. Such empty declarations
cause pain and confusion. How can those unsubstantiated statements be loving
then? Did not Jesus die to heal our pain and give us hope?
We are not His pawns in a cosmic game of "I’m the boss!" He loves us and
wants a relationship with us. 28 A loving husband does not say to
his wife "This is the way it is going to be!" and then keeps her in the dark
as to why. No. A loving husband explains to his wife why such and such is
going to be this way. When she understands why, she will see that the husband
has her best interests in mind and that he really loves her. In this marriage
trust can be built. In the former, only fear, uncertainty and distrust will
prevail.
Following rules for rules sake is legalistic, this is self-evident. Following
rules for fear’s sake is selfish. The "rules" aforementioned are necessary
but if men are not equipped to understands the "whys" of the "rules," they
can only accept them on authority for selfish and fearful reasons. Now we
are back to the dysfunctional marriage where the husband keeps his wife in
the dark. Why should she not trust him? Doesn’t she know that he loves her?
He say he does, and declares that he has her best interest in mind. Any uncertainty
and fear in her must be her fault. She just needs more faith! This is dysfunctional,
and we would recognize this in an earthly family. The husband doesn’t acknowledge
that the wife has a brain and the right to know; there is something seriously
wrong with that dynamic. But this is what Christianity teaches to people
about the relationship between God and man all the time. "’What?! You don’t
understand? Well, you just need to trust God more! Have a little faith will
ya!’" 29
Is this really what the Bible teaches about relationships? If you take a
certain "interpretation" of it does. This is why apologists appeal to a wide
variety of tools to interpret the reality of what the Bible says. We appeal
to philosophy, linguistics, history, and psychology and all their sub-fields
in a quest for understanding of the Word of God and the nature of reality.
We recognize that the Bible is Truth, but that it does not contain all the
truths that can be known. (It is also obvious that certain moral imperatives
come logically prior to even reading the first word of Scripture. In other
words, it is obvious that not all moral knowledge comes by special revelation,
as some Calvinists claim, since before reading Scripture it is known that
it should be interpreted correctly and in order to do that it should be interpreted
honestly and fairly.) We are subsequently criticized for using "worldly wisdom"
to interpret the Scriptures. "‘Those apologists are apologizing for
what God declared!’ ‘They have no faith… no trust in the Father, the Son,
or the Holy Spirit.’ ‘They claim to have knowledge, even though everyone
knows (and even the Bible teaches) that no man has knowledge.’ ‘God said
it, I believe it, and that settles it!’" The critics of the apologists have
no idea why all of those statements are patently absurd. Yet the Christian
Philosopher is in no position to explain why that is because of the wall
of blind faith. In all this, I claim no authority but grasp for reason.
These statements are made in the spirit of piety and are an attempt to exalt
the sovereignty of God. The audience is hostile to even the thought to the
abilities and responsibilities of free minds. So "my kind" is discredited.
To Love your God with all your Mind is mind idolatry. The freedom of man
threatens the sovereignty of God, so some say. (I would say that it is bold
of them to say that it could.) Trust and obey, for there is no other way.
Those who teach otherwise invite men to sin. 30 In the pulpits we
are instructed to have more faith, for there is no knowledge. The world has
won by effectively separating reason from faith and we call it piety. 31
In my intellectual loneliness, I bemoan my irrelevance. And have said quite
enough. Now I will build my case for knowledge and why certain beliefs are
extremely important. We do what we believe and to the degree we believe it.
This is true even if we have not concisely and deliberately thought through
the consequences of a particular belief. 32 Certain beliefs are devastating
to our case for Christianity. 33 Christianity is rational, non-contradictory
and objective claims can be made about it. I will go to my grave defending
this.
The branch of philosophy concerning the nature of knowledge is called epistemology.
In other words, "How do we know what we know?" Or rather, can we know anything
with any degree of certainty, in the case of skepticism. There are basically
three epistemological positions; Methodism, Particularism and Skepticism.
Many Christians are Methodists. 34 Methodism, attempts to develop
a criterion (Q) for a known particular (P) and a reason (R) why the particular
satisfies the criterion. In other words, there must always be a reason for
a certain particular to be true; Any given particular must always have a
criterion. Trouble is, how do we know the criterion is necessarily true?
So, then we must formulate a criterion for the criterion to prove it’s claim
to be true. Very rapidly, a methodist will fall into a vicious regress. There
is no escape from this trap. A well trained skeptic can destroy a methodist’s
argument in nothing flat.
The skepticism that Augustine destroyed is back. There are two basic schools
of skepticism, mitigated and unmitigated. The mitigated skeptic believes
that there can be no certainty of knowledge. He cannot even be certain that
his belief in skepticism is true. This is dispelled by exposing the certainty
of self-awareness. (You really have to be in la-la land to reject this.)
The unmitigated skeptic claims that he is certain that you cannot be certain
about anything. This is obviously self-refuting. There are two sub-classes
of these divisions, local and global skeptics. Global skeptics apply skepticism
to all areas, while local skeptics apply their belief only to certain areas.
Global skeptics, when pressed, must deny the certainty of their own self-awareness
to be consistent. In the case of local skeptics, we need to get their skepticism
to "spill out" into areas they do not want it to go. In other words, to make
them go "global." It astounds me that this is now the dominate epistemology
of our culture.
Now on to the flavor of epistemology I believe in…
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that
have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those
who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore,
since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning,
it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent
Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been
taught. Luke 1:1-4 NIV
I am a particularist. I know that 2+2=4. Not only that 2+2=4, but that 2
plus 2 is necessarily 4. I do not know why it is, but I know that it is.
I do not have to be able to explain it in order for it to be a known. I know
that torturing babies is wrong. I don’t have to know why it is, in fact,
I have the right to know that it is. A particularist builds knowledge by
working up from known facts. There is a foundation for knowledge and that
certain things can be known with certainty. These "certainties" can be moral,
conceptual and physical, and are an integral part of God’s general revelation
to man. 35 I know, for instance, there are either/or propositions.
For instance; I know that "things" must either be material or immaterial.
I know also that "things" must either be personal or impersonal. There is
no "third option" in these cases. People of sound mind and spirit would agree
with those propositions, for they are grounded in reality. People who do
not believe these things, though they may be functional, are technically
insane. That is, they are out of touch with reality.
Skeptics attack particularists by trying to force them to become methodists.
The particularist must be careful not to allow this kind of attack to succeed.
He has nothing to fear, for there are certain things about reality that are
undeniable. (Unless of course, you are insane.)
The Bible however, is not a particular. It is absolute truth (please don’t
misunderstand me.) It is truth that is built upon a mountain of evidence
that attests to the truthfulness of it’s testimony. God has given us self-awareness
and we are made in His image. 36 Since Jehovah has asked us to reason
with him, 37 it follows that we have the ability to do so. The use
of the mind is not discouraged in the Bible, 38 it is rather a tool
to gain understanding. The Bible provides a foundation which affirms
the surety of the possibility of knowledge. Combined with it’s endorsement
of reason exercised with a pure heart, Christianity has vastly superior intellectual
capability than any other system on earth. Because it’s foundation is the
Truth, we can be sure of this. Once the foundation of truth is known, other
truths can be built upon it. We both know the parable of the wise man who
builds his house upon the rock…
We both know that we do not create nor define reality. Reality is. Yet what
I am writing about is whether or not we can know anything about it and if
that knowledge is objectively transferable. Yes, our perception of reality
is never perfect.39 You astutely pointed that out. But we can
perceive. Who created the tools that we perceive with? God did. So then,
the question is not, "How can we be sure that we know anything," but rather,
"How much can we know?" Although we can never know completely, I maintain
a positive view of knowledge.
Language is our only tool for description. Is it adequate? I believe it can
be objective, because God wouldn’t give me something that is essentially
useless. As I already lamented, people don’t believe that language is objective
anymore. 40
I subjectively interpret reality by the senses, and then describe it in imprecise
linguistic terms, because I know I am not perfect. However, I know
that reality is objective, because there is a God.41 It follows
that it is possible to get a close approximation and description of a particular
in objective reality. Those who reject objective reality must ignore the
obvious that two opposing claims cannot possibly both be right, even when
they are appraised pragmatically. This is so obvious, that I would call the
Law of Non-Contradiction a "Particular," even if my "tools" were limited
to the lazy and sloppy pragmatic method.
This is why the modern notion that all opinions are equally important is
complete baloney. The subjective base for this notion is essentially self-centered.
There are innumerable number of distinct foci in an existential universe.
With no single point to measure from, all foci are essentially equal. All
these "points" are adrift on the sea of competing passions, unable to chart
a course to anywhere because there is really no place in particular to go.
We are merely left with what works and what feels good. This thinking has
given birth to the post-modern world. People really believe that this is
the way things really are.
At least in my view (what I believe is true) of reality, there is a potential
for all men to be pretty darn close to the truth, since God’s Truth is the
only focus in the universe. To have a single truth or focus would require
the nature of that truth to be transcendent, because truth addresses many
different issues and if it was not ultimately "singular" there would be no
way to distinguish between different truth claims on (or about) a single
subject. 42 This "truth" can only be known through both general and
special revelation, since our current connection is with the material world.
In this model, truth claims can be tested by other known truths that
have been transferred by the vehicle of language. 43 God approves
of this. That is why language is at least somewhat objective, since God approves
of it’s use in gaining "true" knowledge. All knowledge in this system is
God-defined, and since it is, the particulars of truth are elevated above
the barren plain of mere opinion. So we can then obey when we are commanded
to test everything. 44 And it also follows if God commanded it, He
must have given us the tools to objectively do so. 45
If we insist on only using "spiritual" tools to evaluate truth, then we can
claim no superiority to even something as irrational as Mormonism. Mormons
are really sincere in their belief that there is a difference between apparent
truth and spiritual truth. In fact, their religion thrives on this contradiction.
They are truly sincere that they believe they have heard from God and have
felt him; I have heard their "testimonies" personally. Even when they have
been confronted with all the contradictions that Mormonism is, they steadfastly
maintain that there is a difference between "apparent" and "spiritual" truth.
They are "true believers."
Knowledge does not save. I want you to know that I do not believe that any
man needs to know a lot of theology to get to heaven. What God wants is a
relationship with us. That includes acknowledgment of who Jesus is 46
and that He is the only way. 47 You can believe a lot of other silly
things and still have relationship with God. So, why does "systematic theology"
matter anyway?
Isn’t it self-evident that Christian practice is founded upon Christian Theology?
As I’ve said before, we do what we believe and to the degree we believe it.
I fail to see how this could not be the case. Yet, we still insist that it
is the "experience" that matters most; that it is more important than doctrine.
To defend this belief, we point to what the Bible says happened the day of
Pentecost. 48 Isn’t this argument circular? Where would this leave
us? Please do not think that I regard experience as not important. In fact,
I long for it. I believe that you do not come to know God by "experiencing"
Him, but rather you "experience" God because you’ve come to know Him. 49
I think most Pentecostals have this progression backwards (and I don’t buy
Jack Hayford’s arguments for this very reason [and that it leaves yourself
open to a counterfeit.]) Please don’t take this to mean I don’t believe in
tongues. I do. What we would have difference in is the purpose and practice
of them.
It is the purpose and function of the Bible to keep Christians believing
basically the same things. I cannot leave objective certainty because it
would mean that I would have no way of testing truth by any means other than
experiential. If belief is based on experience, then system we create is
existential. Probably, I will have to wait till I get to heaven, wherein
all the "noise" will be no more, before I will really get to "experience"
God. That is okay, I have founded faith that it will happen. Even though
I have no "connection" of this kind with God now, I still know that He is,
and I proclaim, "Jesus is Lord!" (And how could I really believe and say
that without the Spirit being in me?) 50
Interpreting doctrine is very difficult as you well know. The Christian life
is knowing and doing. Knowing doctrine without doing it is fruitless. Doing
without knowing is dangerous. 51 How could we say that doing
is better than knowing, if proper doing is dependent upon proper knowing
in order for us to do what we ought. We could blindly bump into walls with
the very best of intentions and in the end not have a thing to show for it,
despite all of our dedication and sacrifice. The Christian should both know
and do. All things should be known and done in the context of love which
brings me to some specific doctrinal issues…
The trichotomous view of man is a doctrine whose fruit disparages human intellect.
I’ve spent some time defending the goodness and necessity of intellect in
Christian "experience." Those who take the doctrine of the "trinity" of man
seriously, and understand what the implications of the doctrine of trichotomous
nature are, say things like this;
Our only hope is that the Lord may blaze a way out, destroying
the outward man (the soul) to such a degree that the inward man may come
out and be seen. This is precious, and this is the way of those who serve
the Lord. Only thus can we serve; only thus can we lead men to the Lord.
All else is limited in its value. Doctrine does not have much use, nor does
theology. What is the use of mere mental knowledge of the Bible if the outward
man remains unbroken? Only the person through whom God can come is useful.
52
We must first settle the question of the breaking of the outward
man. Since neither our emotion or our thought has the same nature as God,
it cannot be joined with Him. The gospel of John, Chapter Four, shows us
the nature of God. God is a spirit. Our spirit alone is the same substance
as God; therefore, it can be eternally with Him.... Both our thoughts and
our emotions are human energies. All activity must come to an end. If we
try to maintain God's presence with activity, then when the activity ceases,
His presence ends. Presence requires the sameness of nature. Only the inward
man is of the same nature. Only the inward man is of the same nature as God.
Through it alone can His presence be manifested. When the outward man lives
in activity, they [sic] can disturb the inward man. Thus the outward man
(the soul) is not a helper but a disturber. 53
Watchman Nee, and his understudy, Witness Lee who founded the Local Church
were, in fact, Christian mystics. There are strong pantheistic overtones
in these two quotes, which follows because of the overwhelmingly Buddhist
culture they came from. They believe that spirit is immaterial and good (and
of the same substance as God?) 54 and soul and body are material
which is, by implication, bad. This is gnosticism. They understand what implications
of this theology are and how they are to be practiced:
One who is in the mind should refuse his intellect in all spiritual
things; he should put aside completely such functions as thinking and considering....
When he reads the Bible, prays or speaks about spiritual things, he should
refuse his thinking, imagining, theorizing and investigating.... 55
There is no need for us to close our eyes when we pray. It is
better for us to close our minds!... There is no need to explain or expound
the Word; simply pray with the Word. Forget about reading, researching, understanding,
and learning the Word. 56
These guys are being consistent with what they believe, that flesh (mind
is fleshly as well) is not to be trusted in knowing God. In fact this is
not too far off from Christian Science. 57 Our own mind is indispensable
in discerning good from bad, Godly things from ungodly.58
In this system of belief, the adherent is damned to inconsistency because
he still has to decide when to sleep and what to eat. Is not taking care
of the body God made for us a good thing? How do you know?
You are still grounded in reality and can still exposit the Word because
I do not think you have fully thought through the implications of your belief.
In other words, you aren’t being very consistent. 59 You may still
not see what the big deal is about the "triune" doctrine of man, but once
I demonstrate that the trichotomous view of the nature of man is rationally
indefensible, hopefully you’ll begin to understand what I’ve been jabbering
about up until now. I’ll start with a common trichotomous definition of the
"three parts of man," and work from there…
Man is made up of three basic areas -- body, soul, and spirit.
The spirit of man deals with the spiritual realm. It is the part of man in
which God dwells.... The soul of man is that which deals with the mental
and emotional realm of man. It is the seat of man’s personality -- his intellect,
his emotions, and his will. It is with his mind that a person understands.
The body is the part of man which deals with the physical realm. It is dominated
by the five senses and is the vehicle by which we communicate to the outside
world. 60
According to the trichotomous view, there are three distinct parts of man.
Some have asserted that since God is a triune Being, man must then be one
as well. Such a comparison is apples and oranges. God is three Persons in
one Being. The distinction made in the Godhead is one of personality, not
of being. We are not three persons. A distinguishing trait of a person is
that he recognizes other persons, as well as himself. I only recognize one
person that is me. So my other "parts" must be non-intelligent.
God is not made up of parts, as humans are. (God does not have a liver and
kidneys and other such "things.") 61 He is complete, always
has been, always will be. 62 We however, will die, be disembodied,
and enter an intermediate state until the resurrection. Please recall the
either/or conditions of existence; "Things" must be either material or immaterial,
and either personal or impersonal. There is no "other" in these categories
of existence—I claim this as a philosophically discerned item of knowledge.
Starting with some definitions, I’ll then cover the oneness idea of man first,
to dispel the idea that personality can be the product of material processes.
Then I’ll grid out the possibilities for the spirit and soul, while regarding
the body as Material/Impersonal--that is, after I address Christian Physicalism.
I will not cover the combinations that regard the body is immaterial.
The reason is obvious.
Personal — Self aware and aware of others. (God, Humans,
animals)
Impersonal—Not self aware nor aware of others. (Rocks, plants, books, etc.)
Material — That which is made of matter and exists in space/time.
Immaterial —That which is not matter and is not measurable by material means.
All three parts impersonal. This is pure pantheism. Whether or not any (or
all) parts are immaterial or material is irrelevant in this case. Self-awareness
is an illusion. Ask a swami for details.
Body—Personal/Material. (spirit/soul non-existent.)
This view, also known as Christian Physicalism, asserts the "oneness" of
man. The personality of man resides in his material body. God is spirit,
man is material. God created a material apparatus capable of self-awareness
and personal thought. There can be no intermediate state. 63 When
man dies, he is annihilated. At the resurrection, he is recreated ex-nihilo,
into his new body.
This teaching not only nullifies what the Bible teaches about the nature
of man and the intermediate state, but also lends power to the evolutionary
psychologists. It asserts that personality (and self-awareness) is a mere
product of complexity and/or ingenious design. 64 Are we really just
the product of 0’s and 1’s, ATCG’s? I think not. I am human, not a machine,
nor do I live in an illusion. I am more than "code" and I have a hard time
believing there could be such thing as a self-aware machine. I stand on the
particular of self-awareness and on the clear teaching of the Bible as well.
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Genesis 2:7 NIV
But it is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that
gives him understanding. Job 32:8 NIV
Spirit-Personal/Immaterial. Soul-Impersonal/Immaterial. (Body—Impersonal/Material)
Both spirit and soul are distinct and immaterial. Is the soul relevant in
this case? It can’t do anything other than just be since by definition impersonal
‘things’ cannot act but can only be acted upon. A human body, as marvelous
as it is, when no "personality" resides in it, just lies there and rots.
The body, since it is by nature impersonal, returns to it’s natural state,
since there is nothing to tell it do anything. It is then inanimate. 65
When one assigns personal attributes to an impersonal thing, I would call
that mystical or mysticism.66 Soul in this definition has no
capacity for thought or feelings. The self- awareness of the soul is by definition,
impossible for there is no "person" to it. It can only passively be. If this
is the case, then how could then be relevant? If we think we can work on
it by exerting our force or will upon it in hopes that it will respond precludes
that it is possible for it to respond in some knowing or self-active way.
My hands are typing but they are incapable of doing so on their own. So then,
are we saying that we can affect the soul in much the same way as I tell
my hands to type what I am thinking? I can see my hands and can tell that
they are doing what I want them to do. They are my servants and I can train
them because I have a direct connection to them. My immaterial person connects
in some way directly to my material body. The soul is not material, and as
such I have no way of knowing what it is doing by sense perception. And since
it is impersonal, it cannot tell me what it is doing or what it is feeling
because it cannot think. The only possible connection I would have to it
would be a "mystical" one that I could never quite "put my finger on."
One could argue that the personal/immaterial spirit is aware of the immaterial
soul but we in our physical limitations do not. We only need to be more "spiritual."
How is it that we know our physical selves? The "person" in us does. Our
"person" tells us who we are, since it is the only part of us that can know.
67 How could the spirit be so sure of an impersonal/material body
(which cannot think) and so unsure of the existence of a distinct immaterial
soul?
Lastly, why would the impersonal soul be even necessary? Could it be that
the soul is my "spirit body" in heaven? I thought we get new perfected bodies
at the resurrection. 68 So what then happens to my "body" part
of me then? Do I then become Dichotomous in nature after the resurrection?
I’m confused…
Spirit—Impersonal/Immaterial. Soul—Personal/Immaterial.
Same argument as above but reverse the terms.
Spirit—Impersonal/Immaterial. Soul—Personal/Material. (Body is impersonal/material.)
Essentially the same problems as Christian Physicalism. If self-awareness
does indeed arise in neurons firing small electrical charges across
billions of synapses, then there can be no intermediate state, machines have
a potential to become self-aware, and we’ll have to be recreated ex-nihilo
at the resurrection.
Spirit—Personal/Material. Soul—Impersonal/immaterial. (Body is impersonal/material.)
Same argument as above but reverse the terms. (From here I won’t cover any
more combinations that imply a material aspect to personality. I think I
have made my point.)
Spirit—Personal. Soul—Personal. Body—Impersonal.
We are now beginning to get down to the meat of my argument, personality.
As I have stated above, only personalities can know and be self-aware. I’m
sure you would agree with me on that point. You would also agree with me
that to personify an object is a form of idolatry. I think I’ve made the
point that impersonal soul (or spirit) is essentially useless because it
could only be passive. In addition, I consider my question as to the purpose
(and fate) of an impersonal soul (or spirit) to be a serious one. I think
these are a few reasons why rational people do not take the impersonal
nature of soul (spirit) seriously.
Because of the apparent lack of purpose in an intangible and unintelligent
"thing" as an impersonal soul (spirit,) "trichotomists" give an "awareness"
and/or activity to both spirit and soul. In the definition given previously
from the Maranatha guy, he said that the spirit of man "deals with the spiritual
realm." And the soul "is the seat of man's personality -- his intellect,
his emotions, and his will." Again, only personal things can act.69
Impersonal "things" can only be acted upon.
So what we have here is two distinct personalities in one being. The key
word here is distinct. Therefore, the trichotomist must believe there are
two (at least) persons in every man, to be consistent. Plug this into the
triune view and we have one person who connects with the world, one who connects
with God. In our earthly limitation, the connection between these two personalities
would be esoteric, at best.
Do I get to meet this other Mark when I die? Or will I merge with him? Why
do I not know who he is, since he is an integral part of me? After the veil
is removed, 70 will we each get a new perfected body? Or will we have
to fight about who is going to control the actions of our new body and when?
Or am ‘I’ slated for annihilation? 71 As you can see, two distinct
personalities in the same "real estate" raises some difficult problems.
If we try to explain away the spirit person as the "God part of us," we would
be espousing a pantheistic doctrine. If we say that man’s spirit and soul
are two different aspects of the immaterial part of a person, then we would
be really advocating a dichotomous doctrine. As God is both merciful and
just (two opposed attributes,) His nature is one. I think the real problem
here is one of semantics.
Objections to Duality.
The common objection raised to the dichotomous nature of man, is that the
pagan Greek Philosophers held to this view. They saw the body as nothing
more than a house for the true man to reside in. Since the pagans first elaborated
on the idea and early Christianity valued Greek Philosophy highly, we must
have then imported a pagan doctrine into our own beliefs. But this argument
begs the question; Just because the Greeks were pagans, doesn’t mean necessarily
that all they said was wrong. I agree with the Greek’s assessment of what
the body’s role in the person is, and so did the Apostle Paul. He described
it as an "earthly tent." 72 73 The Bible makes it clear that
there is an intermediate state and a bodily resurrection. What’s the problem
with dualism again?
Other objections to duality can import gnosticism into the view, that the
material man is bad. Salvation lies in throwing off the bad and clothing
yourself in the spirit, which is good. This is a poorly reasoned argument
also. Regardless whether man is one, two or three distinct "parts," the question
of what (or which) parts (or all parts) are good or evil is irrelevant. We
exist and know as one person. Such labeling of a particular "part" of our
being as intrinsically good or bad is really a silly exercise. Since only
thinking, moral beings can do bad things why should we ask what is doing
those bad things? When our hand is in the cookie jar when it shouldn’t be,
we know who’s hand it is--ours.
Another common objection to the dichotomous view is the problem of animal
souls. We simply do not want to give them one because we seem to think that
we must give them one that is the same as ours. I do not understand why we
must. As there are many kinds of animals, why can there not be different
kinds of souls? We cannot deny the self awareness and consciousness of others
in higher animals, so they must get this awareness from somewhere. Do we
say then that consciousness can arise from material means or that material
means can sustain it on it’s own? 74 We must if we deny animals some
kind of immaterial soul. Only man is made in God’s image, so only man can
be God-aware. There is no threat here to our place in the grand order of
things. There is no evidence for an afterlife for a non-human animal and
there is no reason to believe they are moral beings as we (and angels) are.
I simply see no necessity for saying there can be no other kinds of souls.
After all, are not angels different in nature from us?
What I believe and why.
We function in unified fashion. We are only aware of ourselves as a singularity
of personality. So I reject the idea of multiple personalities on based upon
what is obvious. It is absurd to think that a switching network can become
self-aware, so I reject the materialistic origin of personality. But there
are two equally valid and evident realities: material and immaterial. So
then how could it be made possible for man to exist in either "world?" Only
by having both a material and an immaterial aspect of man, a duality.
Man does not need his body to exist, but is not complete without it. This
is what the Bible teaches about the intermediate state where man "sleeps"
until the resurrection. We will be made whole again when we receive a perfected
body. (There is no distinction that has been made between the resurrection
of the wicked and righteous. Both will be made complete.) 75
Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed,
we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human
hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling,
because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are
in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed
but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may
be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose
and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come. Therefore
we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body
we are away from the Lord. We live by faith, not by sight. We are confident,
I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.
2 Corinthians 5:1-8 NIV
But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior
from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to
bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that
they will be like his glorious body. Philippians 3:19-21 NIV
Such a duality is the only way to resolve the problem of how man can exist
in both the material and immaterial worlds. Physicalism’s solution that the
dead will be recreated ex-nihilo at the resurrection, denies the Bible’s
teaching that the dead sleep 76 and the problem that God would be
attacking his own image. (This is part of why eternal Hell is necessary as
opposed to annihilation.) Since there are only two basic states of reality,
material and immaterial, and the Bible declares that men can exist in both,
a duality is philosophically necessary to satisfy both conditions. Yet, man
functions as a unity. Maybe this is why the soul in the intermediate state
is described as being asleep?
Job’s young friend Elihu was right about what gives man understanding and
who gave it. It is the spirit that God breathed into us that gives us understanding.
The flesh cannot understand. But are the soul and spirit separate and distinct
personal entities? I do not think so.
May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through.
May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians 5:23 NIV
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged
sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow;
it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Hebrews
4:12 NIV
Sometimes soul and spirit are used interchangeably in the Bible. 77
And sometimes they are used together as if there is a distinction between
them.78 Where those distinctions are made, spirit is that part
of us that communes with God and that can exist separate from the body. 79
While the soul relates to the temporal. I think it is in this manner, the
distinction between soul and spirit change be made; that soul and spirit
are attributes of the personal, immaterial self. Scripture is not clear,
in itself, as to what the natures of spirit and soul are, but rather they
are distinguished by what they relate to. The Bible is simply not clear enough
about the natures of spirit and soul make any dogmatic assertions about their
natures. This is why it is not a "kingdom issue" and is also why the debate
has gone on for so long.
The term soul specifies that in the immaterial part of man that
concerns life, action, and emotion. Spirit is that part related to worship
and divine communion. The two terms are often used interchangeably, the same
functions being ascribed to each (cf. John 12:27; 1 Cor 16:18; 2 Cor 7:13
with Matt 11:29; 2 Cor 7:1 with 1 Peter 2:11; James 5:20 with 1 Cor 5:5;
1 Peter 1:9). The deceased are mentioned both as soul and sometimes as spirit
(Gen 35:18; 1 Kings 17:21; Acts 2:27; with Matt 27:50; John 19:30; Heb 12:23).
However, soul and spirit are not always employed interchangeably. The soul
is said to be lost, for example, but not the spirit. When no technical distinctions
are set forth, the Bible is dichotomous, but otherwise it is trichotomous
(cf. Matt 10:28; Acts 2:31; Rom 8:10 Eph 4:4 James 2:26; 1 Peter 2:11). Theologians
have pored over these distinctions ceaselessly.
(The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois.
(c) 1988.)
These theologians are mixing natures with functions. Just because something
is described as having a different function doesn’t necessarily mean that
it has a different nature. Again this is not a kingdom issue, but this is
an important issue from the standpoint of apologetics. By using the same
kind of reasoning in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 to conclude that is man
is three distinct parts, you could apply the same kind of reasoning to Mark
12:30 and conclude that man is comprised of four parts. The problem can
rapidly spread into other areas as well. We must remain rational.
The intellect becomes a block to the spirit, however, when it
fails to grasp the difference between spirit and soul and insists that it
must understand everything, not just its own affairs, but those of the spirit,
too, and even of, the Holy Spirit. "I’m not going to accept anything I can’t
understand or reason out!" In the first part of the book Tony Carter was
having a struggle with his intellect, you remember, because he was insisting
on grasping everything first and foremost with his mind.
In the realm of the spirit, however, the intellect needs to step back and
humbly say, "This is out of my territory. It transcends my ability to understand
and explain." When this happens, there is no conflict, and the intellect
can take its place as the handmaid of the Spirit.
If you see the difference between soul and spirit, you see that as long as
you are operating with the soul, you can expect to understand things with
your head, but when you move into the realm of the spirit, although you are
still not denying reason and don’t have to be irrational, you have moved
into the area above the rational, the super-rational. 80
Because the technique is also not a process of contemplation
or of rational, intellectual thought, no particular background helps or hinders
the pro-cess. In distinguishing TM from techniques of contemplation, Maharishi
points out that contemplation—thinking about some topic, perhaps an elevating
one such as God or love— only utilizes whatever small portion of the mind
is already available to us. It is like swimming on the surface of the ocean
of mind. TM is a vertical process, opening the aware-ness to deeper levels
of the mind. It is like diving to the depths of the ocean. 81
I want you to see the similarity between these two quotes and remember that
ideas have origins. 82 Knowledge can be either rational or irrational,
not both, nor neither. This condition is either/or, there can be no "other."
There can be perfectly rational or completely irrational in a theoretical
sense. In other words, we can modify this either/or condition to denote it’s
degree of rationality or irrationality. We cannot create an "other" without
creating a hazy, esoteric mess. Creating an area called "super-rational"
is an "other" that does just this. This is simply not acceptable and it stinks
of Eastern Mysticism—Big Time!
This is where we need to bring out the extra-biblical tool chest, put our
thinking caps on, and address the question from a philosophical point of
view. If we do not apply reason to these questions, we can rapidly create
an atmosphere for confusion and aberrant teachings. We can create apparent
contradictions that can only be resolved by esoteric means. The teachings
of the Local Church and Maranatha Ministries are two examples of how confused
people can get over these questions. Granted, the examples I quoted were
extreme, and not all trichotomists will be as dogmatic and gnostic, but honestly
believing an unsound doctrine can lead to unsound thought. In addition, to
assign the mind to the lower "fleshly" realm leaves one unable to know if
the intellect can be trusted in evaluating various teachings. One would always
be in danger of using the lower mind to evaluate spiritual truth. If this
is indeed true, I guess all I could then do is light up the incense and start
chanting to be spiritual. Personally, I would rather be free to use all of
my God created faculties to determine what I ought do and believe.
On philosophical grounds, I reject the doctrine of three distinct parts of
man. There can only be one personality per person. Soul and spirit cannot
have distinctly different natures because of the problem that two persons
would then be sharing the same real estate. The difference between soul and
spirit is in what aspect they relate to; a functional distinction. Though
not a sufficient cause, in and of itself, to lead a person or group into
insanity, the doctrine of trichotomous nature opens the door to irrational
thought and esoteric practice. We must keep our heads to remain in the truth.
There are many unanswered questions and we will never be able to answer them
all, at least while we reside in this world. Only God has complete knowledge
and is perfectly rational. Let us not create an esoteric system because we
are uncomfortable with the fact that there are many things we do not know.
We must be careful to not make God’s Realm into something "other" because
we do not perfectly understand.
I suggest we assume by the principle of analogy that we are somewhat like
God; we can think rationally, so God must also. Only then can we stand firm
on what we certainly know, trusting that that which we do not and cannot
know will be revealed when we get there.
If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we
could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with
people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact.
Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about. C.S.
Lewis, Mere Christianity, bk, 4, ch. 2
God be with you,
Mark Jennings
1. 1 Corinthians 13:2
2. Proverbs 27:17
3. If you wish, we could discuss why I think so when we meet.
4. I admired Plato’s ideal of the Philosopher-King and I still do.
5. You probably have not had this education in what it is like to think this
way and to really not want to believe in God. (And you are right, yours is
the better testimony.)
6. My mother and father had their own problems and I was dealing with stuff
they knew nothing about. I have been an "adult" since I was a little boy
but that is not my parents fault.
7. When I think back on it, the man should’ve put up a fight, but he wasn’t
thinking.
8. Why I thought that is another story.
9. I am sorry to say that what happened that evening is indelibly burned
into my psyche. I don’t know if I’ll be able to recover fully. I am
imprisoned by my bias against ‘proving worship.’ I am very self-conscious
of ‘putting on a show.’ I am afraid that I will be perceived by others as
putting on a act. I am intellectually aware of the irony in that last
statement. Yet, in practice, I cannot get past it. I don’t want to be a hypocrite.
Any suggestions? [ I need healing in this area.]
10. Werner Jaeger, Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, trans.
Gilbert Highet (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), xxvii-xxviii
11. I’ve even used the story of Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer as an opportunity
to teach Samantha about relationships.
12. We already know that he is working, and will continue to do so until
God locks him up.
13. I never really fit in anyway.
14. Gene Edward Veith, Good Fantasy & Bad Fantasy, Christian
Research Journal vol.23 #1. P.22
15. The picture of that aforementioned British witch in red robe and on broom
illustrates my point quite well. Ironically, they hide the arrogance and
irrationality which is at the core of their belief very well.
16. A wise man does not use a wrench to tighten a screw--obviously.
17. The fallacious ‘fact-value’ distinction.
18. Christians are easily diverted by what is being taught.
19. The King James Bible is a pretty accurate translation, but it’s just
hard for me to read.
20. I do take issue with the inclusive-language translations however, because
they do not accurately translate purposefully for the sake of being culturally
sensitive.
21. Colossians 2:8
22. 1 Kings 18:21
23. I know that I am preaching to the choir on a lot of these points, so
please bear with me.
24. 1 Corinthians 8:1-3
25. That we basically know precious little!
26. Imagine what kind of problems arise from this attitude between this creature
and his Creator!
27. Praise to Him, there is reason to believe He is that kind of God.
28. This is primarily why I reject Calvinism.
29. I must admit that a universe such as this is logically possible but I
fail to see how the Bible supports this idea.
30. I believe nothing of the sort, but am sometimes accused of inviting men
to sin. (Romans 6:1,2)
31. For what crime was Wycliffe put to death?
32. Please do not take this to mean I believe in "situational ethics." Pragmatic
tests of actions are not proper evaluations of the morality and/or truth
of those actions. This is not what the Bible teaches about ethics.
33. The trichotomous nature of man is one of them. Although it is not a ‘kingdom
issue,’ [you misunderstood me] it is very important to understand why it
is either a "mystical" or a contradictory belief based upon the distinctions
made between soul and spirit and how their fundamental nature[s] are defined.
34. Not to be confused with the denomination.
35. Romans 1:18-20; 2:14
36. Genesis 1:26,27; 2:7
37. Isaiah 1:18
38. Romans 12:2
39. 1 Corinthians 13:12
40. To those without a poet’s heart, what a dreary reality it must be.
41. That is another subject of course.
42. This kind of transcendence was also necessary at Calvary. The object
of the sacrifice (Jesus) had to be not only perfect but also transcendent
in nature or else that sacrifice would not have been able to cover the sins
of people from all times and places. A mere man, even a morally perfect one,
could not have accomplished what Jesus did.
43. Acts 17:11
44. 1 Thessalonians 5:21
45. This is an idea which the first four verses of the Gospel according to
Luke appears to confirm.
46. John 8:24
47. John 14:6
48. It happened, I believe that.
49. That is, truly understanding and living in the Gospel of Grace. I’m not
claiming to be near there yet.
50. 1 Corinthians 12:3
51. And it is not obedience for obedience’s sake that God wants, but He rather
is very concerned as to what reason you are being obedient.
52. Watchman Nee, The Release of the Spirit (Cloverdale. IN:
Sure Foundation/Ministry of Life. 1965) , pp. 17, 24-25.
53. Watchman Nee, op. cit., pp. 24-25
54. What in the world does he mean by that?
55. Witness Lee. The Knowledge of Life (Anaheim, CA: The Stream
Publishers. 1973). p. 33.
56. Witness Lee. Pray-Reading the Word (Anaheim, CA: The Stream
Publishers). pp. 8-10.
57. How they could ever live up to this in practice is beyond me. This is
such an unworkable contradiction!
58. Proverbs 14:15; Romans 12:2
59. But, I’m glad you are not because that would be a very difficult situation
for both of us.
60. Bob and Rose Weiner, Bible Studies for a Firm Foundation,
p. 35. (Maranatha Ministries)
61. John 4:24
62. Malachi 3:6
63. Matthew 9:24; 2 Corinthians 5:1-8
64. The deterministic overtones of this are devastating to the concept of
the freedom of man as well. It also makes it a possibility that man is actually
impersonal. Maybe the gurus are right, but how would they know?
65. James 2:26
66. Idolatry is another thing we could call it.
67. We are distinct individuals. We cannot merge personalities with God.
That’s pantheistic. Nor is the source of our personality material in nature.
68. 1 Corinthians 15:19-54
69. In this sense, animals are ‘personal’ as well since they are self-aware
and intelligent. But they are not persons. My cat is aware of me and that
I will put water in her dish if she sits there by the dish and looks at me.
I am aware of the cat. We are both distinct and aware of each other. Yet
the cat’s soul is not of the same quality as mine. Only man’s spirit/soul
is formed in the image of God, and as such are the only soul/spirit who can
be God-aware.
70. 1 Corinthians 13:12
71. Wouldn’t this be God attacking His own image then?
72. 2 Corinthians 5:1
73. So, I guess they’ll just have to accused him as succumbing to pagan philosophy
as well.
74. I’ve already said why I think this is unacceptable.
75. John 5:29; Acts 24:15; Revelation 6:11; 1 Corinthians 15:50-54
76. Daniel 12:2-3; Mark 5:39; John 11:11; Acts 7:60; 1 Corinthians 15:6;
1 Thessalonians 4:13
77. John 12:27; 13:21
78. Isaiah 26:9
79. Ecclesiastes 12:7; Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59
80. Dennis & Rita Bennett, Trinity of Man. (New Jersey:
Logos International, 1979) pp. 123,124
81. Jack Forem, Transcendental Meditation: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
and the Science of Creative Intelligence. (NewYork: Dutton, 1974) p.
39
82. Solomon said there was nothing new under the sun and he was right