The Doctor

THE DOCTOR

Once upon a time there was a Doctor. His method of treatment was always the same.
Let me tell you about it.

Whenever a person came to him saying "Doctor, Doctor, I don't feel well" he would
briefly examine his patient and say, "Do you want the truth or do you want to feel better?"

Most of those who sought him would say "I want to feel better", so he would say "You
see that it is almost nothing, you are certainly as ill as you are aware of but you are
only aware of a minor stomach upset. Go in peace and feel better".

And they would believe him and go away. Believing him made them feel better for a
time. But of course the Doctor was only telling them what they wanted to hear. He
was not lying of course, but he knew when the truth was not wanted.

Of course before long they would start to feel ill again, and so came back to Him.
He would ask the same question "Do you want the truth or do you want to feel
better?"

The performance would continue. If they only wanted to feel well but not hear the
truth he would send them away, the pain would return after a brief period, but each
time they returned the pain was greater.

But some were wiser. When he asked "do you want the truth or do you want to feel
better?

"The truth" they would say "I want the truth".

So the doctor rejoiced in their insight and would say "you are gravely ill. A tumour is
eating your heart and will kill you before long"

At this some got angry, accused him of quackery and stormed out. They died, needless
to say. But the rest said "Oh, Doctor, Doctor, what shall I do about it?

And the doctor would ask his first question again "Do you want the truth or do you
want to feel better?"

If they answered the second of the two, which was by far the most common answer he would say "Very well, you know you are sick but are wise in the ways of cures. So go then, and seek out a healthy person, then imitate his way of living. See what it is to be healthy and then work hard at it, but beware it will be hard work, a struggle even"

This was of course the answer they expected to hear and indeed wanted to hear, for in
their eyes it made them model patients. But of course they were sick. No one is cured of illness by mimicking  health, to these people I shall return.

But some of them who asked the question "what shall I do about my illness?", were clever, at least in their own eyes. They said "Clearly you are a wise man, for the truth is what matters, not feelings, so clearly you do not want us to feel better, neither is it relevant. Give me the truth,  then,  but know that I accept that feeling better is irrelevant"

Now the Doctor was indeed  a wise man, but this kind of wisdom insulted his intelligence and his character. He sighed inwardly.

"Very well, you heard what I said to those who merely wanted to feel better. Go see a healthy man and imitate his condition. Be aware that it is hard work, a
struggle."
"But doctor, they said "this is the advice you gave to those who did not want the
truth!"
To which the doctor simply said "who is the doctor here? I tell you what you yourself
believe is true, so go and do it."
They agreed and left.
So both of these types of people went out and mimicked health, failed
miserably and returned, doubled up in agony. They were worse than ever.
"Doctor, Doctor", they cried, in pain, what shall I do?"
"Do you want the truth or do you want to feel better"
Some said "I need truth, you know this."
"Very well, the Doctor said, "continue your therapy. If you think about it you will
realize that you are not consistent in your efforts. But know that if your illness gets
worse you must make haste to return to me, for if it does worsen it will become
manifestly terminal and quickly"
Struck with sorrow, but agreeing with him, they left. They thought they might still
recover, which error they would not acknowledge, and which error he therefore could
not correct.
So they left until the next time, if they were still alive even attempt to return to him,
for they were starting to die off now that their illness reached this stage.
But some were inclined, at last,  to heed their pain.
"Have mercy on me, Doctor, I am in agony here. I NEED BOTH," they cried in
answer to his now familiar question.
The Doctor smiled.
"GOOD" he said.
My next question is this "Is the question remaining 'what should the patient do about
the illness?' or is it 'what the Doctor should do?'?"
To those who answered "the patient" His answer was to send them out
to yet another round of therapy which had already failed, unless in agony they
sincerely changed their mind on the spot. The doctor was wise enough to see who
were sincere in their change of mind however, and would not be fooled by those who
pretended to think that the cure depended on the doctor when they did not think so.
To those who said and knew that the cure depended on the doctor he said, "Come into
my surgery, lay down, be as comfortable as you can without striving to be so, and I
will remove some of the tumour today. You are to come back to me on a daily basis
for more surgery, but you are not to aggravate your condition by seeking to imitate the
healthy."
Most were so tormented that they obeyed him, they now had no other viable choice.
But wisest of all His patiences were those few who immedately gave the right answers
to every one of his questions the
first time he had asked. Do you recall the questions? First they said they wanted the
truth. Then they said that they realized that they needed both the truth and to feel
better as the pain was symptomatic, to ignore it was folly, and then they said correctly
that the correct question was what the doctor should do about the condition, and not
what the patient himself should do.
These wisest ones were healed quickest of all and did not waste years, sometimes,
mimicking health in increasing agony.
But all the patients of the doctor were healed over a period of time.
Except for some few that decided that they were healed completely after a first
treatment, or the first week, and so walked out, to once more mimic health and ignore
their symptoms. If they lived and had learned enough from their continuing folly to
return to the Doctor they were received by Him without recrimination
I was one of his patients, my treatment continues, my pain diminishes
daily.
One day I asked the doctor, "Why were you so harsh in sending away people who did
not answer question properly."
He sighed "I hated to do so, but their tumours of heart also effected
their, or should I say your, brains. As long as you thought as you did you could not
receive any healing from me, this was the nature of the illness itself. I had no other
choice but to send them and you away until their suffering got too much for you to
bear".

He smiled "You remember how obstinate you were, how many times you demanded
truth not peace, or peace not truth, and how many times you cut off treatment
prematurely"
Indeed I did. I who thought I was a model patient was by this conceit proven a very bad
one.
And still he received me without recrimination when I crawled back to his rooms,
even though I came extremely close to agonising death.
I had another question.
"Why did you not remove the tumour all at once?"
"It was so far metastatized that it was everywhere in your system, indeed you all who
suffer this condition were born this way. There was no way to remove it all at once
without killing you. That was" he smiled again, "clearly not my intent."

I realized the wisdom in these answers, but one more question was bothering me.
"Doctor, my dear friend, why did you offer the alternative of truth OR feeling better"
His answer surprised me then and it does still.
"Ahh, you still missed the point. I did not make a false alternative like this. They did,
it was one of the symptoms of the tumour itself. They who wanted comfort alone did
not care as to truth, those who thought they wanted truth were too proud to
acknowldge their symptoms. Indeed my very asking of the question was part of my
making a diagnosis. Come into my surgery and lie down, I must operate again today.
Your question shows you are not yet cured."
This I did gladly, for it was painless.
And free.

 

Grace, real and false

This  is in response to the video by Bishop N T Wright,

 

 

 

 

 

 

where he argues that with God's help we must strive to develop good habits. I refute this notion entirely.

 

 

Christian character does indeed matter, for without it we will be lost, because  once saved always saved is heresy as is easy believism, which reduces faith to mere intellectual assent.

But the means used to pursue Christian character are crucially important.

To strive is futile, given the inner nature of sin. When one has sinned the moment the impulse has crossed your mind (for out of the heart of man comes evil thoughts) it is indeed too late. That urge is not temptation to be avoided, it is sin, and striving against it is not to overcome sin but to seek to hide it. Not only that but as it says in Romans 7 the effort will stir up the sin and make it worse

Willpower against sin is the way that seems right to man but which leads to death, for the very dynamic of this kind of striving is to set the person against himself, as it is written. "a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand"

Grace is not some kind of abstract magical power that aids our efforts, for our efforts are hypocrisy given the very  nature of them, being  brute force against what we really think and want.  For when God sees the heart what he looks at is what we strive against, not the fact that we are striving

The evil impulse is not overcome by burying it, and God will never aid the attempt. If He actually did so then there would not be multitudes of Christians living in defeat and despair or others in smug self righteousness in thinking their efforts actually work

Instead God will do something quite different

In one on one counsel (he is "wonderful counsellor")  he will persuade us in personal relationship, as a loving father might persuade a recalcitrant child to cone out with the family on the planned outing. This happened to me when I was a child, not from God but from my own father. It is the most perfect metaphor of grace I have ever seen

But such requires a real and intimate personal relationship with the Holy Spirit.

Without this there is nothing but Law which only produces death.  See Romans and Galatians

I am no easy believist. I am still a legalist, recovering from it but recognizing it here

I learned this the hard way, through applying what Ii was taught and failing  in agony, for my insight into the  inner nature of sin was deeper than most but my response to sin was typical

To make grace what Wright does, so following the standard church consensus, is to deny grace.

If he is not in despair he never knew the inner nature of sin

It all flows from that, from conviction of sin which itself also requires relationship with the Spirit of Christ.

And this legalists of all stripes have forsaken, or never knew

Ideas and me

A few days ago when I was walking and talking with the Lord the Spirit, as I do, I found my self repenting of making ideas more important than people. That this is s a sin I am convinced. It also chimes in with the growing conviction of mine that ideas are not the driving force of history, something which, as an intellectual, I fell for.

My point in speaking thus is this: losing interest in ideas for their own sake I find myself  less motivated to be a teacher of the nations.

I have no idea how this will affect my posting here.

It may be a necessary adjustment as part of my perceived calling to be a teacher  or it may be proof that the sense of calling was presumption, which latter would suit me fine.

So I may continue posting, or cease entirely, or perhaps do even more after a period.

We shall see

Comments again

Having been informed that one friend of mine tried posting a comment which did not even get to my inbox whereby I never even knew that one had been made I have removed all moderation of comments and posted a comment of my own.

So I must appeal to you all to try posting  a comment if indeed any of you think my work worthy of it

Some Observations about Worship

This is a post of mine on a website where the endless quarrel about old hymns versus contemporary choruses has recently been aired .

AS follows:

Genuine worship depends on one's own relationship with Christ. Making laws about certain styles of music will not address the issue for this is one of the heart.

We cannot conjure up "authenticity" by act of will precisely because this is a matter of the heart

Idolatry is a passion for anything at all that comes before our love of God, and if we do not love our neighbour and brethren, as shown in our spontaneous reactions ( forced works do not count as they are hypocrisy) then we do not love God (see I John) so any passion we have will by default be idolatrous .

If this is the true biblical context for the nature of idolatry ( and improper worship is idolatry) then all our efforts are yet again superficial and skirt the issue.

If we won't seek the Lord the Spirit that we be convicted of our sin and so saved from it through the cleansing that follows honest confession (again see I John) then we may as well continue as we are, give up concern for the issue, and simply give motivational seminars and concerts, which is what church is without the Holy Spirit, and be done with it l

"Hell, No!"

I am come to the conclusion that every issue in Christianity is bound by paradox. Indeed I see that paradox is God's calling card.

Some are irreconcilable to us in our present state of being: chiefly these are  the Trinity, and  the dual nature of the God Man Jesus Christ. We take these on faith for there is no alternative.

Some refuse this, and seek to reconcile the paradox, and this by denying it. Thus we get the Arians who deny the Trinity outright, or the Oneness Pentecostals, also anti trinitarians,  who make the Son everything and deny that the Father is a somehow a separate Being to whom He prayed, or  we get tritheists, though these are usually anti christians who claim tritheism as a reason for rejecting the faith altogether. Or, as regards the nature of the Son we get Nestorians versus Monophysites or the Docetists versus those who, in a crude form of  Arianism made the Son only a human hero. In every case the resolution of the paradox, in denying it, is heresy. It is better not to consider the issue than to go to heresy, but this modern man often refuses to do

The paradoxes of law and grace, those that affect christian living directly I take to be resolvable by understanding the inward nature of sin; in this and in the one other case I am considering this day in this piece of work the resolution is plainly spelled out in Scripture but it is so offensive to self righteous modern human nature that it is denied outright.

I mean the paradox of a loving God who sends sinners to eternal suffering in hell.

It is not my intention here  to justify this idea beyond the plain biblical statement of resolution herein, namely the cross of Christ. I do intend to demonstrate that it is in fact what Scripture says, and that those who twist scrpture to justify their own contention that this is not so are indulging in dishonest scholarship. Therefore I am not so much resolving the paradox  as I am seeking to establish that it is real and must be faced.

I am aware of two strands of thought, two arguments  used to deny the reality of eternal conscious torment in hell that are more substantial than the purely emotive cry that such is so monstrous that a loving God would not do such a thing. This last crie de coeur I will address  at the end of this piece.

Insofar as I have followed the writings of those who preach thus, I see them in the work of Rob Bell's "Love Wins"  and in the pdf download "Hell Know" by Dirk Waren

One strand claims that the torment is not forever and ever. and justified appeal to the Greek term αιώνας   των  αιωνων. I would demonstrate by simple exposition of other uses of this Greek phrase translated "
forever and ever"  that time of endless duration is indeed what it means. This is as far as I can see Rob Bell's line

The other claims that "death" and "destruction" mean what we as moderns take them to mean, not what the Biblical context reveals them to be and then the author proceeds to interpret  every relevant passage in scripture, and he is nothing if not dogged for Mr Waren does indeed list them all, in the light of this misconception. Therefore I would demonstrate that  the misconception of wrenching words out of their biblical context, interpreting them in a modern sense, then applying the twisted rendering to the passages from which the words were taken  is indeed the only warranted explanation for what he has done.

To work, then.

Both authors concede that there is a punishment of sinners in hell. One attacks the biblical truth as to the duration of said punishment  and the other deals to the nature  of it.

These two points I take to be salient, the veritable core of the issue, and therefore I do not see the need to refute  in detail everything they have written. Brevity is the soul of wit and it is something I am learning only of late.

Rob Bell denies he is a universalist. Yet to him the ultimate destination of humans is heaven. I am hard pressed to see how this differs from Univeralism in ultimate intent, but as he knows full well that the very term is inflammatory to orthodox  Christians he will studiously avoid it.

So to him hell is a punishment of limited duration and after men have done their time they will get out and he welcomed to heaven.

The core of his argument here is the meaning of the Greek term  αιώνας   των  αιωνων

That they should be tormented day and night forever and ever, (revelation 22:10)  and here the phrase transliterated as aionas ton aionon is used, is anathema to Bell.

He maintains that the word aionas means age, not an eternity, and in this, strictly speaking, he is quite right. But he has disregarded even the immediate context of the word. Sometimes the meaning is held not in the word but the phrase. Naive literalists with no regard for context and the idiomatic structure of language will usually miss this out , but this is the case in every language.

For instance in the New Zealand idiom "to spit the dummy"   the meaning of the verb to spit is plain, but a dummy is anything from that which sits on a ventriloquist's knee to  the pacifer a baby used to suck on, and it is this which is referred to in this colourful colloquialism, for the phrase means to lose one's temper in the sense of an angry baby spitting out the dummy in infantile fury.  The meaning can not be found in the individual words Indeed the meaning can only be found in the phrase as a whole and even then in the social context from whence the idiom arose

Likewise to walk the plank is one thing but to walk the dog is quite another: the meaning is in the entire phrase.

This can be confirmed by looking at the others usages of the term forever and ever, and more specifically the Greek phrase aionas ton aionon -   αιωνας των  αιωνων .

This is where electronic concordances show themselves  immensely useful. Indeed they remove any excuse for poor scholarship being so readily available


(tbc)

God Hates Persons?

We are informed that God hates sinners.

This can be seen on any number of you tube posts.

What troubles me is the self righteousness of the assertion that if God does not hate those who claim this  then they are not sinners. This is as if the Apostle John never spoke when he said "He who claims to have no sin is a liar and the truth is not in him."

We are all sinners. If God hates sinners then God hates every one of us and we are all damned. For surely he who hates wishes the destruction or suffering of those he hates. Calvinists may assert this of God , but it is written  that God is not willing that any should perish.

But even if this is not so, and I am hard pressed to think how it could not be so, but for the sake of argument let us grant that God is willing that some perish, are we to believe that when the Holy Spirit reaches out to sinners to save any sinner that this is an act of hatred, for it must be if God hates sinners?

God hated sinners so much that He reached out to the Apostle Paul on the Damascus Road that dark night, and to me also in my own smaller Damascus Road conversion  just over 36 years ago?.

Hatred?

Really?

And what of when scripture says the opposite? For it says "God  commends His love to us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

While we were sinners He did the ultimate act of love and died for us.  He would not die for a good man, as Paul said, but for a sinner. Yet He hates sinners, these fanatical preachers would have us believe.

God hates sin, but the classic distinction between a God who hates sin and loves sinners has been lost by naive literalists who hunt through Scripture for verses to confirm their prejudices and then wrench these passage out of context.  For context it is that often determines meaning: sometime immediate context, sometime however the context is broad.

Where did this teaching come from then if it is so false?

Among other verses pressed into service for this error is "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated"

Clearly, then, God hates persons.

And if God hates persons then surely we who are born again are to imitate God and hate persons also. This is the most chilling implication of such an idea: that religious fanatics will run riot  in hatred and call it loving God. It is as if Jesus never said of those who were murdering Him on the cross, "forgive them for they know not what they are doing."

But if we are all protestants here then we know that some bible verses are not to be taken literally. After all we all flatly deny that "this is my body" means that we are eating Christ in the communion service. The passage is a metaphor for intimate relational communion, and to take it in such a naively  literalistic fashion is to miss the point of it completely. Indeed the forlorn queues of Church members lining up like cars as a gas station to take their weekly shot of bread and wine demonstrate that all intimacy and relationship is shown to be lost by this doctrine.

Are there any passages where context shows that  hate is used metaphorically, or as hyperbole?

Yes indeed there is  "unless any man hate his father, mother even his own life he cannot be my disciple," Jesus said. But are we therefore to break the 5th commandment on principle and literally hate our parents? Of course not. The meaning here is that our love for Him should be so deep that our love for any other, which is indeed commanded of us, is to be almost as hate by comparison. This is what hyperbole is, a literary exaggeration to make a point.

And Hebrew is full of such devices.

Failing to notice these is a species of word twisting which likely, to try and put the best construction on  their motivation for such things,  emerged from  a pious but misguided determination to avoid word twisting by ignoring such things as the style and mechanical workings, so to speak, of a language.

So what in fact does "Jacob I loved" actually mean? Does a non literal interpretation do violence to the meaning of the thing?

I take it that "Esau I hated is a hyperbole for "Esau I strongly disapproved of."

There is no violence to meaning here, though naive literalists may demur, as the change is subtle but of immensely significant import, because if God does hate persons then the Scripture "he is no respecter of persons" is false. This would mean that God plays favourites, is not impartial and so is no just Judge.

So does God only love those who He knows will respond to Him? Well, firstly no Calvinist can take this line for they hold that Grace is irresistible- if God speaks to anyone then they will respond. End of story. Incidentally I mention Calvinism as to my knowledge the notion that God hates persons is a Calvinist doctrine, but I will take correction on this if proffered.

So God loves those who respond to Him?  Then he clearly only sent His son for the elect, flatly and blasphemously denying the meaning of the most famous verse in Scripture John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that He sent his only begotten Son that whosoever believe should not perish but have eternal life."

Some may cite John 14:21 -23 which implies when lifted out of context that God only loves those who obey Him and love Him first. But this cannot be the case, for elsewhere it says "we love as He first loved us."  Indeed, if we are carnal, have minds set on the flesh and so cannot submit, it can be no other way. We will love because He first loved us and only because He first loved us, or we remain dead in sin and carnality. But  then as we love him as a result of this He will manifest his love even further, a kind of virtuous cycle moving us from glory to glory as we are transformed by the renewing of our minds through one on one tutelage in personal relationship with the Holy Spirit as his disciples.

So, as God is love, He must necessarily love all without favouritism. or His love is only human and so is not agape.

Therefore God does not hate persons, for all the Hebraic metaphor which states when misread that He does.

And what is the significance of this?

If they preach a God who hates person they themselves are of little faith. They may likely never have  tasted the goodness of the Lord for themselves so are in no position to preach when they do not believe.

Moreover if some people decide that such as God as they preach is a monster, as indeed He would be if this doctrine were true, and so reject Him, who will God work his  vengeance on but the preacher who encouraged this rejection  of the gospel?  This is why it is written "let not many become teachers lest we incur as stricter judgement."

That God is love is scriptural. It is indeed the primary core of Who and What God the Almighty, the Holy and Terrible, is. That this term must be explained in order to expose the abuse which is easy believism and other such indulgent presumptions  and to place it properly with His wrath  where the carnal mind will choose one or  the other to their destruction, this is of course, is axiomatic.

But such abuses are not countered by embracing the opposite error, namely that God hates persons.

Let the Paul Washers and the David  Platts of the church repent of preaching this that they cease encouraging the rejection of the faith by others, and that they also may rediscover the goodness of the Lord  for themselves. For they  have forsaken this if they ever knew it in the first place, and in their denial, based on their own hatred and rage they  preach a God much like themselves, namely of God who hates persons