SUNDAY PSALMS PART 40 OF 48 - PSALM 131

Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Park (some of these birds are native to the area, like the ducks.

 

1   LORD, my heart is not haughty,
    Nor my eyes lofty.
    Neither do I concern myself with great matters,
    Nor with things too profound for me.
2  Surely I have calmed and quieted my soul,
    Like a weaned child with his mother;
    Like a weaned child is my soul within me.
3  O Israel, hope in the LORD
    From this time forth and forever.
        Psalm 131:1-3, New King James Version
 

How often are we guilty of violating verse one of this short and sweet Psalm? No, I'm not saying that your heart's haughty or your eyes lofty. But do we concern ourselves with great matters, with things too profound for us?

Christians have unfortunately done this for centuries. The debate of the relationship of free will and God's Sovereignty/Election has been going on a millennium and a half, and yet I hear people who think they have the final answer on it and why they're right. The same is true in dealing with eschatology (end-times, Bible prophecy) or the gifts of the Spirit.

When I was selecting a photo for this blog, I thought the picture of ducks and swans in the pond (or is it a lake) at the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden would picture the calmness in verse 2. Of course, is it completely quiet? That pond isn't far from roaring lions and trumpeting elephants, and it's right by Gibbon Island - Gibbons are known for "singing," but it isn't either quiet or melodious. But as Christians, we can be clam and restful trusting in Christ in spite of all the clamor around us. 

HERESY HUNTING; A HOLY HABIT OR A HURTFUL, HATEFUL, HAUGHTY HOBBY? PART 2 OF 2

Crossroads Baptist Church, Indianapolis

Let me start right off by saying we are commanded to contend for the faith against the ungodly who creep in with heresies and the like (Jude 3-4). When we see heresy, we need to confront it. Is that clear?

As I mentioned in the previous blog, though, heretics aren't quiet about their errant beliefs. They want to convert the unsuspecting to their view. But their focus is on those who have some belief in Christ; they're not trying to convince the ungodly. In other words, you don't have to look for heresy: the heretics are looking for you! 

I'll be honest - I don't really enjoy confronting false teachers or others who sow discord among fellow believers. A debate where respect is mutual and where both participants know how to listen as well as speak is a different story. But heretics, as I mentioned in the previous installment, want to weary you and expect you to do 100% of the listening and cave in, while they have no willingness to do either. Add to that - I'd rather encourage those who are presenting the truth of the Biblical Gospel (be it preaching, music, writing, art, etc.) than deal with those who are promoting error. Definitely more joy in one than the other.

However, there are those who consider themselves to be heretic hunters. They not only actively seek out error, they actually seem to delight in it. 

In the title, I asked the question. Is heresy hunting a holy habit that protects believers from false teaching? Or is it a haughty, hateful, harmful hobby that offends the body of Christ and turns away potential believers?

The reality is that what one person considers heresy another considers truth. One says sound doctrine teaches you can lose your salvation, while another says sound doctrine teaches you cannot lose your salvation. I read one blog saying free will is a false gospel and another saying Calvinists can't be saved. Both sides on these and other issues teach that the Bible is a believer's authority, that Jesus the Son of God and God the Son came and died for our sins, that we're saved by grace alone through faith alone, but for some, it's not enough that we agree on what most Christians consider the essentials. 

To me, heresy hunters are not unlike the Pharisees in Jesus' time. They resemble the church in Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7), who cannot bear the wicked and who tested the false apostles but have left their love for God and especially for one another. 

Yes, there is plenty of apostacy and heresy in Christiandom, and some popular Christian leaders are promoting what Peter calls a damnable heresy (2 Peter 2:1), and we need to warn others. But often, I see attacks on well-known Christians which seem more like jealousy and the kind of judging Jesus was commanding His followers to not do.

As I imply in the title, I see pride and haughtiness in a lot of heresy hunting. I also see hatred of the popular and of those who disagree on any topic the heresy hunter wants to make a line in the sand. The result is discord among brethren, with harm done to fellow Christians, and a joyless, peaceless. loveless, patience-less environment.

Believers, I believe our job is to encourage one another, not tear each other down. We should rejoice not in putting the errant in their place but in seeing the lost saved. Like Paul, we should rejoice whenever someone preaches Christ, not finding a reason to oppose one's brothers and sisters in Christ.

 
 

Are Our Foes The Only Ones Who Need To Learn To Fight Fair?

 The Night Watch by Rembrandt

 I recall reading a review on the book Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment by Gregg Allison. The reviewer, a Catholic, gave it a one star review, stating that if you really want to know Catholic teaching, you need to go to a Catholic (either not realizing or ignoring Allison based his book on the Roman Catholic Cathechism). He then added that if you want to understand Protestantism ... you need to go to a Catholic.

Allow me to give a story from last week, taken from a different perspective. I saw a cartoon by a political cartoonist quoting Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York (popularly known as AOC) saying, "If we want to reduce violent crime, if we want to reduce the number of people in our jails, the answer is to stop building more of them."

Yes, that quote would make most people scratch their heads. But one person pointed out that was part of what she said. The full quote was: "If we want to reduce violent crime, if we want to reduce the number of people in our jails, the answer is to stop building more of them. The answer is to make sure that we actually build more hospitals, we pay organizers, we get people mental health care and overall health care, employment, etc. It’s to support communities, not throw them away."

Do I agree with the congresswoman's rationale and solution? No. I find it simplistic, overlooking the sinfulness of man. But when I read the complete thought, I wasn't scratching my head anymore. While I differ with her ideas, I get where she's coming from and thus am able to have more respect for her than from that brief quote. 

On theological lines, it dawned on me that my impression of Arminianism was colored by Calvinism. In some cases, it was where people considered themselves a balanced medium between "Strong Calvinism" and Arminianism, often branding themselves as "Moderate Calvinists." Then there was R. C. Sproul's answer to the question of whether Arminians were Christians: "Just barely." While Sproul allowed that most Arminians were Christians, others denounce "free will" as a false gospel, and one Calvinist making it clear that those who believe an Arminian may be saved is in error.

So what did I do? I was already influenced by the book Four Views on Eternal Security which included two Calvinist views and two Arminian views and made realize that the debate is not as linear as I thought. Then I read Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Roger E. Olsen and Jacob Arminius: The Man From Oudewater by Rustin E. Brian. Now, I know more about Arminianism and made me see the rumors of that theology's unorthodoxy are greatly exagerated.

When it comes to discussions on a view I disagree with, I like the view presented by author Andrew David Naselli. He said he likes to present his opponents arguments in a way that his opponent would say he gave an accurate representation. After all, those who disagree do so because they have reasons for their view. True, those reasons could be flawed, but then they think the same of my viewpoint. Besides, I'm not inerrant - I can be wrong just as much as they can.

Have you heard someone who does a good job of being fair to his opposition? Are there times when you make assumptions of somebody else's viewpoint and learned their opinion is not as off base as you thought it was?