Brief comments on Heresies (sermon)

Facebook

Heresies August 11 2002

Another fine sermon from Pastor Michael Phillips from Grace Baptist Church...

Cited

It (the theology of the Judaizers, my add) would have changed and finally destroyed the Gospel. In Galatians 1 Paul says adding the Mosaic Law to the Gospel turns the Gospel into something else. In his commentary on Galatians, Scot McKnight explains:

"It is like telling a new convert that he or she must also become a Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc., before the conversion process is truly complete and acceptable to God. When this sort of thing takes place, the message itself is changed; it is no longer `Surrender to Christ', but `Join our group'. The focus of salvation shifts from Christ to Movement".

Agreeing with Pastor Phillips and McKnight, in my words, when Christians, leaders, pastors, and churches elevate, based on New Testament (biblical) theology, and sometimes not so biblical theology, secondary doctrines to actual or virtual primary doctrines, there is a serious danger in some cases at least, that theologically salvation becomes dependent on those elevated secondary doctrines being accepted at the expense of core Gospel doctrines.

For example, a church states as core belief and dogma:

We believe in the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ for salvation from sin and death; yet one must follow the dogmas and practices of our church (alone, or perhaps a few like churches) to be saved.

Following these dogmas and practices becomes the rule by which someone is a 'true Christian' or not, according to these movements.

By embracing theology that elevates works righteousness above the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ to the chosen/elect that believe, alone (1-2 Ephesians) through regeneration (Titus 3), these churches and movements, therefore, risk cancelling the Gospel. As in Matthew 7 and the Lord, Lord, warning from Jesus Christ, for those with a false belief.

COAD, F. ROY (1986) ‘Galatians’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

The Last Days (sermon)

British Columbia: travelbc.ca

November 30, 2003

Sermon from Michael Phillips on Eschatology and the Last Days

Cited

The Church has always affirmed five things about the Last Days: (1) Jesus Christ will come again, (2) He will raise the dead on that day, (3) pass judgment on every man, (4) bring the saved to heaven, and (5) consign the lost to hell.  

To my way of thinking these are non-negotiables. If a man tells me "The resurrection is past", I say he's a heretic, like Hymaneus and Philetus in the Bible. If he says "The Lord is not coming again", I call him as a scoffer as Peter did in his Second Epistle. One who denies hell or makes it less than eternal flies in the face of Jesus Christ who taught the doctrine more often and in more detail than any other Man.

Theologically, the lake of fire (Revelation 20-21) serves as everlasting punishment and yet still the second death. I do reason there are biblical Christians that hold to annihilationism, but in contrast, I hold to traditional, orthodox, theology here.

Archived

Annihilation August 2008 Satire Und Theology

Annihilation July 2009 Dr Russell Norman Murray

Cited

The Last Days or the Last Time or the Last Hour began with the coming of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This earthshaking events ended the Old Order and brought in the New Age. 

If the Last Time began 2,000 years ago, it means-in a certain way-the End Time speculators like Hal Lindsey, Harold Camping, and David Koresh, are right. They are seeing the signs of the times in the events of today. But, ultimately, they're wrong because people in 1066, 1492, and 1776 were also seeing them-and it's possible that Christians will be seeing them in the year of 2525!

I have noted on Satire Und Theology, previously (edited for today's article):

Few in prophecy want to have lived in the middle of history: Boring

Few involved state or write, (paraphrased) 'Well this could be a thousand years from now for all we know.' It is as if few want to have lived in the middle of history. That is boring. (Supposedly).

Credit to Pastor Phillips for taking a more biblically, reasonable view and actually publicly embracing it as well.

Perhaps with these last days speculators, it is at times being over-zealous? Perhaps, in some cases, 'the boring' does not sell as many ministry products?

1 John 2: 18 New American Standard Bible

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.

Fascinating! The last hour was in the New Testament era!

Cited

The Last Days do no go on forever. They terminate with the Second Coming of Christ, the Resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment, and the Eternal Age-of happiness or misery. 

I needn't spend a lot of time here, but Paul calls it the sounding of the Last Trumpet (cf. I Corinthians 15).

Encountering page 134. This text provides a view.

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Incense

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

To be transparent, since I was a child I have always strongly disliked the smell of incense, but this is my subjective, reaction to it.

I would much prefer that the Reverend (leaders) open a church window wide-open and that the triune God is honoured via the smell of fresh air.

In regards to the entry in The Orthodox Study Bible, I can theologically support the use of incense to honour the Lord; but again personally I strongly dislike the smell of incense.

Philosophically and theologically, it can be observed here that my personal, subjective, strong dislike of the smell of incense, can reasonably co-exist in the universal Christian Church, and in the Orthodox Church, as example here, using incense for honoring God. Honour connected to worship within this Orthodoxy entry, noting scripture.

Even so, I view incense as optional and that it has existed in scripture, to a degree, for cultural reasons.

My view implies that within the universal Church, subjective preferences should be thoughtfully separated from objective theology and doctrines which are primary. As well, as being separated from the objective secondary theology and doctrines which in part, creates denominational distinctives.

Page 801

Neo-orthodoxy (sermon)

Neo-Orthodoxy November 2003

Neo-Orthodoxy - by Michael Phillips Nov 16, 2003

Cited

Heresy is a major false teaching in the Church. I say it's a major false teaching because no one is perfect and the soundest men make mistakes. I say it's in the Church because many false doctrines are not in the Church-atheism, for example, or Islam. 

Cited

The first major heresy was Judaism or reading the Old Testament as though Christ had not come. It is exposed and demolished in the New Testament, especially in Romans, Galatians, Colossians, and Hebrews.

A theologically and philosophical useful background presentation of heresy. However, as Judaism existed before Christianity, I would not consider Judaism a Christian heresy.

Cited

Neo-Orthodoxy did not just drop out of the sky. Like other human philosophies, it developed over time against a particular background. The context it came out of was Liberalism or Modernism.

Cited

The three leading men of Neo-Orthodoxy were all German (or Swiss-German). All were born in the 1880's and lived long and fruitful lives. The most important of them is the pastor, Karl Barth , Emil Bruner a theologian, and the New Testament scholar, Rudolf Bultmann. The men did not see eye-to-eye on everything, of course, but it is fair to group them together under the name Neo-Orthodox.

Cited

What do the leading men of Neo-Orthodoxy teach? What are the distinctives of their system compared to others? This is not easy to answer because to a man they depend very much on what they call paradox and what I'd call contradiction.

Cited

However, let me single out a few of their distinctive articles of faith and state them as clearly as I can (though, remember, they're always contradicting themselves). 

God is Wholly Other. This term, Wholly Other, is central to their theology. It was forged as a weapon against the Liberals who equated God with nature and the human spirit. Barth and the other said, Nein! God is not us; He is not the babbling brook or the starry heavens the poets are so fond of! This is right-He isn't the creation; He is Other. But they don't leave it there. They say He is Wholly Other, which means God is absent from the creation. This means "The heavens do not declare the glory of God and the firmament does not show His handiwork.What can be known of God are not clearly seen by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.He left Himself without witness." This fundamental mistake is going to create all the others that follow.

I reason that God is infinite and eternal. God is separate from his material creation, as transcendent, but also works within finity, time, matter and energy (the ability to do work) as immanent.

The Bible is not God's Word but is a witness to the Word. What is the Bible? To Barth's way of thinking, it is a creation of man-a fine and noble creation, to be sure, but that's all-a creature. Now, is God connected to the creation in any way? No. Therefore, the Bible cannot be the Word of God. If it's not the Word of God, what is it? It is man's attempt to describe his encounter with God. God came to the writers of the Bible in an awesome and spiritual way and they tried to put their feelings about Him into words. That's the Bible-a witness to the Word-and, therefore, "true" in a vague, fuzzy sense, but not infallible, inerrant, or authoritative. 

And connected...

The Gospel events are true, but they are not factual. Was our Lord born of a virgin? Did He live a sinless life? Did He perform miracles? Did He preach the Sermon on the Mount? Did He die on the cross? Did He rise from the dead? All Christian affirm these things. The Neo-Orthodox do too, but then they explain that the events did not happen in history, but in what they call Sacred History. In other words, they occurred in the Faith of the Church, in the hearts of the faithful, and so on, but they didn't occur in and around Jerusalem about 2,000 years ago-and even if they did, it doesn't matter one way or the other! You can see how this is connected to the wholly otherness of God. If God is totally separated from the world of time and space, then His Son did not-really-die on the cross and rise the next Sunday morning. 

The Scripture is instead, divinely inspired, human written, documented, religious history.

All men are saved. Finally, the Neo-Orthodox affirm a universal salvation.

My PhD work dealt with the soul-making theodicy and universalism of the late John Hick:

Universalism July 2007

Soul-making September 2018

I stated in the September 2018, article:

Via the New Testament,it is apparent that a fracture exists between humanity and God that will only be repaired by the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ to those that believe by the Holy Spirit. Human salvation, culminated in resurrection (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22).

Otherwise the separation between the divine and humanity continues in this life and post-mortem.

I would add that common sense, common philosophical and theological sense, would lead to the premise a fracture exists between humanity and God. Where is the direct fellowship? Why does God willingly allow human suffering and death?

Approaches which postulate heaven and yet deny the biblical revelation are overly dependent on speculation and what I call ‘sentimental theology’.

Could God save people post-mortem, after death within a non-Christian worldview? Yes, it would be logically possible, but not theologically certain or probable. This would feature a theistic/deistic God that it my mind would likely only have limited temporal plans for humanity. Everlasting life for created humanity and fellowship with him, for any human beings, would be unlikely. People die, within the plans of the infinite, eternal God. If a few were saved for everlasting life that would be fortuitous from a human perspective and not based in sound theology or philosophy of religion. The probable end result for humanity in theism/deism would equate to an the end result for humanity within atheism. Non-existence.