Was Irenaeus A Pretribber?

 

You may have heard it asserted that Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons, the early Church Father, was premillennial and held to a pretribulation rapture in his theology. This argument is often raised in opposition to those who say that the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture was a novel invention of the J.N. Darby, and does not have any real standing in Church history. And it would appear that those who make this assertion have a leg to stand on, because regarding the tribulation Irenaeus writes, “And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.”[1] Here the venerable Church father appears to be affirming the idea that there will be a pre-tribulation rapture. So let’s examine this.

First we should note that Irenaeus was premillennial in his eschatology, for he writes,

“Daniel also says particularly, that the end of the fourth kingdom consists in the toes of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar, upon which came the stone cut out without hands; and as he does himself say: “The feet were indeed the one part iron, the other part clay, until the stone was cut out without hands, and struck the image upon the iron and clay feet, and dashed them into pieces, even to the end.”[4678] Then afterwards, when interpreting this, he says: “And as thou sawest the feet and the toes, partly indeed of clay, and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided, and there shall be in it a root of iron, as thou sawest iron mixed with baked clay. And the toes were indeed the one part iron, but the other part clay.”[4679] The ten toes, therefore, are these ten kings, among whom the kingdom shall be partitioned, of whom some indeed shall be strong and active, or energetic; others, again, shall be sluggish and useless, and shall not agree; as also Daniel says: “Some part of the kingdom shall be strong, and part shall be broken from it. As thou sawest the iron mixed with the baked clay, there shall be minglings among the human race, but no cohesion one with the other, just as iron cannot be welded on to pottery ware.”[4680] And since an end shall take place, he says: “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven raise up a kingdom which shall never decay, and His kingdom shall not be left to another people. It shall break in pieces and shatter all kingdoms, and shall itself be exalted for ever. As thou sawest that the stone was cut without hands from the mountain, and brake in pieces the baked clay, the iron, the brass, the silver, and the gold, God has pointed out to the king what shall come to pass after these things; and the dream is true, and the interpretation trustworthy.”[4681]

2. If therefore the great God showed future things by Daniel, and confirmed them by His Son; and if Christ is the stone which is cut out without hands, who shall destroy temporal kingdoms, and introduce an eternal one, which is the resurrection of the just; as he declares, “The God of heaven shall raise up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed,”—let those thus confuted come to their senses, who reject the Creator (Demiurgum), and do not agree that the prophets were sent beforehand from the same Father from whom also the Lord came, but who assert that prophecies originated from diverse powers. For those things which have been predicted by the Creator alike through all the prophets has Christ fulfilled in the end, ministering to His Father’s will, and completing His dispensations with regard to the human race.[2]

Here we see that Irenaeus is showing that an evil final kingdom will rise up, but then be defeated by the Lord Jesus Christ, the stone, and this stone will establish the eternal kingdom of the Lord, wherein he and his people will reign. He also notes about the antichrist that,

“It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord.”[3]

So, we can see here that Irenaeus believed that there was a future time where the antichrist would rise up, that he would take power, then persecute Christians, and then Jesus would come again and destroy him and his kingdom and set up his own kingdom. This is premillennial theology. The millennial reign of Christ comes after the revealing of the antichrist, after the tribulation, and the future coming of Jesus precedes the millennium. This is what contrasts premillennial teaching from both Amillennial and Postmillennial. And we know that Irenaeus saw this as all still future because he says, “If therefore the great God showed future things by Daniel,…”[4]

Notice also what Irenaeus says is the activity of the antichrist? He will “put the Church to flight…” Does this mean that the antichrist will cause the rapture? No, of course not, it means that he will persecute the church during the great tribulation. But does this not contradict what he said in the passage we began with?

No, because this is what he said in context,

“And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.”[4699] For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.”[5]

That which the church is caught up from, according to Irenaeus, is the world in which we live in which we are tested to see whether or not we will follow the Lord. As he says just before this,

“And therefore the creation is suited to [the wants of] man; for man was not made for its sake, but creation for the sake of man. Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons “as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance—in fact, as nothing;”[4698] so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold.[6]

The tribulation is not something the Church is exempted from, it is the final test of the righteous, “For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.” The "last contest," I like that. Its the final proving ground of God's people against evil. It's not something we are snatched away from prior to its occurance, it is what God is preparing the Church for. In this world at least. 

So, how can Irenaeus believe in a pretribulation rapture, if he explicitly taught that the tribulation was the final test of the church and during the tribulation the antichrist persecuted the church? He could not of course. 

What he taught was exactly what the Lord Jesus taught as well. Jesus noted that the tribulation would be cut short for the sake of the elect, “22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short” (Matt. 24:22). And he also noted that he would not return to gather his elect until immediately after the tribulation,

“29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Matt. 24:29-31).

So, Jesus tells us that the tribulation is cut short for the sake of the elect, and that he will not gather his elect until it is finished. Irenaeus teaches the precise same thing noting that the tribulation is the final test of the righteous, and the time which the beast comes after the church. Yet there are those who say that both Irenaeus and Jesus taught a pretribulation rapture? Incredible. It is clear that they did not.

The warnings of the tribulation for Christians are always geared towards encouraging us to persevere and share the gospel, as Jesus says, “13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matt. 24:13-14). Why would we be encouraged to endure till the end, if we are raptured before they end? Because that is not the plan and that is not how the early Church father Irenaeus, or any other that I have been shown, understood it. The consistent teaching in the Scriptures and in the early church, was that the tribulation is a time of testing for God’s people the Church.

Irenaeus did not teach a pretribulation rapture. Not when read in context. He was however premillennial in his understanding of the connection between the millennium and the return of Christ. This view, which is the view I hold to, is called historic premillennialism. It is not the same as dispensational premillennialism, though it is not uncommon for dispensationalists to see that Irenaeus was premillennial and therefore that he must have agreed with their other doctrines on this matter. He did not. He, along with the historical church and those within the schools of amillennial and postmillennial theologies, agreed that the church is the Israel of God, and that the promises of and plans of God were working themselves out in the Church, not the physical kingdom of Israel. Read him for yourself and you will see this is the case.

List of References

---

[1] Horn, Thomas; Roberts, Alexander; Donaldson, James. The Researcher’s Library of Ancient Texts VOLUME II: The Apostolic Fathers: Includes Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin ... Library of Ancient Texts Book 2) . Defense Publishing. Kindle Edition.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

Who Is The New Covenant For?

 

The denial of the identity of the church with Israel is common in the modern church, even though it is almost unheard of in the church prior to the 19^th century. The New Testament’s teaching and the historical position of the church is that Jesus Christ is the true Israel and all who are in him are in Israel. Another way to put this is that in the Old Testament to become a member of Israel one needed to first be circumcised (in the case of men) and then bring oneself under the law, in the New Testament all one need do is trust in Jesus and follow what Paul calls the law of Christ.

This is why Paul says in Colossians 3 that we, Christians are the chosen ones,

“12 Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, 13 bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. 14 And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. 15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful” Col. 3:12-15).

And this is also why he says in Philippians 3 that we, Christians, are the circumcision,

“3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh— 4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. 7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.”

So, Christians, that is all who believe in Jesus, are the chosen ones and the circumcision, and are in Christ the true Israel, therefore we are citizens in the Israel of God (Eph. 2:11-22). However, despite how clear this is in scripture there are many Christians which deny the Gentiles have full membership in Israel, because they agree with the Pharisee’s teachings that membership in Israel is based on the flesh and adherence to the law. What they might not be aware of is how many problems this causes for Christian teachings. For instance, it undermines our basis for being accounted in the New Covenant. Let me explain why.

The idea that Israel and the Church are different entities, with difference claims in different promises, is based on a desire to hold to a literal interpretation of the word of God. Therefore, those who hold to this kind of theology would say when they read Judah, or Israel, this means the literal southern kingdom of Judah, or the literal northern kingdom of Israel, or the literal combined kingdom of Israel (such as in the time of David). This reading is based on an earnest desire of seeking to be faithful to the word of God, the promises of God, and the people of God. The problem is that this reading often falls into conflict with how the Bible uses these terms itself.

A very prominent example of a problem this causes is in understanding the New Covenant itself. People forget that the promise of the New Covenant was a promise for Israel and Judah, it was not given to the Babylonians or Egypt, or Rome. It was given directly to the named people of God. Let’s look at what the Old Testament says about this. We see in Jeremiah 31 this,

“³¹ “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, ³² not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. ³³ For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. ³⁴ And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

³⁵ Thus says the Lord,
who gives the sun for light by day
    and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—
    the Lord of hosts is his name:
³⁶ “If this fixed order departs
    from before me, declares the Lord,
then shall the offspring of Israel cease
    from being a nation before me forever.”

³⁷ Thus says the Lord:
“If the heavens above can be measured,
    and the foundations of the earth below can be explored,
then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel
    for all that they have done,
declares the Lord.”

This passage leaves us in no doubt who God is addressing. He is going to make a new covenant with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” This is clearly a reference to the two kingdoms of the Hebrew people who split in the time of Rehoboam the son of Solomon. If you take a literalist approach to these passages you can and only can apply this to the physical descendants of the nation of Israel.

The problem is that these verses are also the whole basis of Christianity. They are the whole basis of why Christians talk about a new covenant and an old covenant. Generally speaking people are aware that Christians refer to the first part of the Bible as the Old Testament and the rest of the Bible is called the New Testament. Most Christians are also aware that within these two testaments is found respectively the Old and New Covenants. And most Christians recognize that we are no longer under the Old Covenant but are under the New Covenant, which fulfilled the Old. But are they aware that the prophecies of the New Covenant were made for the Israelites, were made exclusively for Israelites, and the New Testament even affirms this? When the writer of Hebrews (who may have been the Apostle Paul or someone else) is showing the Jewish Christians he is writing to that they should not go back to the Old Covenant, but should remain in Christ, he quotes Jeremiah 31 and says this,

“6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

8 For he finds fault with them when he says:

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
    when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
    and with the house of Judah,
9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
    on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
    and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
    after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
    and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
    and they shall be my people.
11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
    and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
    from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
    and I will remember their sins no more.”

13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:6-13).

The writer of Hebrews, who was a Christian and very likely a theologically trained Jew, explicitly takes the promise from Jeremiah 31 about a new covenant for Israel and Judah and applies it to Christianity, “6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.” The New Covenant is Christianity, indeed, it is the very basis of it. The New Covenant is founded in the blood of Christ and applied to the hearts of believers through the Holy Spirit. This covenant finds its anchor in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As we read a little later in Hebrews,

“10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,

16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them
    after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
    and write them on their minds,”

17 then he adds,

“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”

18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin” (Heb. 10:10-18).

Without Christ there is no New Covenant. And without the New Covenant there is no Christianity. Yet we demonstrated conclusively that the prophecy in Jeremiah is directed to “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” How can this be? Well, it is simple. The literalist reading of the identity of Israel and Judah is simply wrong. The people of God, the true Israel of God or people of God is always accounted on the basis of faith in the Scriptures not by flesh. Therefore, it is made up of all who have faith in Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 10 shows here conclusively that the new covenant is established by the once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This is why the new covenant is so superior to the Old Covenant. It is not founded upon the bloods of bulls and goats, nor are the sacrifices maintained by a fallen human priesthood. It is, rather, upheld by the willing sacrifice of the Son of God himself, and it is based upon his perfect priestly service of interceding between us and God, and it is applied to our hearts through the work of the Holy Spirit. This is the basis of Christianity, this is the basis of the New Covenant. This New Covenant applies to all who are in Jesus Christ, it is the covenant upon which Christianity is based. It is the fulfilment of one of the most important promises given to Israel and it is fulfilled in, and ONLY IN, the gathering of Jesus Christ, which as we know as the Israel of God or the Church.

If you doggedly stick to an overly literalist reading of the identity of either Israel or Judah, then you run into a serious problem here. You encounter the fact that in both the Old and New Testaments the New Covenant is promised to Judah and Israel. This leaves Gentiles out in the cold and makes mince-meat of the whole New Testament. But if you recognize that Gentiles are grafted into Israel and Israel was always meant to be a community of faithful believers in God and his Messiah not a simple flesh and blood nation, then all the troubles wash away.

Even the promise of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit was made to Zion, to Israel, as Joel says in his small book,

“23 Be glad O children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God…You shall know that I am in the midst of Israel…28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. 29 Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit. 30 “And I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke” (Joel 2:28-30).

This promise is directed to Zion and Israel, but also envisions this promise being applied to “all flesh.” We see this promise fulfilled in the church in Acts 2, among the Israelites, and then among the Samaritans in Acts, and then the Gentiles in Acts 10. Showing that God’s intention was never for the people of God to remain a Jewish or Israel centric movement, but a whole of the world movement, made up of people from all the nationalities on earth. This promise was made for all who would trust in God, not just one ethnic group. The promise was for all who would believe that God would forgive their sins and write his law on their hearts, “39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:39). God was telling his people in the land of Canaan, in Israel, long, long ago, that citizenship in his people was always intended for more than just Jews, it was always intended for all who would trust in Jesus Christ, “28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God” (Rom. 2:28-29).

Indeed, I think you would struggle to find any promise that the New Testament says is fulfilled in the ministry and people of Jesus Christ that was not made explicitly to the people of Judah or Israel or both. Though of course many of these prophecies also envision the inclusion of the Gentiles (c.f. Isaiah 9 as a cool example).  

So, who is the New Covenant for? It is simple: all who would trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, and his atoning sacrifice, and who then receive the Spirit and have his law written on their hearts. No one who does not have faith and does not have the Spirit has a claim to be part of the people of God. But all who have faith, no matter their nationality, and have received the Spirit are grafted into both the people of God and the benefits of the promises that come with that. Let no one ever convince you otherwise.

 

 

                                                                                    

Who Is The We?

 

Who is the ‘we’ in Isaiah 53:6? Let's read what it says, “6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Who is the we here? This is important to establish, because it is the we for which the Messiah Jesus Christ, died on the cross and took the punishment for.

If we back up into the passage a little bit we can see the identity of the ‘we’:

“7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.” 8 The voice of your watchmen—they lift up their voice; together they sing for joy; for eye to eye they see the return of the Lord to Zion. 9 Break forth together into singing, you waste places of Jerusalem, for the Lord has comforted his people; he has redeemed Jerusalem. 10 The Lord has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” (Isa. 52:7-10).

The ‘we’ is, according to this context, the people of “Zion” and “Jerusalem.” The “we” Jesus died for was therefore Israel. 

Yet we Christians know that this applies to us, to all of us, because we were as sheep who had gone astray, and it is our iniquity that was laid on the shoulders of Jesus. Peter says this very directly in his first letter,

“21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Peter 2:21-25).

Peter is clearly taking Isaiah 53 here and applying it to all who have trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ. He may be referring to Jewish Christians in this letter, or not, scholars debate over this. But the key point is that he is applying this to Christians, and therefore it applies to Christians whether Jew or Gentile, and we all apply this to ourselves. There are even kids songs for church based on Isaiah 53:6. After all the passage also says that his salvation for Israel will go out to the ends of the earth.

But it is clear from the context that it is Israel being addressed in Isaiah, without question, and it was the sins of Israel that were laid on the Messiah, and yet Peter takes this passage and directly applies it to Christians who have trusted in Jesus. How can he do this?

Because we are the true Jerusalem, the true city of God,

“22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly[1] of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel” (Heb. 12:22-24).

It is now Christians, all who believe in Jesus who have come to Zion, who are the heavenly Jerusalem and the city of God. Or, the place where God dwells, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, “16 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.” The temple sits on Mt Zion, it is the place where God places his presence. Christians are now the temple, we are therefore on Mt Zion, which is really a representation of heaven. We are in other words full citizens of the people of God.

Revelation 3:12 also tells us this,  

“The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.”

Isaiah 53:6 can only apply to Gentiles if God’s design was always to bring Gentiles into Jerusalem, or Zion, or into the city of God as full citizens. And that is precisely what God said his plan is. And of what nation or people is Zion the capital of? Israel. Israel is simply one of many names for the people of God. Here are multiple passages telling Gentile believers that they are of Jerusalem, and Zion, just as Jewish believers are. So, the ‘we’ in Isaiah 53:6 is all believers, Jew and Gentile, and therefore Gentiles are necessarily included in Israel and all the promises made to Israel about God’s salvation and inheritance.

List of References

---

[1] The word here in the Greek is the word for church, ‘ecclesia’, which means ‘assembly,’ ‘gathering’ or as we noted, ‘church’

Can’t Forgive Yourself?

 

If you can’t forgive yourself, you really need to read this.

Dave Hunt[1] makes this comment on the false teaching brought into the church by psychology that we must forgive ourselves:

"Those who regard “forgiving themselves” to be more than an expression of remorse and who believe it to be a necessary condition in order to erase guilt have been duped by humanistic psychology and are ignorant of the truth. They need to be informed of the following:

 1)  We sin against God and others, and are sinned against by others. The Word directs us to ask God and others for forgiveness and to forgive them. While I may figuratively “sin against myself” in the sense that I’ve harmed myself, it is impossible to literally sin against myself since it is “myself” doing the sinning. Therefore, I have no basis for “forgiving myself.”

2)  Only God can forgive sin (Mark 2:7); only He can remove true guilt.

3)  Thinking that I must or can forgive myself is a form of self-deification, especially when one says, “I know that God forgives me, but I just can’t forgive myself.” Am I a higher authority than God?

4)  The delusion of self-forgiveness can also be a convoluted form of rebellion. It says, “Although God forgave me, I won’t forgive myself.” It says that although God will hold my sin against me no more, I’m going to hold it against me.

5)  It can also be a form of self-righteousness or pride in the sense that I have overridden God’s forgiveness with my decision that my sin is too grievous for me to forgive.

6)  Except in cases where restitution is feasible, there is little we can do about sins of the past beyond confessing them and receiving God’s forgiveness and cleansing (1 John 1:9; Psalm 51:2, 7). That’s why Paul writes, “Forgetting those things which are behind … ” (Philippians 3:13–14). Believers in Christ are to cast off any imagined bondage to the past so that they may serve the Lord with all joy and in the grace He provides."

Sometimes things sound good, they seem a little logical, because we have heard them over and over again, but upon examination they are shown to be nothing but philosophies of straw. The idea that we must forgive ourselves is among these kinds of teachings.

You not only need not forgive yourself, but you also cannot. What you can do however, is rest in the knowledge of the wonderful mercy and grace of God who will forgive you if you genuinely repent. It is not uncommon to be weighed down by something terrible you have done. David writes in the famous Psalm 51,

 “7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
    wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8 Let me hear joy and gladness;
    let the bones that you have broken rejoice.
9 Hide your face from my sins,
    and blot out all my iniquities.
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
    and renew a right spirit within me.
11 Cast me not away from your presence,
    and take not your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation,
    and uphold me with a willing spirit” (Ps. 51:7-12).

It is right, good and honourable to feel terrible about something bad you have done. It is also not wrong to be weighed down by it. But you must not stay there, you must recognize that God can wash you clean, remove that burden and help you walk in joy again. It might take some time for you to get back into this place of joy, but the only good way to do so is to keep bringing your error to God and believing his word when he says he will forgive, “9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

Those who say you must forgive yourself are just sprouting well meaning nonsense. What you need to actually stop doing is punishing yourself. When God has said you are forgiven you are forgiven and nothing more is required, except to ask for the forgiveness of the one you wronged. If they want to forgive you or not is up to them, but you are not bound by their choice. You might suffer for their choice in this life, especially if you did something incredibly terrible. But you can know God has forgiven you if you truly ask for it.

List of References

---

[1] Hunt, Dave; McMahon, T. A.. Psychology and the Church: Critical Questions, Crucial Answers (pp. 311-312). The Berean Call. Kindle Edition.

Is All Psychology Evil?

 

Is all psychology evil? I think this is a good question to ask. Because there are definitely those within the broad range of the psychology world who are not evil, and who are making genuine scientific observations about human behaviour. Though those observations have been used for great evil by the more nefarious people in this field. For instance, it was revealed a few years ago that the British government, and surely many others, were using psychological techniques to control their populations during the covid restrictions. This points to their being some utility for this kind of knowledge, but also that it can be used for evil, as much as good. 

Dave Hunt is asked whether all psychology is bad in his book, and I think his answer is very helpful,

“QUESTION: Although I agree with you that psychology has created more problems for the church than anyone could number, I think there are some areas of the field that can be helpful. What do you think?

RESPONSE:—First of all, when the term “psychology” is used, most people think of psychotherapy. That’s understandable because psychotherapy is the best-known field of psychology. There are, however, about fifty divisions of the American Psychological Association, and they run the gamut from mostly objective to extremely subjective. The most scientifically legitimate would be the former, and that would include those fields of research or experimental psychology that use the scientific method as they collect and evaluate tangible, observable, and predictable behavior.

The study of man/machine interface, e.g., the placement of knobs or keys on a machine or the choice of letter size or color for optimum use, would be a good example of a psychological field with varying degrees of objectivity. To the degree that researchers stick to quantifiable facts, evaluation, measurement, and verifiable statistics, that much of psychology has a chance of being a legitimate science. The testing of skills or abilities for placement (typing, math, hand/eye coordination, finger dexterity, etc.), where the information gleaned and reported is objective and quantitative, would be valid as a psychological endeavor.

However, testing that deals with personality types, personal feelings, or subjective views lacks the necessary statistical validity to be considered seriously. When evaluation mixes the objective “what has taken place” with the interpretive “why it has taken place,” it has moved out of science and into subjective speculation.

Therefore, regarding whatever calls itself a psychological enterprise, we would consider it to be legitimate to the degree that it can demonstrate objectivity and verifiable and repeatable results. Clinical psychology (psychotherapy) is subjective, emotional, and relies upon the very wisdom of man that God warns us against (1 Corinthians 2:5). It is often harmful, and all of the evaluation tests declare that it either doesn’t work or is no more effective than the talk-therapy of untrained nonprofessionals. After fifteen years of investigating his own profession, clinical psychologist Bernie Zilbergeld declared:

One of the most consistent and important effects of counseling is a desire for more counseling … it is no longer unusual to meet people who are looking for … a therapist to resolve problems caused in a previous therapy. …

 There is absolutely no evidence that professional therapists have any special knowledge of how to change behavior, or that they obtain better results—with any type of client or problem—than those with little or no formal training. In other words, most people can probably get the same kind of help from friends, relatives, or others that they get from therapists.2”[1]

This response gives us a helpful bit of insight about what kinds of psychology, if any, we can place any stock in. That which is dealing with quantifiable facts and data, can be of some use, “To the degree that researchers stick to quantifiable facts, evaluation, measurement, and verifiable statistics, that much of psychology has a chance of being a legitimate science.”[2] A good example of this is an article you can find here on my own blog about how childcare leads to angrier, more aggressive and less well adjusted children. This blog refers to research from psychologists and others who have collated data over time about the impacts of things like childcare on children. However, if you read that blog you will see why psychologists are also largely untrustworthy, because many women in that field understood these impacts and chose to hide them from other women so as to not make them feel bad about abandoning their kids into an unnatural environment. What does that say about their psychology? 

The reason we can trust research of this kind more is because it is based on the collation of observations over time. However, we have to recognize that psychology is not overall a good profession, and it is not something you should risk placing your heart and mind under the care of.

When it comes to trying to understand the human psyche, and why people act in certain ways, this is where this profession veers off into the pseudo-science, “When evaluation mixes the objective “what has taken place” with the interpretive “why it has taken place,” it has moved out of science and into subjective speculation.”[3] The Lord alone understands the hearts and minds of man, this is not something you can learn from a degree in a humanistic course based on man’s philosophy. It is actually quite arrogant for anyone to think that they can understand the inner workings of man. This is the Lord’s domain alone. 

This is also why I believe we will one day see the entire profession of psychology put away and completely replaced by neuroscience, which will have branches dealing with human behaviourology. Neuroscience, the study of the brain, deals with the physical. It deals in what can be observed. Psychology seeks to place itself in the position of God and lays claim to a sphere of human existence it has no right to. Also the observation of human behaviour is not something you need a psyche degree to do, and in fact, such a degree can prove a road block to gathering good insights because it can cloud the minds of the one making the observations. Everyone from an army general to a stay at home mum, through to a lawyer or a shop clerk is equipped to make observations about human behaviour. 

---

[1] Hunt, Dave; McMahon, T. A.. Psychology and the Church: Critical Questions, Crucial Answers (pp. 299-301). The Berean Call. Kindle Edition.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

Not That Kind Of Dead

 

You have probably heard the argument from Christian determinists, usually of the school of theology called Reformed Theology, that we cannot choose to believe in God because we are spiritually dead. This idea, it is claimed, is supported in a passage like Ephesians 2:1-5,

“1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—"

Not only is this idea supported by this passage, it seems to be strongly indicated by it, right? For instance, look more carefully at what it says, “you were dead in the trespasses and sins…” “and were by nature children of wrath…” So, we were dead in our sins and born that way, as verse 3 shows, because that is what “by nature” means. In other words, we were born as sinners into a sinful people, and we lived out the passions of that sinfulness and were therefore children of wrath. But thanks be to God, that we were made alive by the grace of God, and because of this grace we can now choose God, because God has given us the ability to believe.

An illustration might serve to help here in illustrating the determinist perspective: a dead body can do nothing for itself, right? And we were, spiritually speaking regarding the things of God, just like Lazarus. As a dead man Lazarus could do nothing for himself to make himself alive, Jesus had to do it for him. This compelling illustration, also from a Bible passage, John 11, comes together with this passage to support the determinist perspective that no one can choose God, unless God first gives them the ability, as Paul goes on to say,

“8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph 2:8-10).

This appears to be a game, set and match win for team determinist, and one cannot deny that there is indeed quite the symmetry between the illustration we drew from John 11, and what Ephesians 2:1-10 teaches from their perspective. The reasoning is sound, the logic is sound, the conclusion would seem therefore to be determined...so to speak. 

Except for two things. First, this passage need not be read this way, and second, we have established in two previous posts, here and here, that the Bible affirms man’s ability to choose the things of God. So, do we have a problem where the Bible contradicts itself, or is something else happening here? The answer is the latter, something else is happening here.

Firstly, as to being made alive by grace. Paul says, God has “made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—" This appears to be supporting the determinist position, until you observe that Paul explains in verse 8 this, “8 For by grace you have been saved through faith.” Paul uses the exact same phrases here, in both Greek and English, “by grace you have been saved…,” but in verse 8 he explains that the grace comes through faith. Note that determinists teach that the faith comes through grace. But Paul says exactly the opposite here, he explicitly says “by grace you have been saved through faith.” The grace comes through the act of faith. This makes complete sense, because Hebrews 11:6 tells us that without faith it is impossible to please God. Ergo, to note that grace, or favour from God, comes through faith is consistent with the Bible’s understanding of the relationship between his people and himself; it is contingent on faith. So, the second plank of determinism based on this passage is undone.

I say second plank, because the first plank is that we are dead, caput, morte, nothing but carcasses spiritually. As we noted Paul says, “2 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins…” and this is contrasted with being made alive (v.5). Therefore, the determinist can simply fall back to a rather impregnable position, correct? Dead means dead and dead bodies cannot drag themselves out of a river any more than they can trust in Jesus for salvation, right? The logic of this position says that this “state of deadness” necessarily means that one cannot believe, without first being regenerated, or born again.

However, the concept of dead in our trespasses and sins harkens all the way back to Genesis 3 where the man and woman rejected God and then died. We read there,

“6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths” (Ge. 3:6-7).

We see here that this death sentence (c.f. Gen. 2:17) did not take away Adam and Eve’s ability to decide the things of God. In fact, we read the opposite, as Moses wrote about the man and woman, after eating the fruit, “then the eyes of both were opened.” Eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not take away ability or knowledge, it actually added to it. It also added the death sentence that we all live under. We are dead in our sins, and we all die. Adam and Eve did surely die in the day that they ate, because the ticking time bomb on their passing began that day.

God himself affirms this did not take away their ability to choose, as he says, “22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” (Ge. 3:22). It simply took away their immortality, and God ensured they could not regain it, at this point, by kicking them out of the garden. The sense in which they died, is in the sense in which we all live under the sentence of death. That it takes time for the sentence to be carried out does not change the reality of the decree.

To confirm that being dead does not take away ones ability to choose, we need to observe how Paul himself uses this concept of death. For instance in Galatians 2 we read this,

“20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose” (Gal. 2:20-21).

Paul says here that all who have trusted in Jesus “have been crucified with Christ” and that we no longer live. Now, his point in this passage is that we live for righteousness through faith, because our old life is nailed to the cross. So, if we read this like the determinists read Ephesians 2 then we must conclude that no true believer sins, because every true believer is actually as dead to sin as every unbeliever is dead to righteousness. Do you see the problem there?

Believers still do sin, as John says,

“8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 1:8-2:1).

But how can we sin if we are completely dead to it? The same is true with the concept of righteousness in Romans 6 to 7. In those passages the unbeliever is the slave to sin and the believer is a slave to righteousness. But the New Testament explicitly says believers sin, ergo, neither being dead to sin or being slaves to righteousness means we cannot choose, and it naturally follows that being dead in our trespasses and slaves of sin does not mean we have no ability to choose either. They simply point to either the state of condemnation we stand under, in the case of dead in our trespasses, and who our master is, in the case of slaves to sin or righteousness.

The problem comes when people over play the concepts of death and slavery to the exclusion of how the Bible itself uses these concepts, and also hold them over against other passages which say we can choose, as we demonstrated in other posts.

We are most certainly dead in our trespasses if we have not received the seal of new life in Jesus Christ. We most certainly deserve death and judgement. But Jesus has entered the world so that all mankind can be enlightened (c.f. John 1:9) and can choose whether to live in condemnation or hope of glory.  

It’s not enough to be able to prove from one passage that a concept is both logical and sound, you must be able to demonstrate that it harmonizes with similar teachings and concepts in other passages. I think we have demonstrated that one need not read in Ephesians 2:1-10 a deterministic perspective, though it is understandable why one does if you define dead as they do, but it is not the best understanding of the concept according to scripture. We are dead in sins, just not that kind of dead.

 

Inherently Irrational

 

There's no greater* cognitive dissonance than that of the free speech advocates. I have lost count of the amount of people on my timeline who a week or so ago were defending free speech, sending around links and articles about it, and making a big fuss about how anti-free speech the current government is. But now this week many of those same people are sharing posts calling for the hammer to be brought down on protestors they have a political disagreement with. Protestors a lot of us disagree with.

The honest truth is that free speech is as unworkable for a society as free love. Almost no one can consistently believe in it. And everyone finds certain speech beyond the pale and liable for some kind of sanction, and so they should, the tongue is a restless fire, it can tear down socities. No gift of God, including speech, was designed to exist without boundaries.

Free speech, like free love, was always a progressive, leftist radical idea until about 5 minutes ago in history. Broad political speech is necessary, free speech is impossible, and the way people can flip on a dime without even realizing what they are doing is evidence of that cognitive dissonance.

I remember the day it finally became clear to me just how wrong the free speech position is and just how correct those who say there will always be blasphemy laws are. The truth is those who advocate for free speech the most are those who want to upset the establishment. Therefore it's never really a principle, it's actually a strategy, a tactic, but many people don't realize that is the case, until they have the power to silence those they see as beyond the pale, and realize they want to do that.

I understand why you think free speech is a pillar of our society, I once agreed with you. As I explain here.

* With the possible exception of the feminist who says she's fighting for equality, when it's actually about power.