Religious Experience - Tumblr Posts
Is John MacArthur a Christian?
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
——-
MacArthur is a Reformed Protestant and a
strong proponent of expository preaching.
He has been acknowledged by Christianity
Today as one of the most influential
preachers of his time and was a frequent
guest on Larry King Live as a representative
of an evangelical Christian perspective.
— Wikipedia
——-
Is Religious Experience Unchristian?
John MacArthur typically uses exaggerated caricatures of New Testament (NT) teachings to mock and ridicule *religious existential experiences.* But isn’t religious experience the foundation of our salvation, according to the NT? Romans 8.9 (NLT) says, “remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.” So how do you get the Spirit of Christ to live in you if not through an experience? Is it based on wishful thinking? Jesus says in Jn 3.3: “unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.” But how is someone “born again”? Through a profession of faith? Absolutely not! Jesus clearly emphasizes that no one will be accepted into the kingdom of heaven simply on that basis alone. Much to their horror, those who thought they were saved will be utterly perplexed, confused, and disappointed! They will appeal and say: “Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name.” (Mt. 7.22). But Christ will ultimately reject them and say: “I never knew you” (Mt. 7.23).
So, how is one born again if not through some kind of an experience? And how does one develop a relationship with Christ if not through an experience? Jesus simply becomes an imaginary partner or a wishful thought or daydream? Is that what the NT teaches? And how do we get a new identity, according to Eph. 4.22-24? By reading the Bible? MacArthur clearly contradicts Scripture by implying that Christian salvation is not based on any “experience” at all. Yet, in Philippians 2.12 (NASB) Paul exhorts:
work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling.
Fear and trembling do not occur except in unusual circumstances that involve “experiences” of existential dread! And, according to Paul, these experiences are essential to working out one’s salvation. Yet with regard to religious experience, MacArthur says the exact opposite. In a YouTube video, he exclaims:
it’s nothing but sheer imagination, at best;
and, at worst, you are courting demons. . . .
And some people, sad to say, it’s not
enough to believe in Christ, they pursue the
paranormal, the supernatural, the mystical,
the intuitive, and they make things happen
in the mind that aren’t happening, and they
open themselves to things that do happen
from demonic sources. It’s a frightening
thing to think about.
So demonic sources can make things happen, but God can’t? In other words, he suggests that demons can make things happen in this realm, whereas God is powerless and can’t possibly compete with them. Then he added:
Why is it that people pursue that? I’ll tell you
why. Because somewhere in their theology
they have bought into the fact that it’s not
enough to have Christ. And they’re into all
these experience with angels, and so
forth.
——-
Should We Reject the Supernatural?
The problem with John MacArthur is that he doesn’t explain the process by which we “have Christ” in the first place. How exactly do we have Christ if not through an experience? He went on to say,
that’s not great faith that brings those
supernatural experiences; that’s doubt
looking for proof that fantasizes those
experiences.
So, according to John MacArthur, the supernatural signs and wonders of the NT, including the supernatural miracles of Jesus, do not involve great faith——contradicting what Jesus himself taught (Mt. 14.31)——but are rather fantasies that don’t really exist! How then does his epistemology differ from that of Liberal theology? Isn’t it one and the same? He’s basically saying that the supernatural dimension does not exist. It’s a fantasy world of imagination, at best, or the realm of the demonic world, at worst. Really? Isn’t that what the Pharisees accused Jesus of, namely, of casting out demons because “He gets his power from Satan, the prince of demons”? (Mt. 12.24 NLT).
In fact, in trying to downplay and discredit visions and experiences, he will even pit Paul against Paul! He employs Paul as a mouthpiece to denigrate visions and revelations. Yet, according to Galatians 1.11-12, everything that Paul knows about Christ is EXCLUSIVELY through visions and revelations (cf. 2 Cor. 12.1-4). Besides, didn’t John of Patmos see visions and revelations that he later encoded in the Book of Revelation? Are we to conclude that he, too, was just imagining things that are not real and do not exist? Was Paul’s vision of Christ (Acts 9.3-5) equally false and imaginary? And this man is lauded and respected as a credible pastor-teacher? Listen to some of his comments that were directed to his congregation:
Now, there’s no higher plane. There is no
surpassing experience. There’s no deeper
life.
If we didn’t know who uttered these words we would easily ascribe them to a positive atheist like Michael Shermer or Richard Dawkins. Astoundingly, they were uttered by John MacArthur. This is downright false. This man has drifted away from Christianity. His epistemological position is extremely dangerous. He’s putting peoples’ salvation on the line. By contrast, here’s Jesus’ promise to those who love him (Jn 14.21):
I will love them and reveal [ἐμφανίσω]
myself to each of them.
MacArthur then diverts his listeners’ attention by attacking a straw man. He creates a false dichotomy and makes it appear as if this debate is about Christ versus experiences. Either Christ is sufficient or else you choose experiences. But that’s a red herring. On the contrary, Jesus demands regeneration, and Paul exhorts believers to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind (Rom. 12.2 NASB), not by simply reading the Bible and pretending to have an imaginary relationship with Jesus. How is Christ sufficient? Simply through reading a Book? That’s preposterous! In fact, the one thing that God wants us to do is to *experience* him. That’s the whole Bible in a nutshell!
(see YouTube video: https://youtu.be/e0fETODHsoM)
——-
Is the Experience of the Holy Spirit Nonsensical?
In another video, he claims that spiritual formation——in which people seek inside themselves——is “just a lot of bunk.” He says:
digging deep in to find your spiritual core
and your spiritual center . . . is nonsense.
In other words, he’s contradicting the Word of God. Acts 2.1-4 (NLT) reads:
On the day of Pentecost all the believers
were meeting together in one place.
Suddenly, there was a sound from heaven
like the roaring of a mighty windstorm, and
it filled the house where they were sitting.
Then, what looked like flames or tongues of
fire appeared and settled on each of them.
And everyone present was filled with the
Holy Spirit and began speaking in other
languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this
ability.
——-
MacArthur’s Deism
Then he goes on to explain his own theology and soteriology, which are diametrically opposed to those of the NT. He says without flinching:
The assumption is that spiritual truth is
somewhere inside of you. And that is not
true. Spiritual truth is outside of you. It is
external to you. It is in a Book outside of
you. It is not in you. . . . You can go sit on a
rock in the middle of nowhere and think,
and you will find in you no source of divine
revelation whatsoever. Because divine
revelation is external to you. It’s external to
every human being. It’s in a book that God
wrote. And when you put the book down
and start looking into your own brain all
you’re gonna do is be led down a black
hole.
This is a deist understanding of God as a transcendent Being, wholly independent of the material universe, who is not accessible to creatures and does not personally interact with them. So, the NT teaching that the Holy Spirit “will be in you” (ἐν ὑμῖν)——in Jn 14.17, 23 (cf. Rom. 8.9), or “that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who lives in you [ἐν ὑμῖν]” (1 Cor. 6.19)——is false? (cf. Titus 3.5; 1 Jn 2.27). This is the exact opposite of what Lk 17.21 says, namely, that the kingdom of God is within you (ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν)! So, “truth” (who is Jesus; Jn 14.6) is never inside (immanent) but always outside of every believer? Of course not! In Rev. 3.20, Jesus declares the exact opposite:
Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you
hear my voice and open the door, I will
come in [εἰσελεύσομαι πρὸς αὐτὸν].
According to MacArthur, it seems that a personal relationship with Jesus is equivalent to just reading about him in a book. So, there’s no truth outside the Bible, no experiential relationship to God, no real spiritual insight, no miracles, no supernatural world, no signs & wonders, no changes in the personality, no religious experiences, no Holy Spirit, nothing whatsoever. This is a form of deism, pure and simple: God does not intervene in the affairs of men except through a book. Not only does this view contradict Scripture, it is patently ridiculous and utterly absurd! To hear a supposed Bible teacher——who holds the attention of millions worldwide on a daily basis——saying these things is absolutely shocking, if not shameful.
——-
If Being Born Again Is Not an Experience, Is It a form of Rote Learning?
MacArthur continued:
That’s what happens when you start
trying to poke around inside of yourself for
spiritual truth when it’s all contained in
one book, and that book is external to you.
And the spiritual truth resides in that
book, if you never lived or if you never had
a thought. It’s the external truth that we
must understand, cuz there’s nothing
inside, until that truth gets in our minds.
So, he seems to suggest that “truth” gets into our minds not through the experience of regeneration but only by constant reading and repetition. In other words, he reduces Jesus’ and Paul’s spirituality to *rote learning.* So, When Paul says “put on the new self” (Eph. 4.24 NASB) or the new identity, does he mean that our personalities will radically change as we master the Biblical literature through repetition and memorization or through some sort of intellectual assent? If that were so, Christianity would be nothing more than B. F. Skinner’s behaviorism!
——-
BIBLE IDOLATRY
John MacArthur’s message seems to be that nothing happens inside of us experientially. God only speaks today through the Bible. He has made of the Bible an idol. And he has also broken the first Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Yet he worships the Bible (aka bibliolatry)! Jesus, however, poignantly rebukes such people in John 5.39 (NLT):
You search the Scriptures because you
think they give you eternal life. But the
Scriptures point to me!
In short, according to MacArthur, the Bible has replaced God. God can no longer speak apart from or outside the Bible. Scripture also trumps Jesus. His spiritual relationship to human beings is not direct; it is indirect via the Bible. Put differently, we no longer believe in Jesus or God as realities or entities, which exist outside the Bible, with the ability to communicate and transform our lives. No! They interact with us only in and through the Bible. Therefore, we only believe in the literary “word” of God: *the Bible!* These divine beings only exist inside the Bible and not apart from it. That’s what John MacArthur seems to be saying. He’s in love with a book, not the author of that book. Outside of that book, he doesn’t seem to “know” its author. He only meets him via that book! By contrast, 1 Corinthians 4.20 (KJV) says: “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.” This is what the Protestant reformation of sola scriptura has produced. But this epistemology is completely bogus, as if God is incapable of speaking to us outside the Bible. As Jesus observes: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me” (Mt. 15:8)!
——-
Conclusion
For John MacArthur, belief, not experience, is the key. Therefore, we don’t need to “experience” or “know” Jesus intimately or personally. The old saying: “Taste and see that the LORD is good” (Psalm 34:8) need not apply. In this strange and demonically twisted scenario, the Bible is Lord!
This is the hallmark of a false teacher. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the NT or with Christ’s command to love God above and beyond everything else, including books (Mk 12.30). It is not sanctioned by the Scriptures. And it is neither according to God’s word nor his will. It is a form of secularism: quasi-deism coupled with liberal theology. It is a counterfeit Christianity! This view is far removed from Christian teaching. It was quite laughable to witness.
If we sum up his theology, and take it to its logical conclusion, it’s as if God & Jesus are simply *literary characters* in the Bible whose powers and abilities are confined and subject to the authors’ discretion. Accordingly, we don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus; we have a personal relationship with the Bible! We don’t know God apart from the Bible. That’s MacArthur’s basic message, namely, that Christianity is not a “spiritual” but rather a “literary” religion! He reduces Apocalyptic Christianity to literature! His rejection of religious experience, and of the operations of the Holy Spirit, is analogous to paganism!
He contradicts both himself and the Bible by stating that mystical, supernatural experiences do not exist. Yet the Bible is filled with them: think of Isaiah, Daniel, Paul, John, and Jesus!
So, his teaching involves not only an unwarranted epistemology——in which real, living, divine persons become reduced to literary characters——but also a self-contradictory exegesis wherein he refutes the very teaching he espouses, namely, the supernatural world of the Bible!
My question is simply this: does John MacArthur represent authentic Christianity?
And, judging from his own statements, the answer is a resounding no!
(see YouTube video: https://youtu.be/mTEm9NI17Do)
——-
Science & God’s Existence
By Author Eli Kittim
Can We Reject Paul’s Vision Based On the Fact that No One Saw It?
Given that none of Paul’s companions saw or heard the content of his visionary experience (Acts 9), on the road to Damascus, some critics have argued that it must be rejected as unreliable and inauthentic. Let’s test that hypothesis. Thoughts are common to all human beings. Are they not? However, no one can “prove” that they have thoughts. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have any. Just because others can’t see or hear your thoughts doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Obviously, a vision, by definition, is called a “vision” precisely because it is neither seen nor observed by others. So, this preoccupation with “evidence” and “scientism” has gone too far. We demand proof for things that are real but cannot be proven. According to philosopher William Lane Craig, the irony is that science can’t even prove the existence of the external world, even though it presupposes it.
No one has ever seen an electron, or the substance we call “dark matter,” yet physicists presuppose them. Up until recently we could not see, under any circumstances, ultraviolet rays, X – rays, or gamma rays. Does that mean they didn’t exist before their detection? Of course not. Recently, with the advent of better instruments and technology we are able to detect what was once invisible to the human eye. Gamma rays were first observed in 1900. Ultraviolet rays were discovered in 1801. X-rays were discovered in 1895. So, PRIOR to the 19th century, no one could see these types of electromagnetic radiation with either the naked eye or by using microscopes, telescopes, or any other available instruments. Prior to the 19th century, these phenomena could not be established. Today, however, they are established as facts. What made the difference? Technology (new instruments)!
If you could go back in time to Ancient Greece and tell people that in the future they could sit at home and have face-to-face conversations with people who are actually thousands of miles away, would they have believed you? According to the empirical model of that day, this would have been utterly impossible! It would have been considered science fiction. My point is that what we cannot see today with the naked eye might be seen or detected tomorrow by means of newer, more sophisticated technologies!
——-
Can We Use The Scientific Model to Address Metaphysical Questions?
Using empirical methods of “observation” to determine what is true and what is false is a very *simplistic* way of understanding reality in all its complexity. For example, we don’t experience 10 dimensions of reality. We only experience a 3-dimensional world, with time functioning as a 4th dimension. Yet Quantum physics tells us there are, at least, 10 dimensions to reality: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.amp
Prior to the discoveries of primitive microscopes, in the 17th century, you couldn’t see germs, bacteria, viruses, or microorganisms with the naked eye! For all intents and purposes, these microorganisms DID NOT EXIST! It would therefore be quite wrong to assume that, because a large number of people (i.e. a consensus) cannot see it, an unobservable phenomenon must be ipso facto nonexistent.
Similarly, prophetic experiences (e.g. visions) cannot be tested by any instruments of modern technology, nor investigated by the methods of science. Because prophetic experiences are of a different kind, the assumption that they do not have objective reality is a hermeneutical mistake that leads to a false conclusion. Physical phenomena are perceived by the senses, whereas metaphysical phenomena are not perceived by the senses but rather by pure consciousness. Therefore, if we use the same criteria for metaphysical perceptions that we use for physical ones (which are derived exclusively from the senses), that would be mixing apples and oranges. The hermeneutical mistake is to use empirical observation (that only tests physical phenomena) as “a standard” for testing the truth value of metaphysical phenomena. In other words, the criteria used to measure physical phenomena are quite inappropriate and wholly inapplicable to their metaphysical counterparts.
——-
Are the “Facts” of Science the Only Truth, While All Else is Illusion?
Whoever said that scientific “facts” are *necessarily* true? On the contrary, according to Bertrand Russell and Immanuel Kant, only a priori statements are *necessarily* true (i.e. logical & mathematical propositions), which are not derived from the senses! The senses can be deceptive. That’s why every 100 years or so new “facts” are discovered that replace old ones. So what happened to the old facts? Well, they were not necessarily true in the epistemological sense. And this process keeps repeating seemingly ad infinitum. If that is the case, how then can we trust the empirical model, devote ourselves to its shrines of truth, and worship at its temples (universities)? Read the “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn, a classic book on the history of science and how scientific paradigms change over time.
——-
Cosmology, Modern Astronomy, & Philosophy Seem to Point to the Existence of God
If you studied cosmology and modern astronomy, you would be astounded by the amazing beauty, order, structure, and precision of the various movements of the planets and stars. The Big Bang Theory is the current cosmological model which asserts that the universe had a beginning. Astoundingly, the very first line of the Bible (the opening sentence, i.e. Gen. 1.1) makes the exact same assertion. The fine tuning argument demonstrates how the slightest change to any of the fundamental physical constants would have changed the course of history so that the evolution of the universe would not have proceeded in the way that it did, and life itself would not have existed. What is more, the cosmological argument demonstrates the existence of a “first cause,” which can be inferred via the concept of causation. This is not unlike Leibniz’ “principle of sufficient reason” nor unlike Parmenides’ “nothing comes from nothing” (Gk. οὐδὲν ἐξ οὐδενός; Lat. ex nihilo nihil fit)! All these arguments demonstrate that there must be a cosmic intelligence (i.e. a necessary being) that designed and sustained the universe.
We live in an incredibly complex and mysterious universe that we sometimes take for granted. Let me explain. The Earth is constantly traveling at 67,000 miles per hour and doesn’t collide with anything. Think about how fast that is. The speed of an average bullet is approximately 1,700 mph. And the Earth’s speed is 67,000 mph! That’s mind-boggling! Moreover, the Earth rotates roughly 1,000 miles per hour, yet you don’t fall off the grid, nor do you feel this gyration because of gravity. And I’m not even discussing the ontological implications of the enormous information-processing capacity of the human brain, its ability to invent concepts, its tremendous intelligence in the fields of philosophy, mathematics, and the sciences, and its modern technological innovations.
It is therefore disingenuous to reduce this incredibly complex and extraordinarily deep existence to simplistic formulas and pseudoscientific oversimplifications. As I said earlier, science cannot even “prove” the existence of the external world, much less the presence of a transcendent one. The logical positivist Ludwig Wittgenstein said that metaphysical questions are unanswerable by science. Yet atheist critics are incessantly comparing Paul’s and Jesus’ “experiences” to the scientific model, and even classifying them as deliberate literary falsehoods made to pass as facts because they don’t meet scholarly and academic parameters. The present paper has tried to show that this is a bogus argument! It does not simply question the “epistemological adequacy” of atheistic philosophies, but rather the methodological (and therefore epistemic) legitimacy of the atheist program per se.
——-
A Response to Jon Bloom’s “Can I Follow My New Heart?”
By Biblical Researcher, Psychologist, & Award-Winning Author, Eli Kittim
In an article entitled “Can I Follow My New Heart?” (published July 1, 2021), which was posted on John Piper’s desiringGod website, Jon Bloom, staff writer of https://www.desiringgod.org/ writes:
When Christians are born again, we enter
into a lifelong internal war where ‘the
desires of the flesh are against the Spirit,
and the desires of the Spirit are against the
flesh, for these are opposed to each other,
to keep you from doing the things you want
to do’ (Galatians 5:17).
That is incorrect, inaccurate, and misleading. When Paul talks about the war within, between the flesh and the Spirit, he is referring to a *pre-regenerative* rather than a “post-regenerative” state of mind. This battle or war between the flesh and the Spirit is waged BEFORE “Christians are born again,” NOT after! After “Christians are born again” this battle ENDS! The War within ends, provided an *authentic-regeneration* has taken place (not simply a fake “rebirth” based on a profession of faith or an altar call) in which we have died to our selves in order to receive a new identity (Ephesians 4:22-24). There is no more internal struggle. Sin no longer reigns within. God is now on the throne of your heart and, instead of war, there is peace. Instead of bitterness and anger there is love and self-acceptance. Sin has not been completely eradicated. It’s still there. But it no longer dominates your mind and heart. So, the notion that we enter a battle or a war AFTER we are reborn is completely false. On the contrary, that’s when the battle, in a certain sense, ends for us and tranquility ensues.
Jon Bloom misinterprets both the authorial intent of the Biblical authors as well as the concept of authentic rebirth. He mistakenly employs certain Biblical quotes to suggest that they are referring to a condition AFTER rebirth, when in fact they are referring to a carnal mind PRIOR to regeneration. Thus, he misreads the following verses out-of-context:
their ‘passions are at war within’ them
(James 4:1). Peter warns his readers (and
us), ‘Do not be conformed to the passions
of your former ignorance’ (1 Peter 1:14).
Paul describes this internal experience of
warring passions as ‘wretched’ (Romans
7:24).
Finally, the fact that he’s been totally misreading and distorting the Biblical authors becomes apparent. He writes:
And he [Paul] admonishes the Colossian
Christians (and us) with strong language:
‘Put to death therefore what is earthly in
you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion,
evil desire, and covetousness, which is
idolatry’ (Colossians 3:5). Why did these
apostles feel the need to speak this way to
regenerated people? Because the hearts of
these regenerated people were not yet fully
free from the influence of their flesh, their
old selves.
Why would Paul say “put to death” all these vices to regenerated Christians who have already done just that and have died to sin? And if reborn, recreated Christians are “not yet fully free from the influence of their flesh” (i.e. “their old selves”), then that implies that Christ either lied or was confused when he said “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32 NIV). No! It is Jon Bloom himself who is confused because in spite of what he writes, he nevertheless seems to acknowledge that after rebirth sin no longer dominates. He writes:
Paul lays the theological foundation of our
understanding by explaining ‘that our old
self was crucified with [Christ] in order that
[our] body of sin might be brought to
nothing, so that we would no longer be
enslaved to sin’ (Romans 6:6). Our new
selves were ‘raised with Christ’ (Colossians
3:1) so that ‘we too might walk in newness
of life’ (Romans 6:4). Therefore, we ‘must
consider [ourselves] dead to sin and alive to
God in Christ Jesus’ (Romans 6:11).
In sharp contrast to Jon Bloom’s overall message, Paul declares a radical change that has ALREADY occurred in the personality as a result of the *NEW BIRTH,* as well as a new way of being that is no longer dominated by sin or the carnal mind (Romans 8:1-2 ESV):
There is therefore now no condemnation for
those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of
the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ
Jesus from the law of sin and death.
I therefore take issue with the notion of *regeneration* as an “internal war” between the flesh and the Spirit in which we “are not yet fully free.”
For a comparative reading, see the undermentioned link:
“Can I Follow My New Heart?” (Article by Jon Bloom, Staff writer, desiringGod website): https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/can-i-follow-my-new-heart?fbclid=IwAR0SjG4T6TVZN8TVuB0Sjt-10zS5UnRy05rxjPd00YiVWcixmVCR6dm3EW0
——-
Polytheism Versus Monotheism
By Biblical Researcher and Award-Winning Author, Eli Kittim
——-
The First Cause
Some Bible critics have argued that there maybe other gods in the universe. However, the Bible itself claims that there’s only one God. Now, you may see that as circular reasoning but there are also valid philosophical arguments which demonstrate that there can only be one cause to the universe, to wit, a “first cause.” Philosophy does not posit a multiplicity of first causes but rather the existence of a single, first cause, just as other theosophical and spiritual traditions have also posited a single incorporeal first cause. Let’s not forget that we’re not talking about a genus, a multiplicity of “contingent” beings, but about the source of everything, a “necessary” being that is beyond time and space and beyond being. If there were two such beings, then neither of them would be god. There can only be one maximally great being that can exist in every possible world.
——-
The Cosmological Argument
Plato (c. 427–347 BCE), in the Timaeus dialogue, posited a "demiurge" of absolute intelligence as the creator of the universe. Plotinus, a 3rd century Neoplatonist philosopher from Alexandria, claimed that the “One” transcendent absolute caused the cosmos to come into being as a result of its existence (creatio ex deo). Proclus (412–485 CE), his disciple, later clarified that “The One is God.”
Similarly, according to Aristotle, the “unmoved mover” (Gk. ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ, lit. “that which moves without being moved”) or “prime mover” is the main cause (or first uncaused cause) of all the motion in the cosmos but is not itself moved or caused by any previous action or causation. Notice that the so-called “first cause” arguments do not entail multiplicity or diversity but rather unity and oneness.
In other words, nothing can come into being from nothing. Think about everything you see around you: your house, your car, your phone, your computer, your clothes, your food, your furniture, your TV, your parents, your friends, even yourself. Everything comes from something else. And the further back you go in time, in trying to unravel what caused what, the more you realize that everything came from something else. Someone or something either designed it, produced it, formed it, or gave it birth. If there were 2 gods, we would have to ask who came first? Who brought the second god into being?
However, the cosmological argument necessarily presupposes a single cause, which itself was never caused, namely, a timeless being, capable of creating everything (i.e. all contingent beings). Otherwise, if there was no first “unmoved mover,” there would be an infinite regress of causal dependency ad infinitum. This “first cause” can therefore be inferred via the concept of causation. This is not unlike Leibniz’ “principle of sufficient reason” nor unlike Parmenides’ “nothing comes from nothing” (Gk. οὐδὲν ἐξ οὐδενός; Lat. ex nihilo nihil fit)! All these arguments demonstrate not only that there must be a “necessary” being that designed and sustained the universe, but also that there can only be “one” such being!
——-
The One God of the Old Testament
Epistemology is a philosophical branch that questions the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge. The possible sources of knowledge that could justify a belief are based on perception, memory, reason, and testimony. Thus, divine revelation, which was subsequently transcribed or inscripturated, would certainly qualify as “testimony.”
There are multiple passages in both Testaments of the Bible where God declares to be without a counterpart: without an equal. Similar to the “Absolute Being” of philosophy which is logically inferred as a single, first cause, the Old Testament clearly affirms the existence of only one God. So, the uniqueness of a single God can also be attested by Divine Revelation. Scripture is therefore a witness to the reality of God’s existence as being unparalleled and unique. For example, in Isaiah 44.6-7 (NRSV), God declares that there are no other gods in the universe except him. He exclaims:
I am the first and I am the last; besides me
there is no god. Who is like me? Let them
proclaim it, let them declare and set it forth
before me.
In Isaiah 42.8, God states that he doesn’t share his glory with anyone. He alone is God without equal or rival:
I am the Lord, that is my name; my glory I
give to no other, nor my praise to idols.
Moreover, in Isaiah 43.10-11, God declares categorically and unequivocally that there were no gods formed before him, nor will there be any gods formed after him:
Before me no god was formed, nor shall
there be any after me. I, I am the Lord, and
besides me there is no savior.
This truth is reiterated several times in Isaiah 45.18, 21:
For thus says the Lord, who created the
heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth
and made it (he established it; he did not
create it a chaos, he formed it to be
inhabited!): I am the Lord, and there is no
other.
There is no other god besides me, a
righteous God and a Savior; there is no one
besides me.
This assertion, of course, implies that there are not multiple gods that receive many different forms of religious worship but rather a single Godhead sans equal.
In Isaiah 46.9-10, God sets a unique standard against which all other theories are measured, namely, the fulfillment of prophecy. That is to say, no one else can predict the future except God himself:
I am God, and there is no other; I am God,
and there is no one like me, declaring the
end from the beginning and from ancient
times things not yet done.
Similarly, 2 Sam. 7.22 seems to attest to the truth of God’s oneness by way of divine revelation (cf. 2 Pet 1.18):
You are great, O Lord God; for there is no
one like you, and there is no God besides
you, according to all that we have heard
with our ears.
——-
The One God of the New Testament
When we turn to the Christian scriptures, we find the exact same theme concerning one God who reigns supreme above humanity and the heavenly host. At no point in Scripture is there any hint that there are other gods that exist beside the God of the Old and New Testaments. John 17.3, for instance, brings to bear the authority of Scripture on the matter by calling the source of all creation “the only true God.” Critics of the Trinity (who view it as polytheistic) should be rebuffed because in the Johannine gospel Jesus clearly establishes that there’s *one essence* between himself and God. He proclaims, “The Father and I are one” (10.30).
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one God, but three coeternal, consubstantial persons or hypostases—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios). Paul the apostle also knows through direct revelations that “God is one” (Rom. 3.30). Paul understands that the Triune God is not equivalent to multiple gods but is rather a *monotheistic supreme deity* (1 Cor. 8.6 emphasis added):
there is ONE GOD, the Father, from whom
are all things and for whom we exist, and
one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are
all things and through whom we exist.
Colossians 1.15-16 explains that no other god or gods created the universe except God the Father (the source) through his Son (who is his image or reflection):
He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn of all creation; for in him all
things in heaven and on earth were created,
things visible and invisible, whether thrones
or dominions or rulers or powers—all things
have been created through him and for him.
1 Tim. 2.5 basically reiterates the exact same concept of the ONE GOD, not as 2 or 3 separate beings, but as ONE BEING (in multiple persons):
For there is one God; there is also one
mediator between God and humankind,
Christ Jesus, himself human.
Similarly, Hebrews 1.2-3 reveals the exact same *truth* regarding a single God and his Son, “through whom he also created the worlds”:
in these last days he [God] has spoken to
us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all
things, through whom he also created the
worlds. He [Christ] is the reflection of God's
glory and the exact imprint of God's very
being, and he sustains all things by his
powerful word.
——-
God is Truth & Does Not Lie
The Bible repeatedly reminds us that God is truth, holiness, and veritable love itself, and therefore he does not lie. The Old Testament verifies his truthfulness by instructing us to imitate his holiness. Exodus 20.16 says,
You shall not bear false witness against
your neighbor.
Proverbs 12.22 reads:
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord,
but those who act faithfully are his delight.
What is more, there are many Bible passages that demonstrate unlimited confidence in God’s honesty, transparency, and accountability. Titus 1.1-2 (emphasis added) is such a passage:
Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of
Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of
God's elect and the knowledge of the truth
that is in accordance with godliness, in the
hope of eternal life that God, WHO NEVER
LIES, promised before the ages began—
In John 17.17 (ESV), Jesus himself says to God the Father:
Sanctify them in the truth; your word is
truth.
This is reminiscent of Isaiah 65.16 (ESV) which calls the creator, “the God of truth.” He is similarly acknowledged in Deuteronomy 32.4 (NKJV) as “A God of truth and without injustice.”
In Numbers 23.19 (NRSV), God is further attested as a higher-being whose good character precludes deception and lies:
God is not a human being, that he should
lie, or a mortal, that he should change his
mind. Has he promised, and will he not do
it?
Moreover, the doctrine of the Immutability of God describes an attribute of God which prevents him from changing his will or character. It implies that He will make good on all of his promises. Hebrews 6:18 (ICB) puts it thusly:
These two things cannot change. God
cannot lie when he makes a promise, and
he cannot lie when he makes an oath.
These things encourage us who came to
God for safety. They give us strength to
hold on to the hope we have been given.
Conclusion
This life has no guarantees. So, from an interdisciplinary perspective, when there are multiple lines of evidence concerning one God——coupled with cases abounding in the “religious-experience literature” down through the ages——the *testimony* becomes rather robust and trustworthy! In other words, the religious testimony is ipso facto a possible source of knowledge. And this global testimony——which goes far beyond the Judeo-Christian Bible and includes other world religions——indicates that only one God exists. If we add the philosophical arguments that also assert a first cause regarding everything that has been created in the cosmos, then we can safely say that there can only be one God that is responsible for creating and sustaining the universe!
——-
Why Cessationism is a False Doctrine
By Bible Researcher & Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🔎
——-
Cessationism: God is Dead
Today, cessationists, like Justin Peters & John MacArthur, believe that God no longer communicates with mankind. It’s as if God is dead. Supposedly, he no longer performs miracles, or prophesies, or speaks. These people will often claim that if you want to hear God speak, read your Bible.
They have shut him out so thoroughly and to such an extent that it appears as if God doesn’t really exist outside the Bible. According to the cessationist movement (which by the way represents mainstream academic Christianity), God seemingly doesn’t have an independent existence outside the pages of Scripture. It’s as if he were a literary character that has been subordinated to biblical expediency. Existentially speaking, he’s not to be trusted or believed. For all intents and purposes, he doesn’t exist. It’s as if he died and left us his last will and testament. As the omnipotence-paradox riddle goes, it’s as if the Bible has become the stone that’s so heavy that even God can’t lift it.
Is Religious Experience Unchristian?
John MacArthur typically uses exaggerated caricatures of New Testament (NT) teachings to mock and ridicule *religious existential experiences.* But isn’t religious experience the foundation of our salvation, according to the NT? Romans 8.9 (NLT) says, “remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.” So how do you get the Spirit of Christ to live in you if not through an experience? Is it based on wishful thinking? Jesus says in Jn 3.3: “unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.” So, how is one born again if not through some kind of an experience? And how does one develop a relationship with Christ if not through an experience? Jesus simply becomes an imaginary partner or a wishful thought or daydream? Is that what the NT teaches? And how do we get a new identity, according to Eph. 4.22-24? By reading the Bible? MacArthur clearly contradicts Scripture by implying that Christian salvation is not based on any “experience” at all. Yet, in Philippians 2.12 (NASB) Paul exhorts:
work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling.
——-
Should We Reject Supernaturalism?
The problem with cessationists is that they think that the process by which we “have Christ” is through reading the Bible. They pretend as if the supernatural dimension does not exist. It’s a fantasy world of imagination, at best, or the realm of the demonic world, at worst. So the Bible is wrong in pointing out the existence of the supernatural realm?
In order to shield themselves from the abuses and excesses of the Charismatic Movement (which has more often than not misattributed spiritual gifts or popularized false ones), they have inadvertently disassociated themselves from authentic gifts as well. So, they downplay and discredit all visions and experiences as if they were once sanctioned by God in antiquity but forbidden in modern times. But is Jesus’ promise limited to the apostolic age, when he says (Jn 14.21 NRSV), “those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them”?
In first Corinthians 12.4-11, Paul informs us that the spiritual life is accompanied by spiritual gifts that are *continuously* bestowed on the believers by the Spirit of God. He enumerates them as follows:
there are varieties of gifts, but the same
Spirit; and there are varieties of services,
but the same Lord; and there are varieties
of activities, but it is the same God who
activates all of them in everyone. To each is
given the manifestation of the Spirit for the
common good. To one is given through the
Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to
another the utterance of knowledge
according to the same Spirit, to another
faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of
healing by the one Spirit, to another the
working of miracles, to another prophecy, to
another the discernment of spirits, to
another various kinds of tongues, to
another the interpretation of tongues. All
these are activated by one and the same
Spirit, who allots to each one individually
just as the Spirit chooses.
Jesus demands regeneration, and Paul exhorts believers to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12.2 NASB), not by simply reading the Bible and pretending to have an imaginary relationship with Jesus. How is Christ sufficient? By reading about him in a Book? That’s preposterous!
Justin Peters, a famous expository preacher, also insists that God doesn’t communicate with anyone today. He even offers a challenge to find a single verse either in the Old Testament (OT) or the NT where anyone ever mentions that the Lord spoke to them. For starters, Scripture is filled with the expression “the LORD says” (see e.g. 1 Kgs 12.24; 21.19; Jer. 23.38; Ezek. 6.3; 20.5; Mt. 3.17; Acts 9.4-6; 13.2; Gal. 1.11-12; 2 Pet. 1.18-19) and so on and so forth. The irony is that in trying to refute the notion that God talks to people, Justin Peters ends up demonstrating the exact opposite because, apparently, God talks to him. He exclaims (emphasis added):
THE LORD IS TELLING ME TODAY
to tell you that if you feel like the Lord
might be trying to tell you something,
then he’s not trying to tell you anything.
Let me get this straight: the Lord *told him* that he *doesn’t talk* to people? Hmm. Isn’t that an oxymoron? Then he shifts to a strawman argument in which the criteria depend on one’s *certainty* of who it is that is speaking. And he furnishes us with certain examples from the OT, stating that unlike modern examples, the ancient prophets knew exactly who was speaking to them. But earlier he emphatically stated that regardless of your level of certainty, God is not speaking to you:
If you want God to speak to you dear
friends, there’s one way, I guarantee you,
you will hear God speak: read your Bible.
If you want God to speak to you audibly,
read it out loud.
(see YouTube video: https://youtu.be/7buV1Hj1pMA).
——-
Cessationist Deism
This is a deist understanding of God as a transcendent Being, wholly independent of the material universe, who isn’t accessible to creatures and doesn’t personally interact with them. So, the NT teaching that the Holy Spirit “will be in you [ἐν ὑμῖν]” (Jn 14.17, 23; cf. Rom. 8.9) is false? (cf. Titus 3.5; 1 Jn 2.27). Thus, “truth” (who is Jesus; Jn 14.6) is never inside but always outside of every believer? Of course not! In Rev. 3.20 (NLT), Jesus declares the exact opposite:
‘Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you
hear my voice and open the door, I will
come in [εἰσελεύσομαι πρὸς αὐτὸν].’
Usually, whenever a believer is regenerated by the Spirit they’ll experience at least one of his charisms (cf. Acts 2.2-4; Rom. 12.6-8). Moreover, there’s not a single verse in the NT to indicate that these phenomena were limited to the Apostolic Age. In fact, the exact opposite is true. In Acts 2.17-18 (NRSV), God promises to speak to believers “in the last days” (ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις):
‘In the last days it will be, God declares, that
I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and
your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy, and your young men shall see
visions, and your old men shall dream
dreams. Even upon my slaves, both men
and women, in those days I will pour out my
Spirit; and they shall prophesy.’
But according to cessationism, it seems that a personal relationship with Christ is equivalent to reading about him in a book. So, there’s no truth outside the Bible, no experiential relationship to God, no real spiritual insight, no miracles, no supernatural world, no signs & wonders, no changes in the personality, no religious experiences, no continuationism of the work & gifts of the Holy Spirit, nothing whatsoever. Wow! This is a form of deism, pure and simple: God doesn’t intervene in the affairs of men except through a book. Not only does this view contradict Scripture, it’s completely bogus and misinformed!
BIble Idolatry
The cessationist message seems to be that nothing happens inside of us experientially. Today, God only speaks through the Bible. They have made of the Bible an idol. And they have also broken the first Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Yet they worship the Bible! Jesus, however, poignantly rebukes such people in John 5.39 (NLT):
‘You search the Scriptures because you
think they give you eternal life. But the
Scriptures point to me!’
In short, according to cessationism, the Bible has replaced God. God can no longer speak apart from or outside the Bible. Scripture also trumps Jesus. His spiritual relationship to human beings is not direct; it is indirect via the Bible. Put differently, we no longer believe in Jesus or God (the Spirit; Jn 4.24) as realities or entities, which exist outside the Bible, with the ability to communicate and transform our lives. No! According to cessationism, they interact with us only in and through the Bible. Thus, we only believe in the literary “word” of God. These divine beings only exist inside the Bible and not apart from it. Cessationists are in love with a book, not the author of that book. Outside of that book, they don’t seem to know its author. They only meet him via that book! This is what the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura has produced. But this epistemology is completely bogus, as if God is incapable of speaking to us outside the Bible. As Jesus observes: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me” (Mt. 15.8)!
——-
Conclusion
There are different types of cessationism. But even the most open-minded, which acknowledge that God *occasionally* works by supernatural means today, still limit the person & work of the Holy Spirit to a (bare) minimum. Yet every new birth is a miracle! For cessationists, belief, not experience, is the key. Therefore, we don’t need to “experience” or “know” Jesus intimately or personally. The old saying: “Taste and see that the LORD is good” (Psalm 34.8) need not apply. In this strange and demonically twisted scenario, the Bible is Lord!
This is the hallmark of a false doctrine. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the NT or with Christ’s command to love God above and beyond everything else, including books (Mk 12.30). It is not sanctioned by the Scriptures. And it is neither according to God’s word nor his will. It is a form of secularism: quasi-deism coupled with liberal theology. It’s a counterfeit Christianity! This idolatrous view is far removed from Christian teaching.
If we sum up full cessationism, and take it to its logical conclusion, it’s as if God & Jesus are simply *literary characters* in the Bible whose powers and abilities are confined and subject to the authors’ discretion. Accordingly, we don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus; we have a personal relationship with the Bible! We don’t know God apart from the Bible. That’s the cessationist message, namely, that Christianity is not a “spiritual” but rather a “literary” religion! They reduce apocalyptic & existential Christianity to literature!
And they further contradict both themselves and the Bible by stating that mystical, supernatural experiences do not exist today. So, this teaching involves not only an unwarranted epistemology——in which real, living, divine persons become reduced to literary characters——but also a self-contradictory eisegesis wherein they refute the very teaching they espouse, namely, the supernatural world of the Bible!
My question is simply this: does cessationism represent authentic Christianity? And, judging from the statements of its leading proponents, the answer is a resounding no! As 1 Thessalonians 5.19-20 (NRSV) says: “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise the words of prophets.”
—
when you start reading again and it's like oh. oh . the sun actually does still shine.