Weird experience

The other day I talked with a guy who pastors in some weird little group of Churches...

It was weird because he said they were zero points of T.U.L.I.P. On top of this he was trying to get me come be a teacher in their Sunday school. Further he was braggart about how unique they are for a doctrine, he says, I wouldn't be able to find among evangelicals, that I just couldn't have heard, according to him (despite telling him that I have been exposed to the doctrine and heard of it from among evangelicals), that God isn't saving individuals, but rather saving corporately (corporate salvation opposed to the salvation of individuals whom he then brings together corporately); this he tried using to explain away the passages about predestination (the passages themselves) by making them rather "about the Church" and used the analogy that the Church was like a plane that God wants everyone to get onto, but it has a set time that it'll leave; of course pointing out "but that Church is composed of saved individuals" was utterly useless; interestingly, though he denied having any agreement with T.U.L.I.P. , he affirmed eternal security: depending on how terms are being defined, that's possible (the "P" does not equal "ES", usually, how the former is defined, and the latter is usually defined).

He went on and on about human will and how as can leave if we will...yet affirmed eternal security; it was such a strange garble it was both frustrating and fascinating; the latter because of gaining experience of what absurdities one may face, and perhaps the impossibility of convincing somebody by scripture; he was proudly showing me the 1st year Greek class translations of his group's theological "heavy hitters", as he kept calling some of his group, on passages like Romans 8:28, which, he says, is not about God working all things together for the good of those who love Him, but rather, he said, it is about God working WITH them (i.e. they're an active participant rather than the recipient); I pointed-out that he had to take the Greek word "synergei" (a compound of "syn", usually translated as "with", and the Gr. word for working) etymologically and translate it as an isolated word-compound, not as it's used, in order to do this (they translate it "He works with those" in the sense that God is no longer the Sovereign, the all knowing, the orchestrator, but a participant with us); etymological translation is something never acceptable in translation of anything, nor in reading any text for meaning: some of the most adamant (qualified) advocates of literal translation, I think, would agree.

To the assertion that one cannot translate or take a word by mere etymology,he quickly agreed, and then said it's always translated in Scripture the way his group did in this passage (ignoring questions of actual use, however!); I questioned him, pointing-out that synergei doesn't necessarily mean what we might think it simply if just carelessly reading, and illustrated the point by an example of using "with" to mean "not with" (using "with" negating itself!); I suggested that it was likely, since nobody seems ever to have translated this as such here, nor have they taken it to mean what he suggested, (nor do I know of anyone who suggests such an interpretation, besides him and his group, historically or otherwise...again, it's. just. wrong. to ignore a word's use), that they were off, and that translators likely translated the way they did specifically because though the translation of translating the parts of the compound (which would still alter the one he was pushing) could be lexically defensible, the likelihood of misleading readers would be high (and to say "works with" could mean "works with" as in "orchestrates" or "uses them", etc., which would totally destroy what he was saying, but to translate the way he did...still ignored the context!). He went on to argue "but they approach with a bias": given that he'd been arguing with me about calvinism (or what he thinks that is...I've never, in fact, read all the Institutes myself!), I pointed-out that the NKJV he was holding was not a "Calvinist" translation (though that it revised could be called that in some places), but a committee one done by many representatives, as are so many translations.

All this was quite strange: I'd indicate some biblical doctrine, he'd pull-out some piece of Scripture that tried to make such an assertion "hard" ("what about this situation then...") although the use was questionable and often totally errant, or just dumb altogether; I'd point-out that it's improper to take an obscure passage to override one that's explicit and clear, and he'd agree...then continue to do it!

One example was in Jeremiah where God tells of how that when he has a mind to rip-up or build a nation, if they repent or fall into sin (respectively) that He'll do the opposite, proceeded to say "doesn't this mean God repented" (which is correct), but then extended this "so doesn't God NOT know the future...if He knew the future, how could He change His mind?" (He really really doesn't consider the use of words carefully). Comically, I pointed-out that Jesus told His disciples their and the world's future (taking an example of a passage that could supposedly (though in this case, it's an explicit, not debateable, passage(s)), as he'd done with passages that he saw as problems (though contextually, again, when that's considered...they are not: and he'd praise context, then avoid it!), and he just totally failed to reply on those things.

A couple interesting things: the whole time he kept seeking my approval: that I acknowledge him as a brother, act more friendly (said I was either arrogant, or if I was just serious out of concern for his sake for having to face God for all this, then he sinned by saying that: an interesting thing for him to say); at the very beginning of we speaking he kept saying "I know my theology is wrong somewhere...please correct me" (then proceeded to try to convince me of it); also at the beginning of our conversation, he said he was an Acts [something] dispensationalist; that last word indicated "oh no, likelihood of jacked-up doctrinal stuff high", and the "Acts [something]" descriptor even more trouble, (the "[something]" is a chapter of Acts: dispensationalists typically claim the Church was not extent until or after pentecost, variously saying at which Chapter in Acts it began...I guess the very Hebrew "congregation" translated by Greek "ekklesia" (congregation) from which we render "church" in the OT is meaningless to them; or that when Jesus talks of building His Church, it's to Jews...or that the Bible doesn't describe a distinction between the Jews and Gentiles in Christ, but rather the former as a commonwealth and natural branches, the latter as added to that commonwealth and ingrafted into the vine though wild branches themselves: these kind of details just go on and on.

Also very strange: he wanted my participation with them; he'd make-up situations that are supposedly complicating to the things I was saying (more and more I kept trying to just read whole passages of Scripture, right out of his Bible, then commented on them...pointing out audience, context, etc.) and he'd then attack them (making a bunch of assumptions as if he was talking to some imaginary opponent who he'd debated before, or something, and not me), and then go on to say he just couldn't worship a God "like that" (having made a bunch of assumptions, assertions, statements, etc., that either I had not said, or twisting what I said, or what others had said, or else thinking what I said implied, or ignoring me qualifying this or that that I had said...); I started questioning his use/definitions of terms, and bringing that up in the hopes to ask him to use them either consistently with the Bible, or else use other terms so that we wouldn't be talking past one another, and this upset the guy!

Among other things I learned his group loves wholeheartedly the theology of Larry Crabb (but not the practice; while earlier he brought-up and applauded that John MacArthur had kicked Larry Crabb and his teachings and materials out of their Church in Cali): so much contradiction my head was spinning.

I also got 'hold of his "mentor"'s packets on teachings about predestination and free will, and other stuff: pretty quickly one starts seeing red flags and other junk littering the pages of those booklets; it also appears to be his source for the jacked-up use of terms (something common among truly dispensationalist groups).

Oh yeah: and he had no shortage of examples of how he'd raised a great family, praises of people who have a lot of zeal (irregardless of their theology: even, in some cases, their gospel! saying things like "well, they preach a gospel of legalism, not grace, but I LOVE and SUPPORT their ministry because I love WHAT THEY'RE DOING: therefore I have fellowship with them!!!; oddly he talked about how much of what his group is doing he hates, though he loves its theology!).

What was really creepy, though, was his insistance that all we believed didn't matter, but "we love Jesus, that's all that matters, right?", yet then he kept trying to get me to "give concession" to him, or some kind of accomodation, or acknowledgment, etc.. It was sooooooo weird. In such cases I always think of "well, which Jesus", "define Jesus", etc.. Oddly enough Jesus makes some of the most explicit statements of Scripture regarding, for instance, man's will vs. God's acts: quoting a few of these and he actually fessed "okay, you got me there", but still insisted on his own weirdness.

The upside from this six-hour life drain: experience; seeing new ways men twist, ignore, wrest, pervert, etc. Scripture, and getting my hands on materials to evaluate, dissect, and expose (great for forcing one to pay attention to, search, and apply Scripture!); so really it's not so much a "drain", I guess. A blessing to me, a humbling one (as so many experiences similar to this are!), but also one about which I hurt: I love the fellow...but for the gospel's sake, I'm really wary about associating with him anymore; here's a guy supposed to be a pastor, fumbling with Scripture, advocating utter contradiction and garbly-gooky messy doctrine that's fuzzy at best, excited that the group he's part of is so novel and unlike other groups, and so much else. [One thing I'm learning, of which I was reminded...the use "evangelical" these days often coincides with someone creating opportunities for themselves when they need an easy target; the general public has a certain image of them; different Churches do; and so many go around wanting to market themselves just by saying "we're unlike evangelicals": with such a broad term, (meaningless these days), people really need to stop being vague in such things.]

Well, that's my story from this holiday (and it's not a tall tale), Grace.