"this is love for God: to obey his commands.
And his commands are not burdensome ..."
1 John 5:3
In my conversation with Mr. Hanegraaff, I stated that God may require much of us, but that in no way carries the implication that his requirements are impossible to obey. His reply? "Oh, yes it does!"
The Strawman
It is common in doctrinal debates (within orthodoxy and without) that arguments are based on mis-definitions. For example, in Watchtower literature, Jehovah's Witnesses will often misdefine the trinity and then criticize that definition. This is called the strawman argument. It works by misrepresenting a teaching, thereby creating a "straw man". They then proceed to demolish the straw man. In the case of the Watchtower, if a reader is not aware of the correct definition of the trinity, they will likely consider the incorrect arguments valid, and reject the trinity.
In my conversation with Hank Hanegraaff, one of the main difficulties was with definitions. I freely admit that I could have helped the situation by making a clarification at the beginning of our conversation.
In the following, it is obvious that often Hank's own criticisms against the doctrine being discussed was based on misdefining what obedience really is. In this case, Hank defines obedience falsely (creating a straw man), and then proceeds to say that according to this definition, consistent obedience is impossible (destroying the straw man.) As a result, people infected with this idea will likely assume that it is not possible for them to respond when reading verses that deal with holiness or obedience. This relieves them of a sense of obligation. This is similar to a homosexual who is told that he has a genetic predisposition, and therefore can't change. It also gives a false sense of relief, much like when a counselor tells a man that the reason he beats his wife is because his upbringing was dysfunctional.
Loving God
In the CRI perspective on perfection, Hank assumes that we cannot obey the Great Commandment. Indeed, Calvin himself defined the command to love God in such way as to imply that obedience is impossible. Calvin said:
"The precept of the law is - 'Thou shalt
love the Lord your God with all your heart'. That this command
may be fulfilled, we must previously be divest of every other
perception and thought, our heart must be free from all desires;
and our might must be collected and contracted on this one
point."
There are two ways to understand this verse. Calvin understood it as commanding constant exertion, while the other position understands it to command constant purpose and consecration. I find Calvin's view to be incorrect for the following reasons:
1. If that is what it means to love God, then it would be a sin to love your neighbor, or even your wife, for that matter. It would be totally unreasonable, and no one could endure it for very long, because we must eat, rest, and sleep. How could such a command be considered just or wise?
2. This command simply does not imply that we constantly have to exert all of our physical, mental, and emotional strength "collected and contracted on this one point." Jesus obeyed the law perfectly, yet he still slept, shed tears, and felt pain. The prophet Isaiah described him as a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief. He exerted energy and strength in being a carpenter. He was even tempted! However, his priority was to please God in everything he did. His heart was devoted to doing the will of the Father. It disgusts me to even have to address this argument. If Calvin's foolish definition of the great commandment was correct, even Jesus would have been declared a sinner!
3. God does not command us to love him with more strength than we possess. He commands us to love him with the strength that we do have. Clearly, Calvin's misinterpretation of this command requires more strength than we have.
5. Calvin's interpretation implies that every perception and thought except those focused exclusively on God are inconsistent with loving God. If this is true, then when the bible tells me to rebuke those who are in error it is actually telling me to sin, because that will of course cause me to think of something besides God. If Calvin is right, much of what the Bible tells me to do would cause me to sin, including loving my children! How can one consider a teaching as ridiculous as this without feeling complete revulsion? God's concern is how we respond to desires; the Bible does not tell us to be free from "all desires." However, it does tell us abstain from sinful desires which war against our soul (1 Peter 2:11). It is not wrong to feel the war but we should stop fraternizing with the enemy. In Luke 4, Jesus has given us the best example of how to respond to tempting thoughts and desires. This whole topic will be addressed in more detail in another section.
The purpose of the heart
In the Great Commandment, the issue is the ultimate purpose and motive of the heart. The apostle Paul stated that the whole law can be summed up in the word "love" (Rom 13:10). As Finney said, "Now this cannot be true, if the spirit of the whole law does not respect intentions only. If it extends directly to thoughts, emotions and outward actions, it cannot be truly said that love is the fulfilling of the law."
If the attitude of your heart is founded on God's love, then the fruit that is produced will be good and pleasing to God. You don't have to feel excited all the time; you can be close to God while being calm or even broken and contrite. Realizing this has saved me from much false guilt. Even more importantly, I no longer spend time trying to psyche myself up or looking to church to get me excited. His joy is still my strength, but it is no longer a focal point for gauging my spiritual standing before God. I now realize that whatever heart I have, being devoted to God is sufficient. To quote Finney once more, God loves with " The strength of his infinite nature. He requires us to love with the strength of our finite nature."
Charles Finney showed great wisdom when he said: "It seems to me that the law of God requires that all our power, and strength, and being, be honestly and continually consecrated to God, and held not in a state of utmost tension, but that the strength shall be extended and employed in exact accordance with the mind's honest judgement of what is, at every moment, the best economy for God." (Pg 36 Systematic Theology).
I am very glad that Calvin is wrong on this issue, for if he was right, it would clearly imply that obedience is most possible in caves or monasteries!
Ability
Hank seems to believe that our Lord's commands are so extravagant that it would be outrageous for anyone to think it even possible to obey them fully. Proverbs 3:27 states: "Do not withhold good from those who deserve it when it is in your power to act. Do not say to your neighbor, 'Come back later; I'll give it to you tomorrow' when you have it with you". It should be noted that the very wording of this verse implies that it is only binding insofar as we have the ability to obey, or "the power to act"
Hank declared that we can't always obey this teaching. However, if you can't "do it" at any point, obviously you don't have "the power to act". This verse teaches obligation based on ability; it is only for those who can act. If you can't do it, you're not obligated. Therefore, Hank's argument is worthless.
Clearly, this proverb is in the Bible for our
instruction, rather than merely an exercise in memory dynamics.
The disciples as recorded in Acts 4:25 definitely obeyed this
injunction -even going beyond what was asked. Look at the poor
widow in Luke 21:2, who gave all she had to live on. Does God
require more than this? No. In fact, it's obvious that the widow
gave even more than what was required of her. According
to 1 John 3:17-18, James 2, and the book of Proverbs, it is a sin
not to help the poor who approach you when you have the power to
do so. God does not require that you give to the point that you
yourself are needy - you won't be much good to anyone if you're
starving - but he does require you to give and thereby store your
treasures in heaven ( Matt.6:2 Cor. 8,9) We should work to supply
for our own needs (1Thess. 4:11-12) and the needs of our family (
1 Tim 5:8), and then we should do what we can to help others,
rather than storing up treasures here on earth (Matt.6:19).
Not even a burden
Hank would say that it's impossible and unreasonable to expect anyone to obey God consistently, but as I touched on before, the Bible does not represent obedience as impossible nor does it represent God's commands as unreasonable. In fact, the Bible says that they're not even a burden for those who love God. "This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome".
"all of his paths are pleasant ways and all of his paths peace."
If you believe that God requires more of you than is possible, of course you'll view it as impossible to obey him. But if he merely requires what is within your ability to do, then surely in Christ you can obey him.
Biblical example
We are each responsible to God for how we conduct our lives. I'm simply stating that God's requirements are not unreasonable or impossible.
Read 1 Corinthians 4:9-13, all of chapter 9, as well as 2 Corinthians 6:3-10 to see that Paul not only did what was required of him, but in some cases did more than what was required of him. The lord is not like some over demanding parent. He does expect much of us, but all of it is perfectly reasonable. God has given us principles to follow, none of which should be interpreted in a legalistic way as the pharisees did. The letter kills but the spirit gives life.
God's strength
As I have said, part of the problem lies in definitions. Whether Hank is sincere or not, it's as wrong as it is confusing to tell people that they should be obedient, but they still have to sin everyday. I believe there is much damage in this message. People are occasionally told that they should rely on the Lord for strength to live holy lives. Then they're also told that it's impossible to do, and that they're really deceived if they think God is going to help them all the time. This is a very deceptive argument, sometimes known as "lip service". The tactic is to pay homage to one thing while pursuing another. In this case, pay homage to obedience but excuse our sins.
What is he saying?
Our life should be characterized by obedience. That this seems so incomprehensible to Hank Hanegraaff greatly saddens me. He's already stated that we have to sin. I would like him to clarify the following for me.
Do we have to lie, manipulate people, and misrepresent God? This is an important question. Do I have to commit every sin, or just the ones I feel like doing?
This whole idea causes people to treat sin much too lightly. It is a part of God's permanent record that he does not trivialize sin. In Acts 5, Annanius and Sapphira sinned. In response, Peter did not say, "Don't worry; you had to do it,". Rather, he treated their sin seriously, and so did God -taking there lives as a result. God is patient and often gives second chances, but we don't deserve his mercy and shouldn't take it lightly.
Willful Sin
The bible says "sin is not taken into account where there is no law." (Romans 5:13). You will not be held responsible for breaking a law that you were not aware of. Some absurdly argue that death still reigned between Adam and Moses, therefore sin was still taken into account when there was no law. However, while it is true that death still reigned it was on another basis. Before Moses came, everyone still had a conscience, and there were also preachers before the Flood (Enoch, Noah, etc.). They were, therefore, accountable for the light that they did have, just as people are today when they haven't heard the gospel. For the purposes of our discussion, sin outside of choice is not relevant.
The New Testament principle is not necessarily the same as the Old regarding this issue. I take this position because of passages expressing our new relationship to the law, such as: "We serve in the new way of the spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."(Rom 7:6). At present, I am still somewhat indecisive on certain aspects of the New Testament concept of ignorance. However, even if there is such a thing as "ignorant sins", in practice it would have no bearing on my other views, since it's obvious that we have no choice in areas that go beyond our awareness and ability.
Paul certainly used the phrase "Do you not know" many times; however, the reason he brought the issues up was to bring people into the light. He also then held them responsible to respond. If a person was truly ignorant and had no feeling of conscience on a particular issue (if such is possible), I would expect the Holy Spirit to enlighten the sinner through the Word, another Christian, or by personal revelation that the activity he is engaging in is wrong. He would then be expected to stop. I say this because the Bible tells us that no one born of God will continue sinning; indeed, he cannot, because God's seed remains in him. I have no qualms if someone wants to make a distinction between deliberate and ignorant sins such as the Catholics have. I may adopt this view myself, but if I do, I will tell people to change their conduct as soon as the issue is brought to light.
"As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance." (1 Peter 1:14).
In the language of the apostles, the concept of "sins you are not aware of" doesn't seem to have been much of an issue. They could make claims of holiness without being concerned about so called "ignorant" sins. The only time in the New Testament that an inference to such is made occurs in 1 Cor 4:4, when Paul states: "My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me." While an inference to possible ignorance could be implied in this passage, it does not interfere with my own views. God is clearly the higher court, but until he brings "to light what is hidden in darkness", he has given us a conscience and his Word. Paul would have had a much clearer understanding of the issue than I do, and it did not stop him from saying that his conscience was clear. He still went on to tell the Corinthians to stop sinning. In other words, the truth expressed in 1 Corinthians 4 does not conflict with other clear teachings. My advice is that whenever you receive light on a moral issue, you should put it into practice. If the truth reveals sin in your own heart, confess it and don't look back. In order to prove that my view is invalid, it must be proven that we have to give in to conscious temptation.
***
"God made us, and God is able to empower
us to do whatever he calls us to do. Denying that we can
accomplish God's work is not humility, it's the worst kind of
pride." Warren. W Wiersbe.
