Evaluating The Last Reformation

I've been struggling to evaluate the teachings of Torben Søndergaard of The Last Reformation (TLR). He seems to be preaching a Holiness Doctrine. I'm still figuring out whether he is teaching freedom from habitual sin or freedom from all sin (the latter being obviously problematic). Here is a 15-minute video summarising his understanding of freedom from sin. The TLR Pioneer School Lesson 7 explains Søndergaard's understanding in more detail (the main teaching starts at 14:45). I listened again to Mike Winger's sermons on Romans 6 and 7 [Ro 6, Ro 7:1-13, Ro 7:13-25] and found his explanation of the seemingly contradictory ideas of “dead to sin” and “what a wretched man I am” to be helpful.

TLR teaches that baptism by water is essential for salvation.  The Pioneer School Lesson 7, from 47:19 to 1:27:59, and all of Lesson 10 discusses the importance of baptism as it pertains to both salvation and sanctification (which, in my understanding of Søndergaard's teaching, are two sides of the same coin).  Søndergaard teaches that being born of water and spirit refers to baptism by water and by the Holy Spirit and dismisses the idea that being born of water refers to our natural, physical birth. I lean towards a third interpretation: that being “born of water and spirit” refers to two aspects of the same event, as discussed by the GotQuestions.org article on John 3:5.

TLR also has a strong emphasis on obedience. Obviously, obedience is essential, but I can see that some people might not like the idea of losing (or never obtaining) salvation due to a lack of obedience (I see a lack of obedience as a symptom, not a cause, of an “unsaved” life).

The GotQuestions.org article on The Last Reformation is very critical, but I am not sure if they represent all of TLR's positions accurately.

My current position on Torben Søndergaard is that he is doing a generally good work, but may be a little off, theologically, on a few issues. I am attracted to the ideas of TLR, but I'm cautious.

 

Didactic Plenary Inspiration

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New International Version)
¹⁶ All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, ¹⁷ so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Didactic plenary inspiration (DPI) interpretation is a way of interpreting the bible by considering what the scriptures intend to teach is inerrant, but each individual word is not necessarily chosen by God. Matthew Flannagan compares this with the stricter approach of verbal plenary inspiration (VPI) interpretation in his post on inerrancy.

God is Testing You

Deuteronomy 13:1-3 (New International Version - UK)
Worshipping Other Gods
¹ If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, ² and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, Let us follow other gods (gods you have not known) and let us worship them, ³ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.

James 1:12-14 (New International Version - UK)
¹² Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him. ¹³ When tempted, no-one should say, God is tempting me. For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; ¹⁴ but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.

The LORD your God tests (H5254) you, but does not tempt (G3985) anyone. There must be some difference between testing (H5254) and tempting (G3985). From e-Sword:

H5254
נסה
nâsâh
naw-saw'
A primitive root; to test; by implication to attempt: - adventure, assay, prove, tempt, try.

G3985
πειράζω
peirazō
pi-rad'-zo
From G3984; to test (objectively), that is, endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline: - assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt (-er), try.

Is there a better translation of either of these verses that will resolve this conflict? The word highlighted in red in the LXX translation below is similar to G3985 (it just has a different ending), but I have not been able to find a definition for it. Are there any ancient Greek experts out there?

Deuteronomy 13:3 (Septuagint)
(13:4) οὐκ ἀκούσεσθε τῶν λόγων τοῦ προφήτου ἐκείνου ἢ τοῦ ἐνυπνιαζομένου τὸ ἐνύπνιον ἐκεῖνο ὅτι πειράζει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε κύριον τὸν θεὸν ὑμῶν ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς ὑμῶν

Or is there some other way to interpret what involvement God actually has in verses like Deuteronomy 13:1-3 and 1 Samuel 18:10?

1 Samuel 18:10-11 (New International Version - UK)
¹⁰ The next day an evil spirit from God came forcefully upon Saul. He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the harp, as he usually did. Saul had a spear in his hand ¹¹ and he hurled it, saying to himself, I'll pin David to the wall. But David eluded him twice.

I found this excerpt on BLB that seems to answer the question quite well:

Jam 1:13-15 seems to contradict other statements of Scripture in two respects, saying

(a) that 'God cannot be tempted with evil,' and

(b) that 'He Himself tempteth no man.'

But God tempted, or tried, Abraham, Hbr 11:17, and the Israelites tempted, or tried, God, 1Cr 10:9. Jam 1:14, however, makes it plain that, whereas in these cases the temptation or trial, came from without, James refers to temptation, or trial, arising within, from uncontrolled appetites and from evil passions, cp. Mar 7:20-23. But though such temptation does not proceed from God, yet does God regard His people while they endure it, and by it tests and approves them.

[From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 97.]

Keep it Simple

When interpreting scripture, is the most logically parsimonious solution necessarily correct? Or is that just a hang-over from modern rationalism?

Christian Unitarianism vs. Trinitarianism

In response to my post discussing whether God the Father left God the Son when He was on the cross, Adam Pastor posted a comment suggesting to watch the video The Human Jesus, which promotes Christian Unitarianism. I thought that rather than derailing that discussion too much, I would make a separate post to discuss this issue. Admittedly, the topic does fall outside of my own guidelines, as outlined in the “Baseline” section of the introductory post, but I think it is important to weigh up any belief against the scriptures.

I have copied my comments from the other post below.

A couple of thoughts about the video:

A major difficultly, is seems, for unitarians is understanding how Jesus can be both fully God and fully human (see video at 25 minutes 30). It is hard for some modern rationalists to understand, I suppose, but the limits of human understanding doesn't limit God. If that were the case, then God is our creation (or at least our servant) — we are God's god.

An interesting point mentioned in the video (23 minutes 50) is that there are verses that seem to promote the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, in apparent conflict with Deuteronomy 6:4. Trinitarians, according to the interviewee (Dan Mages), have tried to come up with a theology that solves this apparent conflict. My question about this is, isn't that what we're meant to do? If there are some apparently conflicting verses, shouldn't we try to work out how to interpret them so there is no contradiction? Otherwise we just have to accept that some of the verses are simply wrong.

It would have saved my time if the weak arguments (e.g., post-biblical era tradition and culture) for both sides of the discussion were omitted and just the solid arguments (that is, basically, just the exegesis of the scriptures) were presented.

About the humanity of Christ: He chose not to exercise His divine privileges while He was on Earth. He chose to subject Himself to the temptations that face mankind.

What I'd find useful, is a table listing all the scripture used to support trinitarianism in one column, and the unitarian rebuttals in another column. Then, a similar table listing all the scripture used to support unitarianism in one column, and the trinitarian rebuttals in another column.

One Jehovah — Did the Father Leave the Son on the Cross?

Deuteronomy 6:4 (Young's Literal Translation)
⁴Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God [is] one Jehovah;

God cannot look upon sin, and that is why He turned his face away from Christ when He took our sins upon Himself on the cross. Right? That it what I have always been taught.

Come on all you teachers! Do we believe in one God, or not? Do we believe in the Trinity—one God expressed as three Persons? Do we belive in the Incarnation? Because, if we do, we cannot assert that God the Father forsook God the Son, at any time. Below is a short essay on this subject by Bob Passantino.

Did the Father Leave the Son on the Cross?
By Bob Passantino, © 1991

On the cross Jesus said, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46). Many Christians believe this signifies the one and only time that there was a split between the first two persons of the Trinity, that is, between the Father and the Son. The argument asserts that when Jesus "became sin," the Father was unable to look upon him, hence he "forsook" Jesus. This argument seeks to emphasize the great cost to Christ on our behalf. He was even willing to endure separation from the Father to accomplish our salvation. However, I believe such an interpretation, while well intentioned, has heretical implications.^[1] It is a denial of belief in one eternal, indivisible God.

First, if the Father cannot look upon sin, meaning that he had to turn away from the Son on the cross (and I have found no verse which says that), then what does that say about the character and deity of Jesus? Is Jesus somehow less than God, so that he can "look upon" the sin that was laid on him on the cross? Or does he simply have a stronger stomach for sin than the Father? Or perhaps Jesus is more merciful than the Father, able to suffer what the Father cannot even face? It is interesting that in Genesis 6:5, God looked upon the sin of mankind. When scripture says that God cannot "look" upon sin, contextually it means he cannot look with approval upon sin. His consistent reaction to sin is just judgment - against the unrepentant sinner, or through the atonement of Jesus Christ, the one who died in our place and on our behalf.

Second, Jesus quoted the beginning of Psalm 22 when he stated "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" The Psalm is referred to previously in the same passage. The common Jewish way of designating an entire psalm was to refer to the opening lines, since the psalms were not numbered at that time. Jesus did not believe God had forsaken him: this would be lack of faith, which is sin (Romans 14:23), and Jesus never sinned (Hebrews 4:15). He was himself God and always in perfect obedience to the Father. Instead, he referred to the psalm in its entirety as a messianic psalm. That he knew God had not actually forsaken him is clear from the same psalm, which says, "He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from Him; But when He cried to Him, He heard" (verse 24). In fact, Jesus was declaring to his accusers that they were in the midst of fulfilling this psalm, which was commonly understood in His day to refer to the coming Messiah, the Suffering Servant. The psalmist himself understood that the "forsaking" of God was not abandonment, but a lifting of His Sovereign protection according to His divine plan so that the threats of his enemies could be carried out in fulfillment of prophecy. In fact, there were many times during Jesus' public ministry when His enemies sought to kill him (John 5:16; 8:59, for examples). They were not able to because, as He said, His "hour" was not yet come (John 12:23-28). He declared to Pilate, "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin" (John 19:11). On the day of Pentecost Peter declared that no one could have crucified Christ in defiance of God's power: "Him, being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it" (Acts 2:23-24).

Third, when 2 Corinthians 5:21 says that God made Jesus "to be sin," it means that God made the penalty for all sin to fall upon Jesus, not that Jesus himself could become sin, e.g., sinful. As perfect God and perfect man, he could not sin. 1 Peter 1:19 calls Jesus "a lamb without blemish and without spot."

Fourth, is it reasonable to assume that the Father would desert the Son who was acting in obedience to him through every moment of existence, "obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:8)? Is it consistent with the character of God for the Father to reward Christ's obedience with rejection? On the contrary, Ephesians 5:2 says Christ's sacrifice was "an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma."

Fifth, it is actually or ontologically impossible for there to be a "split" between any persons of the eternal Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity, simply defined, is that within the nature of the one true God there are three eternal, distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three Persons are the One God. (We do not believe in a rationally contradictory God of one God in three gods or one Person in three Persons, but one God in three Persons.) While others exist in generic or species identity (such as three humans sharing in humanness), God exists in numeric identity, such that each person is the one God. If all humans but three died, there would not be a trinity of humans, and the nature of humanity itself would not be diminished by the absence of one of the remaining humans. But in the nature of God, His eternal triunity indivisible. Any "split" in the Trinity would result in the destruction of the very being of God.

In conclusion, it is fallible humans who think the Father would reject the Son on the cross. The bond between the Father and the Son is inseparable, not only because of their deity, but because of the complete agreement between their wills, desires, mercy, justice, and love for mankind, exemplified in Christ's great sacrifice on the cross. Isaiah 53:4, a prophetic utterance concerning Jesus Christ, records the erroneous reaction of men to Christ's humiliating death: "Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted." Christ's declaration on the cross, far from being a admission of separation or abandonment, is a powerful affirmation of God's essential unity, perfect justice, sovereign power, and matchless grace.

For further information on this problem, I recommend James Oliver Buswell's Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962, Vol. Two, pp. 66-69).

This view and my view are not the only possible interpretations of this passage, and there are interpretations other than mine that do not have implicatory problems. However, it is beyond the scope of this essay to address those alternate interpretations.

Answers In Action
P.O. Box 2067
Costa Mesa
California 92628
(949) 646-9042
aia@answers.org
(copied with permission)

This does raise the question of how to interpret “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil”:

Habakkuk 1:13 (New International Version - UK)
¹³ Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong. Why then do you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves?

I think we should read this as, “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil and approve of it,” or, as the footnotes in the Spirit-Filled Life Bible say, “God’s very nature cannot allow Him to behold evil without punishing the guilty ones.”

If someone takes your laptop, do not stop him from taking your cell phone.

Luke 6:29-30 (New International Version - UK)
²⁹ If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.
³⁰ Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

What a difficult teaching to follow this is. To help us to be obedient to this command, we should try to understand why Christ tells us to act like this.

This sort of “unnatural” behaviour benefits both the victim and the offender. The victim is benefited by the change in attitude that will result from obeying the command. Instead of grieving over what they have lost, they will learn to trust more in God for their provision. They will be reminded that doing the work of God is more important than their material possessions. Through acts of obedience to God's Word, our attitude will grow to become closer to Christ's—it is not so much the case that we must get our attitude right before we can obey.

The assailant, thief or extortionist also benefits from this sort of counter-culture behaviour. Because such behaviour is such a contrast to human nature, they will likely consider why the victim acted that way. We bear witness to the character of Christ by acting like this. This may be a stepping stone for the offender to come to God.

The question is: how should we live out this command in our lives? If someone gets hold of our house key and uses it to burgle us, should we refrain from changing our locks, as that would be akin to “stop[ping] him from taking your tunic?” I think in each situation in which we have been wronged, we should prayerfully consider what action will be beneficial to us in developing our attitude and beneficial to the offender in bringing them to repentance and a (closer) relationship with God. Of course, in every case we need to forgive.

Luke 6:29-30 (The Message)
²⁷-³⁰"To you who are ready for the truth, I say this: Love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer for that person. If someone slaps you in the face, stand there and take it. If someone grabs your shirt, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it. If someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. No more tit-for-tat stuff. Live generously.

Romans 12:2,14,17,19-21 (New International Version - UK)
² Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is— his good, pleasing and perfect will.
¹⁴ Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
¹⁷ Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.
¹⁹ Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: It is mine to avenge; I will repay, says the Lord. ²⁰ On the contrary:
If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.
²¹Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.