Kant’s moral argument & the Categorical Imperative

20th, Defendingfaith, 2-10-10

Kant’s moral argument & the Categorical Imperative

Early on in this series there was mentioned the revolutionary impact of Immanuel Kant’s critic of the traditional argument for the existence for God. That watershed event was in his book ‘The Critic of Pure Reason.’ He was agnostic in the ability to prove if there is the existence of God through theoretical thought even though he was a theist. ‘The Critic of Practical Reason’ was another book where he discussed more practical ways of proving His existence. Sproul likes say, “one the one hand Kant v was to have ushered God outside the front door of the house, he then runs around to the kitchen and opens up the back door to let Him in.” In his ‘Practical’ book he gave his famous moral argument for the existence of God. Which we are going to look at. But first let us look at some moral arguments from the New Testament.

Paul and Romans meaning


When Paul writes to the Romans from Corinth in the first chapter [which we worked on in a prior lesson], he says the invisible things are known by the things which are made. Now going to a later part of chapter 1 he is making an indictment against the whole human race in their fallen and corrupted state, he says in v28, “even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting. To do those things which are, 1. Unrighteousness, 2.…etc.” It is not an exhaustive list but he catalogues many of the ways in which human beings violate each other with immoral behavior. But the kicker is in v32, “Who [those humans that practice] knowing these things that doing them are deserving of death, do the same and approve of those others who do them also.” God, therefore, has revealed His character to all creatures. Every human knows that God is right and commands from us to know the difference from right and wrong. We know how we ought to behave sexually. We know that we ought not rob from others or murder or be malicious etc. We know that they are wrong. Yet despite our knowing that we don’t want God in our minds eye. We behave this way and yet we approve of this even knowing this is wrong. We enlist the support of other people and encourage participation by others. Name any moral transgression and you will find some group militating for it’s acceptance and tolerance.


Now in chapter 2:12 he says also…{not written]


He says that not only does he give the law to Israel but he also writes his law in the heart of every creature that is born. The proof that He does this is the apparatus that we have called a ’conscientious.’ It is part of the constituent makeup of every human being. Conscience’s can be corrupted and seared and callused and all the rest. At the extreme, If anyone is devoid of a conscience we call them a sociopath. Doing wicked things without feeling of guilt. So to recapture what we are saying is that God bears witness to Himself by planting His moral law in the minds of every human creature. There will be many who say it is not a conscience but either a taboo, or Freud’s notion to freedom and sexual liberty, or puritanical leanings or Victorian constraint, but, the true conscience will not go away. Everywhere in any continent is the construct of an ethical moral structure which is a necessary for social interaction in society and civilization to work.


So in keeping with today’s society some have called it a ‘post-Christian society, some ‘neo-paganism’ but Sproul would call it ‘neo-barbarism’. Meaning that at least 50% act amorally. Including educated barbarians which are apart of the moral revolution in our time. But you cannot extinguish the conscience.

Kant, The Critic of Practical Reason


Now is where Kant’s moral argument comes in. He said it is a universal phenomena that every single person has a sense of ‘oughtness.’ We might call it an internal native sense of right and wrong. He used the phrase the ‘Categorical Imperative’ is a absolute command or duty and requires and obligates them to behave in a certain manner. You can deny it, you can flee from it but you can’t get rid of it. And this leads to the conundrum that you cannot solve for is guilt. When someone says they are an atheist, Sproul will stop and ask them what do you do with your guilt? He has yet to find someone who says they don’t have any. And when each of us knows the other knows that each of us have this, we move onto another plane of speaking about problems and such.


Now Kant says that guilt comes when we fail to do our duty, what we are morally obligated to do. In his reasoning he came to this from a definition of transcendental, which is key to his whole approach of philosophy. This Transcendental approach, even his epistemology, of how do come to knowledge at all, was very innovative. He didn’t say how does knowledge take place. He didn’t start out even saying knowledge is possible. He starts out with a question. If knowledge is possible what would have to be? What are the necessary ingredients to make knowledge possible? He then constructs his philosophy upon this by transcending or getting above the problem and wrestles with the questions of possible knowledge. Saying that if it is possible, what would have to be and proceeds on that premise.


So when he comes to the question for the moral argument for God he comes to this place of a ‘universal sense of oughtness. Now, Kant says, it maybe a glitch in the composition of human beings and as the nihilist would argue, that moral sense is meaningless. And as such, we really should get rid of it because it has no significance. So Kant is saying here that he doesn’t know if it is meaningful but if it is meaningful what would have to be and take place. What would be necessary for true ethics and morality to be, that which imposes obligations on each human for this to be meaningful? He asks another question from the practicality of an objective standard behavior, that in the final analysis, if it is not there really, then culture and society is impossible. Laws, are then, by shear preference and is none other than might makes right or the law of the jungle. Which after some time must destroy civilization. Which is close to where we are today as a society. Dostoevsky said that if there is no God then all things are permissible. If there is no ultimate ground for rightness, then all things have to have permission. Then, after this, it is just a battle over preferences. My preference over your preference. Similar to a time when ‘everybody is doing what is right in their own mind.’ Which brings conflict which eventually brings warfare between states, borders, husbands and wife’s etc. There are no preset rules that have any foundation to the creature.


Kant is acutely aware of this and he knew what was at stake here in his philosophical questioning. No less than Western Civilization was to be defined by this.


So he asked another question; what is necessary for the Categorical Imperative to be meaningful? The first thing for this to be meaningful is justice. For ultimately if crime pays then there is no practical reason to be virtuous. There is no reason but to be selfish. There must be justice involved to reward right behavior and punish bad actions. Then he asked the question as to what would be necessary for justice to take place? Well if this were to be so then you would have to have life after death. Because we know that this world does not dispense justice perfectly. There are innocent people who perish at the hands of the guilty. The OT writes of the wicked prospering and the righteous suffering. That can only happen in an environment where justice is not perfectly carried out. Since in this world there are only approximations of justice then you must have life after death. 1. So we have to survive the grave to find true justice.


But you may have in the next life the same results as you find right now. 2. So along with this you have to also have a judge that is morally perfect and right. If the judge who ultimately judges is not perfectly right then he may render imperfect justice. Because he is bribable, corruptible, selfish and on and on. Above reproach and corruption. But suppose you had a judge who was upright and he was doing the best he had in him but he didn’t have complete knowledge and because of these limitations he makes mistakes. He errs by virtue of working from limitations.


So the third factor is he must be Omniscient and know all of the facts. So now, the judgment that is rendered is without error. So now you have 1. Life after death 2. Final judgment 3. A judge who is perfectly right and knows everything. Will that now ensure justice? Not yet! There is still one more element that has to be present in order to insure that justice prevail. 4. He must have the power to enforce his judgment. If he were restricted in anyway, by some outside agency, to bring true justice bear it would not be possible for justice. So the last feature is he must be omnipotent. Kant his arguing transcendentally that your sense of ‘oughtness’ is going to matter, that means you have to matter. It means you have to survive the grave - you have to be held accountable for everything you do in your life. Every deed, thought, virtue that you left undone is known by one who is not blind in any way and holy and perfectly good, and is strong in power to make this perfect judgment.


So, morality, if it is true, makes the affirmation of God a practical necessity. Kant said, ‘we must live as if there is a God, because if there isn’t, we have no hope for civilization. The dissidents who came after him said that even though this sounds grim, all is still meaningless and there is no hope. But most people who don’t want to believe in this moral God are working off of the moral capital inherent in the God. No, they don’t want God but they want morality. Which will bring them significance and a place for their desire for fairness. But Kant says through this argument that you can’t have both.

The God of the Bible versus the God of the Greek philosophers

19th, Defendingfaith, January 11, 2010

The God of the Bible versus the God of the Greek philosophers

Over this series we have been looking for a sufficient reason to account for reality as it is. In the last for sessions we have looked at four possibilities for one could look at reality. We came to see that it was not illusion and it was not that reality is self-created. Of the last two on deals with a self existent eternal “something” and the other deal with a self existent eternal “transcendent being.” In philosophical terms transcendence means a higher order of being. We left this last session with the question the notion if we come to this understanding it is a long way from the ‘personal being’ we encounter in Judeo-Christian scripture. All we have been able to establish so far is something akin to the ‘God of the philosophers.’ An abstract concept of a ‘seeb.’ That leaves us with two serious problems that we have to look at briefly. 1. The differences of relationship between what we have established so far and what is promoted in the ‘God of the Bible’ and 2. How do we get from a seeb to a personal God. We will start with the first one.


In the early church Tertullian was noted for saying, “I believe because it is absurd.” Tertullian at that point was trying to show the radical difference between the God of the Bible and Greek philosophy. He raised a rhetorical thought of ‘what does Jerusalem have to do with Athens‘? and his rhetorical answer -- Nothing. There is no real point of contact between the God of Israel and the vagueness of principles found in the Greek philosophers. So this objection to dealing with this question was held by early Christians but also in 19th century with the liberal school of theology. And certain of these schools objected and said that early Christians were corrupted by this intrusion of Greek philosophy. You can go back to the council of Nicea where the Trinity was defined. Stating, as they did in Nicea, that God was One in essence and Three in person were using categories to define the Trinity and the two natures of Christ, the term Homo-usesious, was laden with Greek concepts. These 19th century liberal’s said we should break free of the strangle hold of this philosophy that was apart of the theologians of that time period. This view has made enormous inroads into the contemporary evangelical church of today where we have this new sense of the rejection of systematic philosophy because it seeks to have a rational coherent understanding of the whole scope of scripture. Today’s churches fight against the same concepts as they did in general. Because they say the systematician imposes a philosophical thread on the bible to fit into a preconceived system that is borrowed, they say, from the Greeks and their philosophy.


Sproul, with a smile, says that he is a systematic professor and he ‘represents’ that remark. He here’s these criticisms all the time. But Sproul says that his task is never to impose a foreign system on the scripture and then force the scripture to fit its form. But rather what true systematizing try to do is to look at the whole scope of scripture and have a coherent understanding by finding the system of thought that IS in the Bible. That does presuppose that when God speaks He speaks coherently. It presupposes that God has given us minds that can understand coherently what He gives. In rational measures and not absurd ways of thinking which are disjointed and irrational. Yet this very mainline anti-systemic concept today is linked to this antipathy that people have to Greek philosophy.

God the Holy Spirit chose the Greek language


This is a must to understand: that for better or worse, God the Holy Spirit chose the Greek language to have the New Testament written. And as long as that is the language then it will always be with us. In terms of our understanding the gospel. It doesn’t mean that you interpret the scripture, the new testament in the Greek language, in terms of Greek philosophy. No, the concepts developed come from the Hebrew world. They were simply communicated through the Greek language. It is true that the Hebrew language tends to be more ‘imaginative, more pictorial and graphic than abstractions, it would be a mistake and an insult to the Jews to say that the Greeks were coherent but the Hebrew’s were incoherent. The Hebrew mind was rational and sought to be coherent. The mind was of supreme importance to the Jewish understanding of the things of God right along with the Greeks.


A. Having conveyed this we are still left with the problem of concepts in Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle, and the ideas put forth in Christianity. Where Aristotle defined God as 1. thought -- word and thinking was his cause. 2. He defined God as the unmoved mover or the first cause of all things. 3. He says that God doesn’t voluntarily create but creates out of necessity but remains completely remote and impersonal and removes Himself from his creation. 4. All human beings, by nature, desire to know. 5. All human beings, by nature, desire to know.
B. While the Bible and Christianity describe God, even in the first sentence of the Bible, 1. as one who acts to create all that is. 2. He acts in a reasonable propulsive manner to bring things to pass. 3. That which is created is sustained and committed to. 4. It is a story of creation and redemption. Is intimately involved with the affairs of history. 5. He is committed to managing the universe.


There are then, sharp differences in these views of God beyond the ‘first mover‘ similarity.


There is also the concept in philosophy of the Logos referred to as the ‘word or logic.’ For Greeks it functions as an abstract idea that is necessary for giving order and harmony to the world. Where as in biblical Christianity the Logos is the incarnate word of God and a person. A great difference in regards to the pre-Socratic’s and their representation.


So when R.C. Sproul hears Christians object to this type of apologetic in that it only gets us to a “first cause.” To the front door of Lyceum School of Aristotle where this eternal self existent being is demonstrated. Which those who object will say that all you have done is find Aristotle’s God. And on this regard of this assumption agreement will reject the process of apologetics that Sproul has been laboring on. So Sproul has to remind people that one of the first principles in the ‘doctrine of God’ in systematic theology is the “incomprehensibility of God.” Which means that none of us, either now or at anytime, will have an exhaustive and comprehensive knowledge of God. Being that God is infinite in His excellence and we are finite we will not be able to have limitless understanding.


The case against the construction of a self existent eternal being is false and the conclusions are false because it is not the compete picture; but it is just a partial picture. The question Sproul asks is do we have to have a comprehensive understanding of God to have ‘true’ understanding of God?
So you go back to our 1st principle and do you have to have total comprehension? For we certainly don’t have or can have full comprehension. Partial knowledge doesn’t mean that our principle is not true. It is true as far as it goes. We grant that what we have achieved so far in our reasoning process is that we have got to a seeb and that is part of what the Bible reveals to us about the character of God. It discloses that He is eternal and self existent and the one responsible for what is made. This position is the same as the biblical notion of who God is.


At this point, where we have come to in stating this claim, a man like Aristotle would say - amen. Detractors, is Aristotle wrong in his reasoning? Of course not. Just because he is a 2,400 year old pagan philosopher and agrees that there has to be a seeb does not vitiate the truth of the Christian claim of the same insistence. The fact is he agrees with the claim. Therefore, the both agree that there has to be a first cause, that first cause has to be self existent, that first cause has to be pure actuality, that first cause is caused by pure being, the first cause has to be eternal. So thank you very much Aristotle we agree with you, you agree with us on the cardinal point - which is only a partial point - of our knowledge of God. But this partial point is crucial to our knowledge of God because, ladies and gentlemen, precisely this aspect of Christian understanding of God that is constantly under attack by atheistic systems of thought. Where atheists attack Christianity is at the point of Creation or at the point of a Self existent eternal Being. So Sproul thinks there is great value in establishing the faith as well as the reason that demonstrates for the logical necessity for having a seeb. So the battle field over which the doctrine of God wages is one where the Christian comes out victorious rather surrendering so much of his truth claims.


We are not playing philosophical games


In summation, Sproul is granting that getting to the conclusion that there must be a seeb does not get us to a full understanding of God or even as much as the God of the Bible supplies. But what this does is under gird the most crucial aspect of the doctrine of God that the bible does reveal. The bible reveals, along with our agreement with Aristotle, that there is a self existent eternal being. We are not doing this for philosophical gamesmanship we are defending crucial aspects of the biblical doctrine of God, to this point.


How do you go from abstraction to personality?


The question then is how do you get from a self existent eternal ‘something’ to a personal God. Well that will take a more complex and difficult investigation. One of the most famous arguments for the existence of God is the ‘teleological’ argument.' From ‘telos’ for end, puporse or goal. The argument from design. We should remember that 2 of the greatest skeptics in history were Immanuel Kant and David Hume and they both thought that the strongest argument from history was found in the Teleologic argument. Kant said that he couldn’t get past 2 things, “the starry skies above and the moral law within.” Kant was not only a philosopher but a scientist. He was overwhelmed by the manifest evidence of design in the world of nature. It is extremely hard to speak of design in nature without begging the question of a ‘designer.’ Saying, “can you have design unintentionally.” A contemporary philosopher Anthony Flew has a story about explorers going through uncharted territory and cutting their way around dense brush and rainforest and came to this opening with a beautifully manicured garden. Rows and rows laid out in perfect order and symmetry. They said there must be a gardener somewhere and when they couldn’t find one they speculated that he was gone or invisible or something. Flew says that what is the difference in a God and no God that can be found. Well, the obvious answer is the garden. The story didn’t account from the garden that it had design. All enlightenment philosophers couldn’t get away from this argument and went from Christian theism to Deism. Because they couldn’t naysay the implications of design. For they say it ran like a perfectly constructed clock. So whether it is the eye or anything else, the designs had intelligence purpose to them and couldn’t find an answer for to cover their thinking. Going back to Aristotle where he said, ‘ the single most important characteristic for personality is ‘intention.’ Something to act with intention needs a mind and a faculty of choosing what the mind plants. The essence of intention is found in mind and will.’ Impersonal forces have no mind or will and cannot design anything. When we try to reduce God to a mere force of unintelligence and unintentional is to escape judgment of the indictment and try to find an escape hatch.


You cannot have purpose accidentally. You cannot have intelligence from unintelligence. Impersonality cannot produce personality. For that would be unintentional intention. Which bears to our possibility of Self Creation which we found to be absurd. So as we look at these things more closely and if we find design in the universe then this self existent eternal something that is responsible for generating the universe must be a self existent eternal ‘intelligent’ being. And if intelligent, then, personal. And if personal, then, we have moved away from abstraction and landed squarely on the pages of Sacred scripture.

Self Existence

18th, Defendingfaith, 12-18-09

Self Existence

The Big Bang theory is not a constant and fully understood theory but some 14-18 billion year ago, give or take a couple of billion years. At that beginning time all that existed, as said by some, is there was a point of ‘Singularity.’ This consisted of a compacted point of all energy and all matter that may be currently found in the universe. All the stuff of reality was in this infinitesimal piece of Singularity. It existed from eternity in a state of organization. In a stable and ordered way. And for ways we can’t know it exploded and from that nanosecond it exploded outward. Everything is moving from that state from organization to disorganization. Which is the process where it moves toward what is called ‘equilibrium.’


So from this explanation, whatever was, was in a state of organization but the laws of thermodynamics are such that it indicates that it is going back to a state of disorganization.


So this raises all sorts of questions. If the state of nature is to move towards disorganization, you have to ask the question, how did it become organized in the first place?
The law of inertia is another thing we have to question. The law being the things in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Also, things at rest to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. Golf is a good example. A ball placed on a tee is at rest. The golfer is at rest when he addresses the ball. He sets a club in motion and this outside force strikes it and then the ball goes into the air. Then it is acted upon by air which resists the balls flight because of friction so it hit’s the ground and further friction brings it to a stop. Outside sources acting against the ball traveling indefinitely are why the game can be played at all. So we know what the force was that struck the ball but in like manner we have the Big Bang and we need to ask what caused the Bang?

What caused the Bang?


So we find people saying we don’t have to ask that question for that is out of the scope of science and deals with philosophy and theology. But RC Sproul says that if you are going to pin all your hopes on a concept of an initial Bang why don’t you answer this question of what causes the Bang. Science is innately concerned with causality. And this question is the Big Question of causality. It is an intellectual cop out to not want to go there. If you are going to postulate this thesis for the origin of Everything then you are begging the question of what it is that is the outside force that causes this monumental change in this tiny point of ‘Singularity.’ That causes the movement to begin.


Christianity has the answer to that readily available. This is exactly what is involved in the doctrine of creation. We have a self-existent eternal being who has the power of motion and has the capacity to move that which is not moving. This is what Aristotle understood in antiquity when spoke about the ‘unmoved mover.’ He understood that their had to be an origin to motion. That which has the power of motion must have it within himself. It must have the power of Being within itself. That is why we attribute these attributes to God.


We have the idea that this matter is compacted at the point of Singularity but what about the matter and energy itself being the ‘self existent eternal being’. this is what is assumed in Materialism. The universe is not 15+ billion years old but is just the present incarnation of energy and matter. The stuff of reality is eternal.


Materialism’s description of self existence


What is it in the universe that is eternal? Is it this piece of chalk - in its individuated form or my car keys or Sproul. A materialist will say, no, the sun or the chalk is not eternal. They will say the chief characteristic of matter is it’s mutability, that it changes from one shape to another state. It is not stable eternally. It is in a state of ‘becoming’ and not in a state of pure Being. Anything that we find in the universe that is changing that manifests contingency and is dependent or derived from something else cannot be the ultimate core of being of the universe. That is what we are describing here about ‘Self existent something.’ The materialist will say they grant that this piece of chalk or a key chain is not eternal reality that is self-existent. But that it is made up of elements that are generated by a self existent eternal ‘something.’ But this self existent eternal something, contrary to you religious people, is not transcendent. But rather, it is immanent. You don’t have to appeal to something above and beyond this world to account for this world. For the teaching of the Judeo-Christian worldview is there is something outside the creaturely universe and transcends it. But the materialist says that their must be something that is self existent, not self created for they know that that is absurd, and is apart of the universe. The sum total of the universe is some eternal pulsating force that is the cause of the existence of everything that is in this universe. It is an undiscovered part of the universe where it accounts for all the Bangs and the generating of the power from Singularity. An isolated unknown point within the universe is the pulsating power which generates everything from that beginning.


Immanence view


Notice in describing this view Sproul uses the term, Generated. Yes, and Genesis comes from Genaoho which means to Be or to Become or to happen and cause to be. To make something to come into existence is to generate it. So back to this view that there is a hidden unknown point, within the universe, that is the pulsating core of all reality that generates everything from the beginning. The point being there is no God who lives outside the universe, above and beyond the universe, but within the universe itself. This is called the “Immanistic view.” This is very popular in science and philosophy in some circles today. They say there is a ‘self existent eternal power’ for without this there can be nothing. Their challenge to the Transcendent view is why does it have to come from beyond the universe? Why is it not possible to be a part of the universe?

Sproul’s answer to these questions is that it can be apart of the universe itself. Depending on how you define ‘universe.’ If you mean by universe, all that is, then, if God is - then he would subsumed under the term ‘universe.‘ Because ‘universe’ is then described as ’all that is.’
If, on the other hand, you mean by universe, the created universe, then obviously you can’t subsume God into the meaning of the term universe. You have to be able to distinguish between God and the universe.

Transcendence


The way we distinguish in theology about God and the universe is God transcends the universe. But what we mean, and this is critical that you get this - transcendence is not a description of God’s location. Transcendence is not a geographical location. We are not saying that God is transcendent in that he lives somewhere out there east of the Sun and west of the moon. What is meant by transcendence in philosophy and theology is something is a higher order of Being. That is rather than transcendence being a geographic location it is a ontological description. Therefore He is a higher order than we are. He is a higher order of Being than a piece of chalk or keys or the Sun or pure energy. We don’t care where He lives.


As opposed to the immanent idea, where there is a pulsating unknown point in the universe where a beginning happened. Some core within the universe that is self existent and eternal from where everything else is generated. Ultimately, is there something within the universe, that transcends everything else in the universe, from that point of generation? To answer this you must distinguish between the ‘point where the core-being is’ from all else that is in the universe that is not at the point of generation. What is that core-source-point and how is it different from the whole universe, from all other matter that is derived, dependent and contingent from the place of generation.


Now if this is true, then we are just arguing over ‘it’s’ name. Whether the name of it is X or YHWH. No matter how you slice it your forced back to a self existent eternal being. From whose Being and from whose power all things come into existence. Immanence or Transcendence are to be understood by a self existent eternal power source.


Now Christians will object at this point and say to me that we grant that philosophy and reason argues and demonstrates that you have to have a SEEB but, after this is dealt with, how do we get to the God of the Bible. All we have demonstrated, so far, is Aristotle’s ‘unmoved mover’ thesis. All we have is an abstract idea, a SEEB, but not a God who is depicted in the biblical account. This is a legitimate objection and it brings one to the question of what is the difference between the God of the Bible and the God of the philosophers. As you know, all that I have been saying in the last few lectures has been based more on philosophy than on biblical exegesis. And Sproul grants that that is true. Sproul’s burden that he has for the Christian community is going to be addressed in our next lecture. About the relationship between the God of the Bible and the God of the philosophers.

A self-existent-eternal-being

17th, defending faith, 11-09

Self existence

A self-existent-eternal-being

Necessary Being

This has and is a course on apologetics and we have been discussing the options or alternatives to give us a sufficient reason to explain reality as we encounter it. Our first one, Illusion has been eliminated. We then looked at self-creation and we found that from a logical and analytical perspective that this is a self defeating idea. That is, it is absurd by definition and therefore rationally impossible.


We have already established that somewhere, somehow, something is self-existent. Because we have eliminated the other two by the impossibility of the contrary.


Is it possible for anything to possibly be self-existent? It is logically impossible for something to be self-created because it would have to exist before it was. It would have to be and not be at the same time and same relationship. But is this question of eternal self-existence possible?


There have been times in the past when people have gone so far in philosophical terms that if it can be thought up in the mind then it can exist in reality. That is not what we are going to demonstrate here now. For example I can conceive right now of a unicorn. We can use abstract thought combine and reassemble thoughts then disassemble them again and construct something. All things can be conceived of with some creativity. But just because its possible does not mean that this animal-type exists. This question we posed goes along with this idea: is it possible for self-existence to be rational?


Can we conceive of an idea of a self existent being without violating rationality?


Sproul mentions that the everyday person will describe both Self Creation and Self existence as so similar, but are they? One may say, ‘they must both be irrational and impossible for there is little difference.‘ At least from the outset, we can say, there is nothing illogical about a self existent eternal being. A being can exist that is not caused by something else. Back when we spoke of cause and effect people tend to misunderstand this by saying that “everything has a cause.” No, the law of causality says that every effect must have a cause. An effect by definition is that which has produced by something outside itself or beyond itself. The idea of an uncaused being is perfectly rational. Now, just because we can conceive of an uncaused being doesn’t make it so. All we are saying up to this point is that we can conceive of this without violating the laws of logic and rationality. Reason allows for the possibility #3 while not allowing for #1 and 2.


It is conceivable but it may not exist. We could say that it is rationally conceivable that nothing would ever exist. But if ‘something’ exists that changes everything. If a self existent being exists it becomes not only possible but necessary. Sproul says it again:

If anything can exist, now the idea of the possibility of something being self existent becomes not merely a rational maybe but a rational necessity.

Let us go into detail about this. We call self-existence the attribute of Aseity. Something exists in and of itself that is uncaused and uncreated. It differs with everything in the universe that has a cause and is dependent and derived. This being, therefore, has the power to Be in and of itself. It doesn’t gain something of itself from something antecedent to itself. It has it inherently. Because it has it inherently, it has it eternally. There was never a time when a self existent being did not exist. If these things aren’t true then if wouldn’t have these descriptions said of it. It would have been created. The definition of a self existent being is one who has always been.


We are now saying that it exists, not only possibly, from the viewpoint of reason, but necessarily. Now when Thomas Aquinas was arguing for the existence of God in his time, one of his arguments from his 5 was from the principle of ‘necessary being.’ In Theology God has been called the ‘Ens Necessario.’


It gets complicated - pay attention closely


The 1st: When theologians and philosophers speak about God as necessary being there are 2 distinct way in which God is described as a necessary being. The first way is: He is necessary by virtue of Rationality. Or to say that the existence of God, that if anything exists, is rationally necessary. If something exists now then reason demands that we come to the conclusion that something has always existed. Then something somewhere has always had the power of Being within itself. Or we could not account for the existence of anything.

Again, I will remind you, if ever there was a time when there nothing - absolutely nothing - what could there possibly be now - except nothing. Because, Sproul says, ‘Ex Nihilo Nihilo Vit’ or out of nothing, nothing can come. (Unless it can comes by itself, creating itself which is a rational impossibility.)

Now Sproul knows that there will be immediate objection to this and will say that science has now within quantum physics and quantum mechanics something coming from nothing. But on the contrary, it shows no such thing. Science shows things that are mysterious, that you can’t fit into your present paradigms but to say that nothing made something is not only bad theology it is bad science.


We know that something exists now. That means that there could never have been a time when there was absolutely nothing. There had to always be something. So far we have not demonstrated that it is God, but we are only arguing at this point that there must be something that has the power of Being within itself and that it has always been there. Therefore it is a Being whose Being is necessary logically. It is a logical necessity, now, that we postulate of such an idea of self existent Being. In review: we began this as a rational possibility, of a self existent being -- and given the thesis that there is something that exists now -- rather than nothing -- takes us to the next level and step which brings us to a self existent being through rational necessity.


When we talk about God being necessary; in the first instance, what we mean by that is it exists by rational postulation. Reason demands the existence of a SEEB. This is very important to the Christian who is trying to defend faith. [Here Sproul has an aside: the guns of criticism against Judeo-Christianity are aimed and focused, almost exclusively, at the idea of creation - and the idea of a creator. If you can get rid of creation and a creator you can get rid of the whole concept God and it collapses. People argue if you are going to be rational and scientific then you have to believe in a universe without God. What we are trying to do is turn the guns around and propose to them that they need to turn the guns around at themselves and realize what they are postulating as an alternative to full bodied theism is manifest irrationality and hence, absurdity. It is reason that demands that there be necessary Being.]
This is the first way of defining and describing necessary Being. That is - rationally necessary.


The 2nd way of defining necessary Being as Aquinas gave is what we call Ontological necessity. Here it gets a little bit more abstract. More difficult if you are not a student of philosophy. Ontology is defined as the study or science of Being. So when we say the God is ontologically necessary, we mean by that, he exists by the necessity of His own Being. He doesn’t exist because reason says he has to. He exists because he has the power of being in himself in such a way that this being - cannot - not - be. The difference between a human being and a supreme Being is…….Being. Our human existence is ‘creaturely’ , that is, dependent, derived and a contingent creature. We cannot sustain myself forever. There is a time when I was not, there will be a time when creaturelyness will transition to something else. That being death. We need things right now to continue to exist; water, air, blood etc. All these things make us dependent. Our life, when we are alive, is a constantly changing existence. This is the supreme attribute of ‘contingent being.’ Creatures change. Constantly. Where as a SEEB is changeless. It never looses any power. It never gains any in the scope of its Being. It is never in a state of becoming as Plato and others understood things. It is what it is - eternally. This is what is meant as a self-existent-eternal-being. It is ontologically necessary because it cannot help but Be. Pure Being is dependent upon nothing.


This is the link we have been discussing, with biblical theism. This how God explains and reveals himself to Moses in the Middianite wilderness. Out of a fire he speaks to him. When Moses asks who he is and how should he say to others who he is. And God says, Yahweh. Which translated means, ‘I Am - who I Am.’ It isn’t I Was or I am in the process, or I am becoming but I Am. Without this Being nothing else could possibly be.


Does this God have a name or is it the universe itself? Is it matter itself? This will be our next session.

The concept of Self Creation

15, defending faith, 09-11-09

The concept of Self Creation

Why is there something rather than nothing?

We have been looking to some of the possible alternatives to account for reality as we encounter it. There are four and last time we dealt with the possibility of ‘Illusion.” We eliminated this by the Cartesian manner of reasoning, that is, by a skeptical view of how everything is. How doubting, in the end, made us give way to the existence of ‘Self.’ “If I doubt, therefore I am.”

The second one our short list is, ‘Self Existence’. It is not the only one of the alternative that atheists offer against full bodied theism. But this one is the most frequently given explanation proffered by opponents of theism. It is rare, however, that someone will just come out and say that the Universe is ‘self created.’ Sproul is using this phrase as a generic principle under which there are several types. So even when people say they are not referring to this, they do ultimately mean their concept must be defined by this idea of ‘self creation.’

Self creation is a concept in philosophy which we say is ‘analytically false.’ That is it is false by definition. Sproul reminds us that we looked earlier at those basic principle of knowledge and principles of epistemology, that are crucial for understanding truth of any sort. And we should never negotiate these 4 away as theists or agnostics of any rational variety, because to reject theism, one will reject, along the way one of these 4 principles of knowledge.

When we look at the idea of ‘self creation’ it is manifestly absurd.

Because, for something to create itself, to be an effect which is it’s own cause, it would have to exist - Before - it existed.

Or to put it another way, it would have to Be - before - it Was.

Or something would have to Be and not Be at the same time and in the same relationship.

For something to create itself it would have to antedate itself.

Clearly, this violates the Law of no contradiction, our first law of the four, and puts this idea into the level of pure irrationality and absurdity.

The idea of ‘Self Creation’ is by logical analysis a false premise.

Before we continue, let us contrast between number 2 and number 3. Between self creation and the concept of self existence. To say that something is ‘self existent’ is to say that it is ‘Eternal.’ It has the Power of Being within Itself. That is, it is Uncreated. So we must right now speak of the rational and within this process, the logical framework of rational methodology. There is nothing of absurd or irrational contained in the idea of ‘self existence’ or ‘eternal existence.’ That is, #3 is at least a rational possibility. Because it violates no law of reason or logic (The why we will get to next time.) But the concept of ‘self creation’ does violate rational and logical standards because of the law of non contradiction. Sproul is suggesting that nothing can be ‘self created.’

Did God make Himself?

The example being the story of two kids talking and the one says ‘Who mad the trees? God made the trees. Well then, who mad you? God made me. Well then, says the girl, who made God? Well the boy declares, God made himself! Now that might be a cute story but it is not sound. This is a thing God cannot do….He cannot make Himself. Because that would mean that He would have to Be before he Was. Same as we said a little earlier about the 4 statements about what is absurd and contradictory. Hamlet understood in his question, ’to Be or not to Be.’ You cannot have it both ways at the same time in the same relationship.

How do different theories on Self Creation pan out?

There are several theories that have been articulated in the past. One of the most widespread attempts to use ‘Self Creation’ as a substitute for notion of the Creation of the Universe by a Self Existent Eternal Being took place during the Enlightenment. Although the period was not monolithic in it’s teaching and debate on theism and other forms of premises. The French Encyclopaedic Movement had names like Diderot and others who vociferously argued against the existence of God. And for these the chief outcome or principle of ‘enlightenment’ that swept through Europe was the idea that now, with modern science, the God Hypothesis was no longer deemed necessary in order to explain, or to account for, or to provide a sufficient cause for the universe. They argued that in place of the God Hypothesis, which former generations believe was a rational necessity, a logical necessity to account for reality as we encounter it, but now, that can be released with impunity. Because the French said, ‘now we know that material things in the universe come into being from ‘Spontaneous generation.’

They thought that this was an explanation for things ‘beginning’ on their own. Suddenly and without any developmental period. Things just come into being. They would take as their explanation a mud puddle in the street and they would look down and see tiny little fish eggs and later they would be tadpoles and would conclude that life just ‘appeared.’ came spontaneously out of a puddle of water. They didn’t analyze all the phenomena that the water was adjacent to and the ecosystem it was apart of; as we would call it today. For them the causes were not visible to the naked eye. There was a period of time in history people believed that there was physical ex-nihilo, things came on their own. But the fundamental law of science was ignored with the axiom, ‘ex-nihilo nihil fit.’ Out of nothing, nothing comes. And science states that out of nothing - nothing can come. It doesn’t come because it cannot come. Nothing doesn’t produce something; because nothing cannot produce something.

This full throated logical impossibility lasted from he middle 1700’s to even into the early 20th century. Science was now certain that reality cannot give birth to itself. But they then made the concept more sophisticated and refined. They called it ‘gradual spontaneous generation.’ So, amazingly, even the learned men of our day can believe nonsense statements. Because this means that you can’t get reality to produce something out of nothing quickly, but it takes time to create it. An evolutionary process of time can do it. If you have enough patience it will yield a result. Sooner or later reality will create reality.

Gradual generation: universes exploding out of nothing

This is where science and philosophy butt heads. For at this point the scientist has left the scientific method back in the laboratory. He took the empirical half, the inductive half with him, but left the deductive side hidden in his trunk. The scientist has to take both of these methods and look at these statements which butcher rationality. It brings to mind the axiom that ‘a rose by any other name is still a rose.’ If you analyze these concepts of either gradual or spontaneous generation you will find a sophisticated attempt to articulate the idea of ‘self creation.’

When the Hubble spacecraft was launched as strategic scientific enterprise in America, that very same day a famous astro-physicist was on a radio broadcast and was quoted as saying this is an important day for science. It will expand our understanding by virtue of this new technology. He went on to explain that the beginnings of the universe were some 13-18 billion years ago when the universe exploded into Being. Here is where a scientist used language heavily conditioned by philosophy and said there is a beginning point and it then had Beingness. That is curious and what does he mean? What was it before it exploded? Was it the antithesis of being? Which in philosophic categories is called ‘non-being’ or in the form of a synonym is called ’nothing.’ So from our discussions a few minutes ago it is said that it takes great amounts of time for ‘something to come out of nothing.’ That ladies and gentlemen, is philosophical nonsense! Sheer irrationality of this physicists thinking and if Sproul had a chance to interview him he hopes he would say he misspoke and would apologize. That there was a previous state of being and it changed at the time of this great explosion -there must have been something before this. [pay attention to the verbiage and manner of what people say]

So we see what spontaneous generation is and what gradual generation is. Now we come to what we come into contact most in modern culture; which is…

Creation by chance

The universe comes into being by some power attributed to ‘chance.’

The formula is: space + time + chance; will = something. Our third type of self-creation.

Because this method is used so often today Sproul is going to spend the next lecture presentation on it. He has written a whole book on it titled “Not A Chance.” We will see how this relates to quantum mechanics, physics and astronomy. Theories that try to teach us that at the sub-atomic level we have things that are coming into being out of nothing. Based on the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle and other theories set forth by Niels Bohr.

To summarize: there are 4 possibilities to explain the presence of anything. Remember, the oldest question in either science or philosophy is why is there something rather that nothing? I’ve tried to labor the point with you , that if ever there was time when there was nothing; absolute nothingness, -- no God -- no matter -- no anything; what could there possibly be now?

If there ever was a time when there was nothing, well then, the only explanation is, the presence of something is through self-creation.

Something coming out of nothing by itself. Sproul wouldn’t assign this task of conquering Being from non-being to: an amino acid, neutrons, dark matter, mathematical constants or any of the pantheons of Gods.

Authority and “Third & Fourth Generations”

1. What faith is and isn't
2. What does 3rd and 4th generation of iniquity mean?

The authority of faith:

The concept of faith is often deeply misunderstood in a way that hurts Christianity and harms Christians. What it isn't:

1. People think that faith is opposed to knowledge because you can’t have faith in something you know is true.
2. Following this line of thinking, apologetics undermines faith and thus displeases the Lord..
3. On this view, faith becomes believing the unbelievable – a "blind leap," despite any doubts we may have. Christian faith turns out to be nothing more than religious wishful thinking.

• However, this concept of faith cannot be correct. The biblical word for faith means active trust. Peter directs us to "make a defense for the hope that is within us."

• In the Old Testament, we consistently see faith following the evidence of miracles. For example, God used a series of miracles (powerful evidence) to convince Pharoah to let the children of Israel go and they put their trust in God based on knowledge. didn’t follow belief; they preceded it. Acts of power led to knowledge, which then allowed faith to flourish. We see the same pattern in the New Testament when Jesus healed the paralytic and forgave his sins, and when Peter preached at Pentecost after the Holy Spirit was manifested in tongues of fire visible to all.

• Biblical faith is a sense of certainty grounded in evidence that Christianity is true – not just "true for me," but actually, fully, and completely true. • Faith is not about wishing, but about confidence, and the facts make the difference.

The record is clear from the Old Testament, to the Gospels, from the very beginnings of the early church, to the epistles of the apostles: Biblical faith isn’t wishing, it’s confidence. It’s not denying reality, but discovering reality. It’s a sense of certainty grounded in evidence that Christianity is true – not just "true for me," but actually, fully, and completely true. Spiritual growth involves increasing our knowledge and our certainty of God. So there are two things here: first knowledge, and second confidence in what we know.

Nietzsche once declared, “I might believe in the Redeemer if his followers looked more redeemed.” A provocative yet stinging accusation against believers and their witness to Christ indeed! These words strike a chord with many people today. For example, Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) said, “If it weren’t for Christians I would be a Christian.” Now let me say that such distinguished Christian thinkers as G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis both asserted that Christians can either be the strongest argument for the truth of the faith or its weakest link.

Does “God Visit the Iniquities of the Fathers” on the “Third & Fourth Generations”?

Gregory Koukl interprets a commonly misunderstood and difficult passage by looking at the details of the context.

Radio Caller: There’s at least four places in the Old Testament that talk about the Lord visiting the sins of the Father unto the third and fourth generations. Can you work through figuring out what that’s about?

Greg: Let’s talk about that for a few moments. I think this is a good example of a “Never Read a Bible Verse” kind of application.. I actually think this is a little bit of a difficult passage to figure out. Two things to look at. It’s made more difficult because it’s usually quoted in part, and not in whole. It is misquoted, and the details of even what is quoted are not attended to. So entire ministries, whole enterprises, have been built on a big misunderstanding about this passage. Even if someoane doesn’t know what a passage means, it may possible to figure out what the passage does not mean.

The way this is usually cited—it comes up first in Exodus 20, which is the Ten Commandments—is that people say we know that “the sins of the fathers are visited on the children to the third and fourth generation..” What this is commonly said to mean is that you may have ancestral curses because of the activities of your fathers, your ancestors. Generally, these activities have to do with extreme sin or occult involvement, but it may also be having an abortion. This then results in something bad happening to an individual because of this other person’s sinful activity.

The application of this is that someone is going through something really hard and has a besetting sin or problem that they can’t get rid of, and it is suggested to them that there is a spiritual dynamic that is tied to the teaching of this verse. There is a generational sin and curse that then must be broken through some spiritual discipline of some sort. Some have gone to great extent, written whole books, on how to unwind this spiritual oppression coming from past generations. They step you through all these little exercises. Does this sound familiar?

Caller: Yes.

Greg: Now, let’s go back to the verse, Exodus 20:5-6: “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” (NASB)

That’s the whole quote. That’s a lot more than most people who know about this verse have ever heard. Let me ask you a question. This visiting of the sins of the father on the children, whatever that means, whatever that “visiting” is, who is the active agent? God is doing the visiting. So, if you have a technique to undo this activity, who are you fighting? God. What could be more obvious?

I don’t know exactly what’s going on here, but God is doing it. And if you try to undo it, you are fighting God. There is no technique, there is no prayer, there is no spiritual enterprise that you’re going to be able to invoke against this because anyone who is doing so will be fighting God.

Now keep in mind, I am saying that whatever is going on here is God’s doing. There may be legitimate spiritual problems people are having that people should be praying about, but whatever spiritual problems they’re having may not at all be related to this. And, if they are, and what they’re experiencing is an example of the outworking of this declaration by God, then they are fighting God by trying to undo it.

So then what is going on? Well, we know that God is a jealous God. They are not to worship idols. He says then He will do something and this is very odd. He will visit the “iniquities of the father on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me.”

We have a father. We have a child, first generation. We have a grandson, second generation. We have a great-grandson, third generation. So God is only visiting the iniquity on the son, the great-grandson, and the great-great grandson. Doesn’t it seem odd that he says third and fourth, and not second? Now maybe he means to the third and fourth so that it’s just for four generations before this peters out. Maybe. Verse 6 says, ‘but showing lovingkindness to thousands to those who love me and keep my commandments.”

Caller: But that's a big part of my question. That thousands doesn't seem to be thousands generations, that the third and fourth are. I wasn't sure that the thousands meant thousands of generations or if it just meant thousands.

Greg: This is where it’s helpful to go back to some of the other four places where this same concept is quoted here.

Caller: It’s always the same word there. The word thousand doesn’t look like it has the “generation” in there.

Greg: It could mean thousands of generations. That could be a vagueness. But what is clear is there is a contrast between third and fourth generations, and thousands. Now what do you think God intends to be the greater number, those in the third and fourth generations or those in thousands?

Caller: The point is that His lovingkindness is so much greater.

Greg: Oh, God bless you! “…On the children, and on the third and fourth generations of those who hate me.” Notice the qualifier. “…And showing lovingkindness to thousands to those who love me and keep my commandments.”

Now what does the history of Israel demonstrate? It demonstrates that when God deals with Israel , He deals with them as a nation. When the fathers, the ones in control, the adults are bad, everybody gets the punishment. It’s not because the children are singled out to be punished for the sins of the father. In fact, there’s an entire chapter, Ezekiel 18, one whole chapter that is meant to repudiate that concept..

The way the chapter starts is, “You have a saying, ‘The fathers eat the sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are set on edge.” Do you see the play on words here? The fathers do it, but the children get the result. God says to quit saying that thing because I’m not going to punish the kids for what the parents do wrong.

That’s different, I think, from dealing with the nation as a whole. When the nation as a whole is rebellious and idolatrous, which is what the Exodus passage is about, God punishes the nation.

Even though Elijah found out there were still 5,000 people who had not bent their knee to Baal, still the nation was a nation of Baal-worshipers so they were punished by God as a nation. The kids got it just like the parents. As long as the group as a whole continued in that, God would punish them. And He did until you got a king and a people that reformed the nation. Then God blesses them. There were reformers like Hezekiah and Manasseh, later in his life. There were these times when this happened. Then God’s lovingkindness was abundant.

In Exodus, God is talking about how He’s going to deal with the nation. After all, this is the Mosaic Covenant with the nation of Israel , so He’s setting up the blessings and curses for the nation as a whole based on how they keep up their end of the covenant. They should not be idolatrous because He’s a jealous God, and if they’re idolatrous they’re going to be punished. And this is the way He characterizes the consequences, “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me., but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” If you keep hating me, I’ll keep punishing you for it.

However, He will show lovingkindness to thousands to those who love Him and keep His commandments. He’s emphasizing His longsuffering and His mercy over and against His justice and wrath.

He does that many times in the Old Testament text. He is abundant in lovingkindness; He is slow to anger. And I think that’s what is really going on in this passage. He’s laying out the consequences for worshipping false idols, and He’s contrasting His great lovingkindness with his wrath. That’s my take on it.

Caller: So you think the point the contrast that His lovingkindness is much greater than his anger?

Greg: I think the reason He says third and fourth generations versus thousands is to show that one is greater than the other. He’s speaking in general terms here, not specific numbers.

One father does it; one kid gets it. That’s excluded by the Ezekiel passage that teaches against the idea that a child is punished for his parents’ sin. God is talking about the nation of Israel in Exodus, the group as a whole, as He’s making a covenant with them that has obligations on each side. He is expressing His judgement on them for their idolatry, which shows they hate Him, and He will continue to do that generation to generation to generation as long as they hate Him.

This verse is a linguistic device, a poetic devise if you will, “visit the iniquity of the father on the children, and on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me.” But for those who don’t hate Him but do love Him and do keep His commandments, He’s going to pour out His grace and lovingkindness to the nation.

I think there’s a kind of literary device that’s going on in the verse. It is not about individual people who receive generational sins or curses; it’s a covenant for how God will deal with the Nation depending on whether they hate or love Him.

---

Hasn't God said you can have all authority and power

1. My review of Charles Kraft's couple of books

2. A brief history of the NAR and Charles Kraft and his associates

3. It's all about what the meaning of Jesus imparting Authority is

My Review on Charles Kraft's couple of books:

Mr. Kraft's book shows his sincerity, practicality, humble nature, and the fact that he is significantly more open-minded than his peers. Furthermore, this book was obviously the result of many years' experience, and the information was presented well and pleasant to read.

What I did not like was his opinion (which seem to be shared by more and more participants of Christianity) that practically everything which has origins in a non-European culture is demonic. Without biblical regard, saying demons are over in that town.. around this family or habitating here in my mind. He includes, but are by no means limited to: yoga, martial arts, acupuncture, meditation, and probably even incense! Furthermore, all other religions (including those nefarious Unitarians!) seem to be demonic as well.

As all other authors I've read seem to agree, Kraft is of the opinion that most character flaws are the result of demonic influence. However, he doesn't want to be grouped with those "exorcists" who oft see demons where there are none (such as in cases of emotional instability or mental illness). So he distances himself and notes that this is not a book about exorcism but about everything else that is close to it! he likes the concept of "deliverance", which is more malleable to his wish for experimentation and the idea of, "whatever works." He likes the milder and less intensive procedures, similar in many ways to hypnotic suggestion, peer manipulation, mesmerism motifs and so on. Mr. Kraft makes the declaration to use his credit card but not with too much grandiosity. He freely professes that there is much about the subject that he does not know but is willing to experiment. This was a refreshing change from the arrogance and paranoia seen elsewhere by his peers.

Mr. Kraft is an honest and kindhearted man who has studied these matters all his life and speaks with great eloquence -- even though he is mistaken in a number of his opinions about things which are contradictory to the bible which Jesus said was 'Truth', and stating elsewhere, His word-graphe is Truth.

The evangelical movement for years continue to look for ways to entice people into hoping for "hidden magical powers" and "feel good promises of cleaning up the deep places" to remedy their problems. Methods with little verifiable substance to explain their approaches, besides saying they have seen it work here and there, at least in the short term. I would say that unless these 'deep places' are healed in the way the biblical procedures are proscribed, the illusion of healing will not last. The actions Kraft assumes God has given is usurping and directing the powers of the Holy Spirit. That by speaking words the Holy Spirit must act upon these words. Claiming that anything they say with their credit card in hand, must come to pass. All because they say 'in the name of Jesus' is another example of the manipulation of faith gone loopy.

This book does nothing to explain the whys of anything...it simply states that there are lots of demons and expelling them from a person leaves a lot of "garbage" to deal with to fully prevent their return. Maybe the garbage is the real problem and the demons only serve to give these "card carrying therapists" and prognosticators of the hidden realm the personal validity to lead people in need of an anchor to believe this demon evangelical dogma (brain washing) is the real culprit of suffering.

The Q&A section in his book should be changed to Q&NA. The author admits many of the questions HE RAISES have no answers he can find.

There is also scriptural misinterpretation like where the author claims it took Jesus two times to remove a demon of blindness. Jesus did take a slower approach, but this was not because of any lacking of Jesus. It was an example of how many including the apostles were slowly learning to see the truth. It appears he must bring Jesus down to our level of lack to make us feel not so inadequate.

As for Kraft’s new methods of expelling or trampling on demons? Well simply put, just jump right in and start making demands in the name of Jesus. The author has a favorite place for putting demons: In a box at the feet of Jesus. How fanciful and creative. Jesus then often steps on the box. The true spiritual warfare that takes place in this world is reduced to childish metaphors thereby masking the true nature and danger of the spiritual forces that exist.

I was mostly concerned with the number of examples concerning people with multiple personalities. Is it any surprise that these with this sickness could be swayed to quickly conjure a demon like personality when inspired by Kraft and his theories.

The examples are short and I must say, uninteresting with generic descriptions and no detailed follow up. The methods are not well defined, and the logic of demons and why they must obey the person with the credit card is simply based on some scattereing of scripture picking but mostly from guesswork. The evangelical movement seems to desire warm bodies, which don't question much and are illiterate of scripture contexts to fill their of seminars with.

2. A brief history of the NAR and Charles Kraft and his associates.


The presupposition is, if it seems to works temporarely, it is accepted as valid; and from God...

Wagner tells the story of how he was constantly plagued by headaches, he was told by John Wimber who came up to me, “My friend says your problem is a spirit,” he said. The reason for his headaches was a “demon of headache” that needed to be exorcised. “Then our MC510 class met in January 1983. Sure enough, the first Monday night I went to class with a headache. So during the break I asked John to pray for me. John and his wife, Carol, prayed for me. The pain left. But about an hour later it was back again.” “But what am I supposed to do about John replied quickly, “Treat it like a cat on the backporch! Yell at it and tell it to go away!” (ibid. p.69) He says that was the beginning of the end of his headaches.

Wimber became dependent on the experience rather than Scripture, and he took it all to a “new level.” This led him into practicing pragmatism (if it works, it must be from God). His experience formed his theology, he did not use theology (the Bible) to approve what he experience. John Wimber had separated from the fellowship of Calvary Chapel and aligned himself with several other churches. During this time he became associated with Lonnie Frisbee that was also severed from Calvary because of his extreme Pentecostal practices that were concerning. Several years later, they formed officially as the Association of Vineyard Churches. John Wimber said, “So in 1978 I left the Charles E. Fuller Institute of Evangelism and Church Growth to become pastor of what is now called the Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Anaheim, California. It was in this environment, a small group of fifty people, that “I first tested my theories of power evangelism.”

Test new theories = pragmatism, which means if it works, it is accepted as valid and from God. True faith says that I only accept and believe what is based upon God's written Word, the Bible. These two practices are diametrically opposed to each other. From this experimentation came the whole new wave “the third wave” of doing church. Wimber even commented in Charisma magazine in 1995, “ there is nothing in scripture that can support these kind of phenomena that I can see and I can't think of anything throughout the church age that would, I feel no obligation to try and explain its just phenomena, its just people responding to God” (Charisma Feb. 1995 p.26).

Like Wimber, Wagner’s philosophy is based in the mindset of pragmatism, “... we ought to see clearly that the end DOES justify the means. What else possible could justify the means? If the method I am using accomplishes the goal I am aiming at, it is for that reason a good method. If, on the other hand, my method is not accomplishing the goal, how can I be justified in continuing to use it?” (C. Peter Wagner, “Your Church Can Grow - Seven Vital Signs Of A Healthy Church”, 1976, p.137 - emphasis in original)
So what we have is a theory based on the ratio of success, this dictates whether something is correct or not. I fail to see the logic in this, much less an apostolic attitude.

Third Wave

Many were taught by Wimber that they were living in a restoration as the days of the apostles. They were true prophets who told these new apostles and everyone in the Third Wave, too could perform miracle healing, exorcise evil spirits, and raise the dead as did Jesus and the apostles. While I have no qualms over us as Christians doing such things as is in God's domain, it was how this is taught and implemented, and to what extent distorted biblical teachings on this are manufactured and brought to the alter of the apostle judges.
Wimber was also involved in various aspects of the Latter Rain heresy, and we can see this carried over to Wagner his former association. He taught, “Something so astounding, something so marvelous that God has kept it as a mystery, as it were, behind His back and He is about to reveal it to the ages. He is about to reveal it. With the judgment of all mankind will come this incredible incarnation endowment of God's Spirit and we will see the Elijah's.... This End time Army will be made of the Elijah’s of the Lord God” (John Wimber, Docklands England, October, 1990). A number of the prophets under Wagner's leadership seem to hold to this very same Latter Rain concept.

New Apostolic Wave

These devotees believe it will completely bring to an end what Martin Luther and the reformers started. Martin Luther rose up to get the church back to the basics found in the Bible. This is not what we find taking place today, instead there is a new direction proposed by new apostles and prophets. Wagner and Kraft, because of a frustration in not seeing results like he would like to, he believes a new structure needs to be put in place for our success. Wagner speaks about the “NEW APOSTOLIC REFORMATION” a movement that he previously has referred to as post-denominationalism. Wagner says that this is the most radical change in the way of “doing church” since the Protestant Reformation. Through this movement the two gifts and offices of prophets (a gift that began coming into prominence in the 1980s) and apostles have become familiar to many Christians. Guess who is head of the apostles and prophets? That’s right Peter Wagner. If the apostles govern the church, and he oversees the apostles, we have a new pope.
The claim is that this restoration is supposed to be more radical than what Martin Luther started. Or as some believe it will completely bring to an end what Martin Luther and the reformers started. Martin Luther rose up to get the church back to the basics found in the Bible. Now there is instead is a new direction proposed by new apostles and prophets and separation from the old church to the new last times. The new prophets saying that the Lord told them of changing the course of Christianity for good. It should more accurately stated that this foundation is built upon “new apostles and prophets,” not the original ones. Peter Wagner calls this movement a “new apostolic reformation.” It is a movement that ultimately will affect everyone within the Church. The challenge to each of us is, will we fight against and reject the movement, or will we support it and flow with it? We can get offended, or we can get on board" “ you are now about to face the greatest challenge of your life, you are being called to reshape the face of Christianity.”

Wagner is the “presiding apostle” of the International Coalition of Apostles (ICA), and “convening apostle” of the New Apostolic Roundtable (NAR). “ as the head apostle, I’m the one that brings them together and when I bring them together things happen. Because that’s a anointing that God has given to horizontal apostles. So once I knew, then I knew I was different from these people and I knew I was a horizontal; apostle and I began using the term in public” (P. Wagner Mobilizing The Prophetic Office, May 11, 2000 National School of The Prophets)

As such, Wagner then should take responsibility for the things that go wrong by these other governmental leaders.
They have also developed their own language, definition of terms and often times redefine the Bible adding new concepts in places where there are none. Wagner’s apostolic Government is broken up into two divisions, Vertical and horizontal apostles, from there are various subdivisions.

Vertical Apostles
Ecclesiastical apostles. Apostles who are given authority over a sphere which includes a number of churches, presumably in an apostolic network headed up by the apostle.
Functional apostles. Apostles who are given authority over those who have an ongoing ministry in a certain specific sphere of service which has defined boundaries of participation.
Apostolic Team Members. Apostles whose apostolic ministry functions in conjunction with an apostle who is seen as the leader of a team of one or more other peer-level vertical apostles. They may be assigned specific spheres by the leading apostle. These are more than administrators or assistants or armor-bearers.
Congregational apostles. Apostles functioning as senior pastors of dynamic, growing churches of more than 700-800.
Horizontal Apostles
Convening apostles. Apostles who have authority to call together on a regular basis peer-level leaders who minister in a defined field.
Ambassadorial apostles. Apostles who have itinerant, frequently international, ministries of catalyzing and nurturing apostolic movements on a broad scale.
Mobilizing apostles. Apostles who have the authority to take leadership in bringing together qualified leaders in the body of Christ for a specific cause or project.
Territorial apostles. Apostles who have been given authority for leading a certain segment of the body of Christ in a given territorial sphere such as a city or state.
Marketplace Apostles-I am not familiar enough with marketplace apostles to suggest sub categories. It seems clear that some marketplace apostles would be vertical (perhaps within a large company) while others would be horizontal (bringing together peer-level marketplace apostles).

Can anyone find these divisions, terms and interpretations from Scripture? Wagner also has his leadership broken up into many segments and has covered everything possible. Some of the names are included that should be easily recognized.
Division of Foundations for Ministry-Michael Brown, Jack Deere, Randall J. Pannell, Dutch Sheets, Stephen Mansfield. Division of Church Leadership under which are Apostolic Ministries headed by John Eckhardt and others.Cells, Small Groups and House Churches; Church Growth; Counseling; Faith Ministries; Leadership; Marriage and Family Pastoral Ministries; Preaching- Jack Deere, Tommy Tenney, Women in Ministry Worship; Writing for Publication; Youth Ministries. Division of Power Ministries under which come Deliverance; Power Ministries; Prayer; Prophecy; Revival-ChÈ Ahn, John Arnott, Michael Brown, Frank Damazio, Winkie Pratney, Richard Riss. Spiritual Mapping- George Otis jr. and Bob Beckett; Spiritual Warfare- C. Peter Wagner, Bob Beckett, Cindy Jacobs, Charles Kraft, Dean Sherman. Division of Outreach; Campus Ministries; Church Planting; City Transformation; Evangelism- Marketplace; Mercy Ministries; Missions.


3. It's all about what the meaning of Jesus imparting Authority is

The new TW and NAR Christian paradigms promises to give us powers beyond what we had before through the ministry of the former prophets and first apostles and eye witnesses to Jesus. Sounds wonderful because we are told we will use these powers to change the whole world. There are those who believe the New Church will have dominion over the world at the end of the age. The nations and governments will be upon their shoulders as they rule for Christ. With this authority, the church will restructure cities, then countries and then the rest of the world. All the secular authorities, governments, rulers and kings will be under the churches rulership, and we see the world change Christ will then return and the kingdom will be presented to Him. This is hardly the scenario of Isa.9:6-7. This theory is based upon the idea that all authority in heaven and on the earth has been given to Jesus and then to the Church. Others believe, since believers are indwelt by the same Holy Spirit that indwelt Jesus, as his body we have all authority on the earth as Jesus has in heaven. Therefore we can do the same miracles that He did. 1. Some are able to tell God to “fill,” give “more” and spirit come and the Lord immediately responds. 2. They send the Holy Spirit to his work, they bind the Devil and his kingdom, 3. they call out diseases by name, 4. they speak salvation and prosperity. 5. With this authority we are supposed to be able to make a tree wither, 6. we can walk on water and appear or disappear and 7. make the blind see and the lame walk.
I hear too many teachers tell others we have all authority in Christ. We have authority, but we do not have ALL AUTHORITY.

It is not God who gives any man all authority, but it is the DEVIL that offers it and he doesn't even have the power to provide the promise of it. He does it for only one reason, to deceive by craftiness the promise of power, and to bring a person to a place of operating in dark human pride. Where he can separate him and have him think he can function without being co-dependent on Christ. The first person that was offered this authority was Eve and Adam. they were offered to be like God and rule. Instead of being satisfied with her position she had, she was offered more, she coveted the power and position that God had. By this the Devil deceived her into losing even what she already had.
In the New Testament We have Jesus being offered authority over the world from the Devil personally. Luke 4:5-7; “Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if you will worship before me, all will be Yours.” Jesus was offered ALL authority, glory, by worshipping a creature only once. Keeping the commandments perfectly and knowing who He was and the Father, He knew he could not worship any creature.

Authority has always been a problem with humanity. Many rulers have come and gone down through the annals of history wanting to rule and become famous. Even the disciples that were learning of Christ whom they were following thought about the authority they would receive from Jesus. “Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.' But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves. But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials. And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:24-30). The kingdom according to Jesus is inherited by humility, not by taking things through force. Those who want all authority to promote His kingdom now prove they are not under the authority of Jesus. As He said we are servants, and even when He comes back we will be serving under Him.

The Apostles never taught or practiced things that we hear of today. Furthermore God never put in His word of our taking authority over the spiritual realm, binding devils over cities, or even Satan. Scripture teaches that there were demons so powerful that the Apostles could not cast them out. Paul an apostle was unable to heal all-- even he suffered with an affliction. Certainly they did not have all authority. They had to sometimes ask in prayer, not take authority by prayer. Humility is what Christ taught and true humility means to rely on someone who is greater, real humility is to know your position and enjoy it.

Throughout Jesus’ life He made it clear “For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak” (John 12:49) Coming in a humble state He became a servant giving us the perfect example of what the man was created to be like (Phil.2:5-8).

John 7:15-19 “And the Jews marveled, saying, “How does this Man know letters, having never studied?” Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.”
John 12:48-50 “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.”

Notice Jesus does not exert his authority but relies on another for his instruction He teaches us to do the same as in Phil. 2: we are to have the same attitude in us that was in him, the mind of Christ is one of humility.
For even the Spirit does not have the authority that some people claim. John 16:13-15 “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.” The spirits focus is Christ, not himself, not the church, and not apostles or prophets.

The Apostles authority

Luke 9:1-2: “Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.” Luke 10:19-20: “Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you.” Notice this was power over all demons and to heal. Just because Jesus gave them this authority does not mean in any way they had for themselves all authority, nor did they have it to use at their discrepancy all the time. Even Jesus at that time did not have all authority as He was still in a state of humility, He did only what the Father showed him to do. This changed after the resurrection, when He was exalted (Mt.28). We need to remember that Judas when he was with the others was doing the same miracles right alongside them, but he was a son of perdition. So having this kind of authority really does not validate one being an authentic Christian as Mt.7:21 certainly implies. Certainly this authority was not permanent as they were unable to do many things afterwards, even cast out certain demons. This does not mean we are powerless today, it does mean we should be careful what we are learning about authority and how it is to be used.

How we are to conduct ourselves as servants to others is illustrated by the disciples who became apostles.

2 Thess.3:7-9: “For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone's bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us.” Paul’s example was humility, following the example of Christ’s servant hood, no one was abuse or misused. They were careful with their leadership and did not use the office of apostle or prophet as a “above others” position. They remembered what Jesus said “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant (Matt 20:25-28). Their authority came with the willingness to be a servant.
How did the apostles use their authority? 1Thess.2:5-7 “For neither at any time did we use flattering words, as you know, nor a cloak for covetousness-- God is witness. Nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, when we might have made demands as apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children.” When was the last time you saw a healing or miracle service where someone famous did not say everyone can or will be healed (flattery) or ask to give to his ministry so they can reap a blessing (a cloak for covetousness). Or where someone was not brought up on stage to give an advertisement and to interview them on what happened (glory from men). Or the speaker went in the audience to slay people “in the spirit” and its shown on camera.

Today’s Christianity for the most part lacks servanthood, compassion, kindness, instead it is ALL about authority and power. Selfless service, mercy, and helps are gifts of the Spirit that few want. Most desire gifts that can be used publicly and make a BIG impression. We now define ministers and valid ministries by how many miracles and healing they report, something you will not find in Scripture. “A man came to Jesus saying “Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do you care about anyone, for you do not regard the person of men”(Matt. 22:16). How different it is today with those who proclaim their authority, everything is watched by others and filmed for the public.

2 Cor. 10:13-18 “We, however, will not boast beyond measure, but within the limits of the sphere which God appointed us--a sphere which especially includes you. For we are not overextending ourselves (as though our authority did not extend to you), for it was to you that we came with the gospel of Christ; not boasting of things beyond measure, that is, in other men's labors, but having hope, that as your faith is increased, we shall be greatly enlarged by you in our sphere, to preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's sphere of accomplishment. But “he who glories, let him glory in the LORD.” For not he who commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends.”

The apostles’ leadership was true shepherding as they exemplified the Jesus style of servanthood. As True shepherds they taught people how to follow the one shepherd: not themselves. Cults and abusive leadership will always put themselves in between the people and Christ having them as necessary for someone to follow Christ or for the Church to succeed. We can see this being stated by the apostle prophet movement today. The apostles did not dictate what people were to do but through being personally involved in their lives they instructed them by Scripture, and showed them by example. They did not prophecy who to marry or where one is to move to for ministry. When people tried to follow a certain apostle they were rebuked (Corinthians:11-12). Today many popular teachers make disciples after their own selves. As true shepherds the apostles stood against errors and denounced false teachings and letters that were not from them. 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13: “Now we ask you brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are “over you” in the Lord.” The phrase “over you” in the Greek is also used in 1 Timothy 3:4-5 and 1 Timothy 5:17. It does not mean a “position of authority,” it means “to assist, to protect, to care for or give aid to.”

In third John 9, John named Diotrephes who was the first church cultist. Diotrephes wouldn’t accept the teaching of the apostles and he spoke against them. He wanted to be in authority, to be first among them; he wanted to be noticed. He would not allow other brethren to fellowship with the church he presided over. Isn't that what happens today when people are separated and told not to talk to those who are from another church or those who are being Bereans? There are those who are afraid they will lose control over their members.
There are many who are claiming apostolic authority today. True apostolic authority was to be sold out for the Lord, where they did not love their own lives but instead they give their lives for the sheep. Many commend themselves into a apostolic leadership position that God has not given them. The true New Testament apostles were qualified by the fact they saw the risen Lord and were personally chosen by Him (1 Cor.9:1). The latter rain teach many prophets and apostles are to rule today instead of one person ruling over the Church (such as a Pope). When we get down to it, there is little difference.

Many claim to be prophets but they are prophesying at a 30% average rate of accuracy. This is an abuse of both the title and gift. No true prophet ever had this poor a record: they were 100% correct. Anything less than this is a false prophet and false prophets don’t care if they are right all the time! There are people who are concerned about certain teachers being misrepresented on what they say. I would like to see them have the same concern about the Word that God has said! We cannot separate Jesus from His Word they go together as the truth. To love and hold to His word is to love Jesus. We should have no other word, no other Word.
We were not given the ability to say and do whatever we want. Tagging His name when you exercise authority does not make it anymore valid or authentic. To claim we have all authority; is to say we have the same authority as Jesus; this means we are not under His authority. We are told by Jesus a servant is not greater than his master. Are we servants or are we masters?

2 Peter 2:10-11 “and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.” Those who want to have authority and rule over people and nations even if they have good intentions need to beware. Jude 7-11 “Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.”
When you see people mocking the devil and his angels, speaking boastfully of what they will conquer, boasting of using authority in the spiritual realm, claiming to be the army of God, this is exactly what Jude was speaking of. If you look at the story of Balaam he wanted to make money on his ability to prophecy. In the rebellion of Korah we see people going against what the leader (Moses) spoke that we now have as our Scripture. It is always about challenging what God has said. When people teach new revelations, saying God is revealing more to the Church at this time and it is not found in the Scripture, or is at best distorted Scripture; this is exactly what both Peter and Jude are addressing.

For those who seek authority can easily fall into a trap, great authority and power will be offered at the end. The second beast that is coming will look like a lamb and he will promise authority and a kingdom. Rev 13:4 “So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?” Here is the same authority that Satan offered to Jesus, but Jesus refused and stayed a servant. The one who is called the beast will accept it and use it. Rev 13:6-7 “Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.” Notice He is able to say things about himself that is supposed to be attributed to God. He is able to exercise all power over the whole earth.

Rev 13:12-14 “And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast.” This man will have authority he will have the ability to do miracles and he will accept peoples worship.
He was able to deceive by his authority (power). If you wonder whom the Christians are that Jesus warned about the deception in the end, it will be the ones who look for authority, power in miracles and signs as the proof that something is of God.

Dan 7:6-8 “After this I looked, and there was another, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird. The beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it. “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. “I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.” V:11-12 “I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. “As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.
Rev. 17:12-14 “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.”

Dan.7:19-28 “Then I wished to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its nails of bronze, which devoured, broke in pieces, and trampled the residue with its feet; “and the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up, before which three fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth which spoke pompous words, whose appearance was greater than his fellows. “I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them “until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom. “Thus he said: 'The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all other kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, trample it and break it in pieces. The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom. And another shall rise after them; he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings. He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time. 'But the court shall be seated, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it forever.
Then the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him.' “This is the end of the account. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly troubled me, and my countenance changed; but I kept the matter in my heart.”
Kingdom and dominion is coming when the king comes. The church was never given authority to rule the earth before the king arrives. For whatever kingdom is ruling when Christ come he will destroy.

It was only Jesus who was given all authority. Nowhere does it say we were given all authority in the New Testament. Some discretion for a certain matters or occasions but it is not perpetual for all for anytime and place. Matt 28:18-20 “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” So he tells the apostles and us “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. The word for authority is power. If one has all power they have all authority. It is not the church that has all authority, we need to be under Jesus’ authority just as he was under the Father when he came as a servant. Leadership in the church is about being a servant. Only Jesus can have all authority for the simple reason he is sinless and can rule perfectly, the church is not sinless and can never be trusted with all authority. Yes we as the church have some authority, but not all authority. The sooner we learn this, the quicker we can come under the authority of Christ and enjoy serving under His Lordship.