Friday, August 5, 2011

Critique of The Crossing's beliefs-The Bible: Part Two

At the end of my last post I left you hanging with an important question as to whether The Crossing really believes that the Bible alone is their final authority. All participants of the discussion group in the "I Love My Church" video unequivocally agree that the Bible is their final authority. As doctrinal point number one states, "The Bible is God's word and totally accurate. It's out final authority." No ambiguity there.

Well, the answer to the question is a resounding "NO"! And I will prove it. Remember that at approximately 19 minutes into the video, pastor Tom quotes the first of ten doctrinal points of The Crossing, then gives his commentary on that point. It is obvious that pastor Tom and everyone else in the discussion group are in complete agreement that the first doctrinal point is true.

The problem with that assertion is that at about 28.:46 minutes into the video, that's less than ten minutes later, the discussion group violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. That might sound like a difficult concept to understand but it's actually very simple, as I will explain.

The Law of Non-Contradiction is the basis of all logic and reason. Without it, the lunatics would rule the earth!  Christian apologist and philosopher Ronald Nash explains The Law of Non-Contradiction in the audio link provided above.

Nonetheless, I will help you understand the Law of Non-Contradiction right now.


The formula for the Law of Non-Contradiction is as follows:
  • A cannot be B and non-B at the same time and in the same sense. 
Now I will give an example in two sentences, otherwise known as "propositions".  
  • The dish is full of vanilla ice cream.
  • The dish is full of green beans.
Now let's fill in the variables:

"A" is the dish. "B" is the ice cream. "Non-B" are the green beans.

So if I am holding a dish and I stated the two propositions to you...

  • The dish is full of vanilla ice cream.
  • The dish is full of green beans. 
...and I told you that both statements are true at that very moment, then you would think that  I have lost my mind. That's because it is impossible for the dish to  be full of only vanilla ice cream and only green beans at the same time and in the same sense.

If you said "Well, it's green bean ice cream" then you have altered the sense of one or both of the propositions stated at the beginning. The sense in which I stated the first proposition at the beginning was that I was referring to pure vanilla ice cream with no green beans in it.

If you deny that the Law of Non-Contradiction is true, then you have confirmed yourself that the Law of Non-Contradiction is true. Remember the formula, "A" cannot be "B" and "non-B "at the same time and in the same sense. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

The propositions...
  • The Law of Non-Contradiction is true.
  • The Law of Non-Contradiction is false.
 The variables...
  • A" is the "Law of Non-Contradiction", "B" is 'true", and "non-B" is "false". 

If you believe the Law of Non-Contradiction is false, then you have come to that conclusion using the Law of Non-Contradiction. It is obvious that the Law of Non-Contradiction cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense. Yet, in coming to your conclusion, you must have reasoned something like, "The Law of Non-Contradiction is either true or false, but it cannot be both. I believe the Law of Non-contradiction is false".

It is impossible to deny the Law of Non-Contradiction because you must employ it in reaching your conclusion that it is false! Believing that the Law of Non-Contradiction is false is a logical absurdity.

You are probably wondering, "How did the discussion group violate the Law of Non-Contradiction?" I'll explain. At 28:46 minutes into the video, they have finished talking about The Crossing's "beliefs" and are now going through The Crossing's "values", one by one.

There are eighteen values in all, called, "The Code". Pastor Jason clearly states  and gives commentary on value number two, which is, "We are united under the visionary". And I also quote this word for word from the video...

""We are united under the visionary." Now the visionary here is Eric. The Crossing is built on the vision God gave pastor Eric. And we will defend that vision. 

Now what does that mean? That means that we do church the way he wants us to do it. And me as a campus pastor I can't go up to Zimmerman and decide I am going to preach, because that's not the vision that we have for this church that God gave to Eric.

And we defend that when people go, "Well, maybe we should do it this way", and we are like, "no, no, no, no no, no, no, you don't understand, God gave Eric this vision, we did it this way because we don't want to argue with God, basically...

...we don't want to be like, you know Eric's not God, were not saying Eric's God, (Eric interjects, "I'm not God") he's got a vision from God and we have decided with our lives that we are going to follow that vision. And we are going to stick to that, and if we ever just decide that we don't want to be part of that vision, then we can go find a church and serve somewhere else.

That's o.k., we're not telling anybody that they have to unite under this vision that Eric got from God; you can do whatever you want. But we think it's a really cool vision, we're on board with it, and we're going to defend it, and we're going to stick to it."

After pastor Jason's commentary on value number two, there is complete agreement among those in the discussion group that Jason's comments on value number two are true and accurate. In the passage above, pastor Jason said no less than five times that Eric Dykstra had received a vision or visions from God. He also said The Crossing is built on the vision  God gave Eric.

Now let's recall the formula of the Law of Non-Contradiction...

  • A cannot be B and non-B at the same time and in the same sense.  
And now I will apply the Law of Non-Contradiction to the discussion of the participants of The Crossing church, "I Love My Church". video. I will fill in the variables and then disclose  the propositions.

The variables are as follows: "A" is the Bible, "B" is "The Bible is our final authority"., "Non-B" is "The Bible is NOT our final authority.

So to put this in propositional language.
  • The Bible is our final authority.
  • The Bible is not our final authority.  
Now it is absolutely clear that both propositions cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense.  And yet, the discussion group affirm that BOTH propositions are true!
The first proposition "The Bible is our final authority" is explicitly written down, stated, and explained by pastor Tom. The second proposition "The Bible is NOT our final authority" is not explicitly stated by the discussion group.

Yet pastor Jason implicitly affirms the second proposition as true. The participants of the discussion group agree that Eric Dykstra had received a vision or visions from God, and that they must do church the way Eric wants them to do it, according to the vision God gave Eric.  That means that the Bible is not The Crossing's final authority, Eric Dykstra is! 

That violates the Law of Non-Contradiction because the members of the discussion group affirm both propositions as true at the same time and in the same sense. And biblically speaking, there are a multitude of problems with what The Crossing believes, their values, their practices,  and the way they treat people that explicitly contradicts what the Bible teaches. So all who "partner" at The Crossing must believe things and do things  exactly as Eric's says. Does he tell them to believe things and do things if it clearly contradicts the Bible? Yes he does.     

Let's examine some Scriptures. First, in 2 Peter 3:14-16  The Apostle Peter confirms that the writings of the Apostle Paul are Scripture.

Paul confirms in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that Scripture alone (The Bible) is sufficient for everything man needs to know. The Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura explains the sufficiency of Scripture. Alleged special revelation outside of the Bible in the post-apostolic age are not the Word of God.

[Read the link to Sola Scriptura; it is a long read, but is essential that you get a sense of the orthodox view of Scripture. The Sola Scriptura page refers to a document penned in 1996 called the Cambridge Declaration , which addresses the erosion of Christian beliefs and practices in the sphere of modern evangelicalism in America. I would recommend that you read this also.] 

At the very end of the Bible in Revelation 22:18 the Apostle John states that  anyone who adds  to the prophesy of the book of Revelation will result in catastrophe for that person. So if anyone received actual revelations from God in the post-apostolic age, then those revelations would be considered Scripture and another book of the Bible could be added onto the book of Revelation.

But the Apostle John  has not left that consideration open for discussion. He is saying, "The Bible is finished." Special revelation from God ends with the Book of Revelation. God has not revealed Himself in unique and personal ways since the end of the New Testament era. The canon of Scripture is closed.

Something is either the Word of God or it isn't. There is no middle ground. The Bible is the Word of God. Eric Dykstra's "visions" are either lies he made up himself or the work of Satan and his demons.

Does Eric Dykstra even realize that if he received actual revelation from God through visions, then those  revelations would be considered Scripture? You could  then add Dykstra's  visions from God to the Bible after the book of Revelation and call it Scripture, which the Apostle John sternly warns not to do.

Besides, how does Eric Dykstra know with absolute certainty that the visions he received are from God? The apostle Paul says in 2 Corinthians 11: 13-14 that Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. That means that if you think you are receiving revelations and visions from  God, as Eric Dykstra does, you are actually being deceived by Satan.

The Scriptures teach that the church of Jesus Christ is subordinate to Scripture, as detailed in the conclusion of the Cambridge Declaration confesssion on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura...

"Biblical Authority
  • We believe that the Scripture is the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, because it derives this authority from God through divine inspiration. Also, that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture (Mt. 5:17f; Jn. 10:35; I Pet. 1:12; I Thess. 2:13; 4:2; II Thess. 2:15; 3:15; I Cor. 14:37).
  • We believe that the confession of inspiration, infallibility, and full authority of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole Christian faith."
Unfortunately Eric Dykstra has twisted this Biblical teaching, making Scripture subordinate to him.   

I believe that my analysis of the first doctrinal point of The Crossing church is irrefutable and has dealt a lethal blow to The Crossing's logically absurd way of thinking. But there will be more analysis to come, much, much more! And as I have said before, When I get done with The Crossing, they won't have a biblical leg to stand on!

No comments:

Post a Comment