Praying with filthy hands

St. Chrysostom offers some fascinating insights about Jesus' confrontation with the Pharisees in Matthew 15:

Let us learn then what are the things that defile the man; let us learn, and let us flee them. For even in the church we see such a custom prevailing amongst the generality, and men giving diligence to come in clean garments, and to have their hands washed; but how to present a clean soul to God, they make no account.  

And this I say, not forbidding them to wash hands or mouth; but willing men so to wash is meet, not with water only, but instead of water, with all virtues. For the filth of the mouth is evil speaking, blasphemy, reviling, angry words... If then thou art conscious to thyself of uttering none of them, neither of being defiled with this filth, draw near with confidence.  

...For tell me, hadst thou dung on thy hands, and mire, wouldest thou indeed venture to pray? By no means. And yet this were no hurt; but that is ruin. How then art thou reverential in the different things, but in the forbidden remiss? 

What then? should we not pray? saith one.  

We should indeed, but not while defiled, and having upon us mire of that sort. 'What then, if I have been overtaken?' saith one. Cleanse thyself. 'How, and in what way?' Weep, groan, give alms, apologize to him that is affronted, reconcile him to thyself hereby, wipe clean thy tongue, lest thou provoke God more grievously. 

...Having thus adorned ourselves, let us come to our King, and fall at His knees, not with the body only, but also with the mind. Let us consider whom we are approaching, and on whose behalf, and what we would accomplish. We are drawing nigh unto God, whom the seraphim behold and turn away their faces, not bearing His brightness; at sight of whom the earth trembles. We draw nigh unto God, "who dwelleth in the light, which no man can approach unto." And we draw nigh unto Him for deliverance from hell, for remission of sins, for escape from those intolerable punishments, for attaining to the Heavens, and to the good things that are there. Let us, I say, fall down before Him both in body and in mind, that He may raise us up when we are down; let us converse with all gentleness and meekness.1 

1.  St. Chrysostom, Ed. Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Volume 10 [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publsihers Inc., 1995 reprint], pp. 319-20

Thanks, Bunyan.

Selfish salvation sees the gospel primarily as a means of satisfying that individual's desires and prayers. It has little to no sense that the gospel is a kingdom of self-denial or really even contains others, and it certainly doesn't "seek first the kingdom of God" (Matt 6:33). Salvation is all about me, me, me. My needs. My heart. My purpose. My prayers. My goals. My personal sins. My place in heaven. It's an exhausting and redundant autobiography. And yet, selfish salvation is the most common expression of Christian faith in our time. Thanks, Bunyan.1

1.  Douglas Jones, Dismissing Jesus: How We Evade The Way Of The Cross [Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013] p. 116

Breaking tradition by breaking bread (Matt. 14:14-16:12)

Photo by Nicholas Nichols

As noted in a previous post, chapters fourteen through seventeen of Matthew's Gospel talk a lot about bread. 

In 14:14-15:20, Jesus is followed by a great crowd (πολὺν ὄχλον) to a great lake to feed a great amount of people with, presumably, great tasting bread (5,000+). Jesus then gets in "the boat" (ἀναβάντων εἰς τὸ πλοῖον), crosses the lake, and is immediately confronted by Jewish authorities who had been asking, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread" (Matt. 15:2, ESV). (Although most English translations don't include the word "bread," including the ESV, the word is actually there in the Greek text: ἄρτον ἐσθίωσιν.) 

A lot of bread was being broken, and so was a lot of Pharisaical tradition.

In the next section (15:21-28) Jesus withdraws to Tyre and Sidon---a distinctively non-Jewish area---and is confronted by a Canaanite woman of great faith. Her faith is, in fact, greater than the Jewish authorities of the previous section. Her faith in Yahweh is so great that she gets excited about bread crumbs. While 5,000 Jews are being stuffed with loaves of bread, this Canaanite woman is satisfied with crumbs from her master's table. Immediately we can see the great contrast that Matthew intended his audience to see. The contrast is between a Canaanite's persistent acceptance of bread crumbs and the Pharisees persistent rejection of entire loaves of bread. The contrast is between a Canaanite's allegiance to the God of Israel--the God of the Bible--and the Pharisee's allegiance to that God as well. While the Pharisees prepare to attack Jesus over washing their hands before eating bread, a Canaanite sees the value of every speck of bread that her master allows to fall on dirty ground.

The Pharisees and scribes were looking for a fight. The Canaanite woman was looking for the Lord, her savior.

This episode is followed by a similar series of events (15:29-16:12) that just occurred, only with a slight twist of emphasis. After Jesus' trip to Tyre and Sidon, Jesus is followed by another great crowd (πολλοὶ ὄχλοι) to the same great lake to feed another great amount of people with, presumably, more great tasting bread (4,000+). The twist this time around is that Jesus is not feeding Jews; instead he seems to be feeding Gentiles. (This may take a few moments to explain, so I'll comment about this shortly.) Afterward Jesus, again, gets into "the boat" (π ἐνέβη εἰς τὸ πλοῖον), crosses the lake, and is immediately confronted by Jewish authorities. Jesus then privately speaks to his disciples, warning them about the "leaven" of the Pharisees and the bread (ἄρτον) they've been feeding the children of Israel. This is neither coincidence, nor is it contrived history; it is a real life series of encounters between Jesus and his enemies. Like the prophets Elijah and Elisha before him, Jesus is gathering together a new school of disciples and preparing the way for another exodus from the land, as the land grows in its apostasy and becomes riper for judgment.

The shocking twist in the midst of this narrative section is Jesus' departure into Tyre & Sidon and his subsequent following of Gentile disciples. As I mentioned a moment ago, this needs more explaining. 

Notice carefully all of the narrative details recorded by Matthew. With the first feeding, Jesus multiplies five loaves. With the second feeding Jesus multiplies seven loaves. In total, that’s twelve loaves, just like the twelve loaves of God’s presence required by Law in the Tabernacle. Jesus was preparing a table of bread in the midst of his enemies and gathering together the people of God on both sides of the sea—the Jews of Galilee (5,000) and the Gentiles of the Decapolis (4,000)—to feast on and with the bread of life. This act of mission in feeding the hungry Gentiles even foreshadows the Eucharistic meal on the night of his betrayal. In 15:36, Jesus gives thanks to God, breaks the bread, and hands it to his disciples, who then in turn distributes the bread to the remaining crowds. The only other time in Matthew’s gospel where Jesus breaks bread and gives thanks is on the night of his betrayal (26:26-29). 

Still not convinced? Consider the following as well.

Throughout Scripture, the numbers five and twelve are associated with Israel, and here it is seen with the feeding of the 5,000. The numbers four and seven are associated with the world and with Gentiles throughout Scripture, and here it is seen with the feeding of 4,000. Also, with the feeding of the 4,000, we find something that is not found among the crowd of 5,000. Just before Jesus multiplies the 4,000 loaves of bread (15:31), Matthew says these new crowds “glorified the God of Israel,” which implies that previously they had not been glorifying the God of Israel because this God was Israel’s, not theirs. This makes perfect sense if these newly acquired crowds are Gentiles. As an additional note to confirm this fact, Mark’s account of this feeding (of 4,000) takes place in “the Decapolis,” east of the Sea of Galilee, which was a well-known Gentile territory.1 

How much more evidence do we need to acknowledge this distinction? 

I'll take one more stab at it, and I'll stick within the larger narrative of Matthew's Gospel too. All throughout Matthew's gospel he uses keywords, all of which are repeated in ways that link previously illustrated events in the Gospel. We find this again in this section. Jesus “sits down” (ἀνακλίνω) to eat bread with the children of Israel (the 5,000 of Matt. 14:19), and the last time this word for “sitting” is used in Matthew’s gospel was with Jesus’ conversation with the Gentile Centurion (8:11-12), saying: “I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table (ἀνακλίνω) with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness.” The “sons of the kingdom” at that time were Israelites. However, as we find out later on in Matt. 14, the Israelites who followed Jesus and ate bread with him (the 5,000) are distinct from those “sons” who would be thrown into the outer darkness mentioned in 8:11-12. The "sons" who remain in the Kingdom are those who eat bread with Jesus and his apostles. Only the "sons" who reject table fellowship with Jesus would be cast out. Those Jews who maintained table fellowship with Jesus and His disciples would be constituted part of the new Israel in Christ, and would be included with the Gentiles who would come from east and west to “sit” with the Patriarchs in the Kingdom.

This message of Matthew's gospel has implications for the Christian Church today. For example, with whom does Jesus break bread today? Or, perhaps another way of expressing the same concern is, with whom do Christians break bread today? Do Presbyterian Christians break bread with Lutherans today? If Jesus welcomes them to his table, they should be willing, because it's the Lord's Table spread before them, not a uniquely Presbyterian table or a Lutheran one. Do Baptists break bread with Roman Catholics, or Pentecostals with Episcopalians? Even though Jesus invites them all to his table, through baptism, some of them still come like the Pharisees with freshly washed hands holding a confrontational axe--always ready for a fight; others come persistently and humbly, satisfied even when they only find crumbs on the floor. 

Which of these characterizes the attitude and perception of your church? 

Which of these characterizes your fellowship with the baptized Body of Christ?

Jesus broke tradition by breaking bread, blessing it, giving thanks, and distributing it to great crowds that followed him--crowds of Jews and Gentiles. Christians of all denominations would be wise in breaking their own Pharisaical traditions too, in order to recline at table with Jesus. Even if bread crumbs are all that's left over for some who seek after Jesus, such would be infinitely better than the outcome of those who are filled with the leaven of Pharisees.

1.  I want to extend my thankfulness to John Barach for pointing these details out to me. For those who may be interested, Pastor Barach has a treasure trove of other biblical insights on his blog: http://barach.us

Iconic Polarization

...The trouble with sharp, polarizing moments is that they become iconic. Like martyrdoms ancient and modern, and indeed like civil wars, they generate loyalties and counter loyalties: you must now take such-and-such a line, because otherwise you're a traitor.

-- N. T. Wright, Surprised By Scripture [New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2014], p. 5 

Lesslie Newbigin: Contrasted Attitudes of Christendom

Within Christendom one is familiar with two contrasted attitudes: on the one hand there is the attitude, typical of a national Church, which accepts a certain responsibility for the whole life of the community, but fails to make it clear that the Church is a separate community marked off from the world in order to save the world; on the other hand, and in opposition to this, there is the attitude of the gathered community -- the body which is very conscious of being called out from the world, and from a merely nominal Christianity, but which yet can wash its hands completely of any responsibility for those of its members who fail to fulfill its conditions for membership.1 

1.  Lesslie Newbigin, The Household of God: Lectures on the Nature of the Church [Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Press, 1998], p. 9 

Imitators (from Opus imperfectum)

"Even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

We were made in the image of Christ for the purpose of being made imitators of his will and manner of living. We were not created to be like his majesty, were we? For he indeed was able to imitate our flesh, but we cannot imitate his divinity. But in this we are his image: whatever seems good to him also may be good among us, and whatever seems bad to him may also appear bad among us. But whoever is eager to boast, while the Lord is eager for humility, is not the image of Christ. And whoever is a lover of wealth in this world while the Lord loves poverty drives away the image of Christ from himself. For he is not a true disciple who does not imitate his teacher, nor is it a true image which is not like the original.1

1.  Ancient Christian Texts: Opus imperfectum (Vol. 2) [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010], p. 290

There Are Gay Christians

In the opening headline of a recent blog titled "Some Things To Consider If You Think Being Gay Is A Sin," the author says that “there are gay Christians.”

A few friends have asked me to comment on this (on Facebook), but my response was too long for the comment box, so I decided to blog about it publicly. My comments below will assume one's familiarity with the blog post linked above, so if you have not read that, I suggest you do before reading and commenting below. 

First of all, I found it interesting how the author's opening statement declares something categorically in a way that might be factually true, but still remains undefined. What does he mean by "gay"? He also never defines what being “gay” means to him as he explains it so categorically. Instead he seems to let the reader define his or her own terms. Does he mean “same sex attraction” or one who actively practices sexual intercourse with a person of the same sex. Or both? How should Christians define it? He doesn’t make his distinctions clear enough to make a wise decision regarding the inclusion of “gays” within the Christian church. (He seems to be treating all "gays" as excluded, which is not true. See this book as one great example.) He seems to be accepting all definitions, and I certainly cannot endorse that perspective with a clean Christian conscience. I am definitely willing to admit that Christians can have same-sex attraction (as seen by the admissions of Sam Alberry in this lecture and in his book, "Is God Anti-Gay?"), but I have a problem with those who practice it or treat it as though it’s “natural” and therefore an acceptable lifestyle.

As a headline, I think it’s true enough that “there are gay Christians,” but again, I’m not sure the author would make the distinction that I do, between Christians (inwardly & outwardly) who have (and struggle with) same-sex attraction and Christians (outwardly) who practice same-sex intercourse. The author insists that we remember that "gays" are real people. I think that is important to keep in mind. It is precisely because they are real people we are dealing with that I think this distinction of mine is helpful. 

When someone “realizes” they are attracted to the same sex, but is also a practicing Christian, it is easier to minister to them as Christians who have an inappropriate and sinful disposition than it is to minister to them after accepting the propaganda that they have some innate “gayness” which they suddenly realized. That argument of suddenly realizing one's inborn "gayness" is, to me, like someone suddenly realizing they are gluttons or drunkards, and then arguing that they suddenly “realized” they were born that way. And what do you know?, suddenly it becomes convenient to believe that there are thousands of others who are born that way too!! Therefore it must be acceptable to be a glutton or a drunkard and a practicing Christian. That, to me, is absurd reasoning. This does not mean that the people who believe such absurdities are somehow intellectual bafoons. Absurdity from a Christian worldview, after all, is a consequence of sinful reasoning, not unintelligent reasoning. 

However, if a Christian realized he or she is attracted to the same sex, I would argue that such is an attraction which can be genuine and controlled by one's own self in a godly way despite whatever “natural” or hormonal or psychological tendencies there may be to desire the same sex. That can be counseled. That can be helped. That person can be loved and worshiped alongside as a Christian who struggles with something that God does not desire for their choice of lifestyle, and that is a principle which all Christians struggle with to some degree. Sexual sin is very common among all Christians, and does not make someone a non-Christian per se. It may make them a backsliding Christian. It may make them a covenant-breaking Christian, which may eventually lead them into becoming apostate, but that does not necessarily make them a non-Christian from the outset of their epiphany to (or acceptance of) same-sex attraction.

The author also claims that Matthew Vines’ new book on gay people provides a “conservative evangelical” approach to this subject, and that conservative Christians should be willing to reexamine what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. Well, in my mind, some of what Vines has to say about kindness and respect toward kind and respectful homosexuals might be helpful. But I don’t know his exact views because I haven’t read his book. I have only read conservative evangelical reviews of his book, and as far I can tell, his views appear to be pretty typical sloppy exegesis of Scripture. To his credit, it is sloppy biblical exegesis which appears to have the best of intentions.

I want to address this portion of his blog a bit further. Even if, as the author claims, “many people affirm monogamous same sex marriage without discarding the Bible,” that does not mean their meticulous faithfulness to a monogamous relationship is pleasing to God (which is what the author assumes). The typical “alternative biblical understanding” is that all the Old Testament passages “against” homosexual practices are either “against” pagan homosexual practices (cultic prostitution, pagan sexual rites, etc…) or abusive or adulterous homosexual relationships. From these typical claims, the author of this blog wants conservative Christians to consider this as a possibility and file it under “secondary theology,” allowing Christian charity to “leave room for disagreement.” Well, I think there is something extremely valuable about learning to leave room for disagreement, but I’m not willing to file this issue under “secondary theology” precisely because the Law of God and the Apostle Paul are explicitly opposed to the practice of same-sex relationships (both cultic, abusive, adulterous, and “Christian”; see ESV translation of Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-7; I Cor. 6:9-11; I Tim. 1:8-10).1 According to Scripture, the practice of same-sex intercourse is not a "secondary" theological issue in the eyes of God or his apostles, and therefore we should be cautious about accepting this blogger's opinion about it being that way. (And don't just take my word--as a blogger--for granted. Look at the Scriptures yourself!)

The author then says something just as ambiguous as his opening statement. He says, “Please consider that we treat our gay brothers and sisters differently than everyone else, and even if you’re right – this behavior is wrong.”

I think this opinion of his is important to consider because Christians don’t often think that their own behavior, and especially their own private thoughts, are wrong. After all, they have thought them through, and they have grown up with others who have thought them through and reached the same conclusions. Therefore it must be right!

I would agree with this author’s statement had he been a little more clear about  what he means by “this behavior.” I don’t think it’s reasonable to think that treating gay “brothers and sisters” (i.e. Christians) “differently than everyone else” is clear enough. What does he mean by “differently”? If what he means by “differently” is that they cannot be treated as a Christian who struggles with same-sex attraction, then I agree; Christians should examine themselves and consider treating them as brothers and sisters caught up in the sinful spirit of our age, but who still might very well be immature Christians. I am very serious about this, so I am going to repeat myself to be extra clear. Same-sex attraction is a real temptation among Christians, and Christians would be wise to treat those who struggle with same-sex attraction as Christians. I'm not saying this is limitless. I'm not saying this is the one answer to solving all possible uncomfortable circumstances between "gay" and "anti-gay" Christians. What I'm saying is that (1) they are "gay" in the sense that they struggle with same-sex attraction, and still consider themselves to be Bible-believing, Christ-honoring Christians, and (2) a mature Christian would be wise to treat them as Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction. That way, homosexual practice doesn’t ever need to be condoned as a lifestyle or propped up on some glorious pedestal of respectability. At the same time a healthy self-examination of one’s self can restrain unnecessary hatred and foolishness toward a “weaker brother,” and as long as a Bible-believing, Christ-honoring Christian is struggling with same-sex attraction, I would consider them the "weaker brother" (as St. Paul uses that description). According to Scripture, the immature Christian is the “weaker” brother; and according to Paul (and Jesus), causing a weaker brother to stumble and fall short of entering the kingdom of heaven is wrong. There is no black or white “law” to deal with every particular temptation and sin of particular people, which is why a “stronger,” more mature Christian should be willing to examine himself, hold firmly to God’s Law which does not favor same-sex attraction, and still love and counsel individuals according to their particular temptations and sins. In that way they can still treat "gays" as Christians who need greater strength in their walk with Christ.

The author then makes this claim: “We’d rarely—if ever—treat these people the way LGBTQ people get treated, and that should be a deeply concerning realization. The fact that one group, and only one group, has been effectively marginalized from the church (you know, that thing that’s supposed to represent Jesus here on earth) should cause us tremendous sorrow.” 

It's not uncommon for me to get slightly irritated by emotional arguments like this. Everyone pack your bags! We're going on a guilt trip! Again, first things first. 

It is not true that "one group, and only one group, has been effectively marginalized from the church." Isn't this blogger aware that pedophiles, zoophiles, rapists, kidnappers, murderers, and baal-worshipers have also been marginalized from the church? This guy can't be serious about gays being the "only" ones marginalized. If he really believes that, he's naive. 

Secondarily, although it is very true that LGBTQ people are treated sinfully by others in a way which accompanies “marginalization” by the Christian Church, that most certainly does not mean that I, as Christian, should be “deeply concerned” or "tremendously sorrowful" about the sinful choices of the LGBTQ community any more than the sinful choices of the Christian community. I am deeply concerned about them both. If God’s Word teaches all men what sin looks like throughout history, and God's Law defines what sin is (I John 3:4), then I don’t have to favor one community over another if they’re both treating each other sinfully in light of Scripture (i.e. in light of God's Word and His Law). And let’s not joke around about this either. Within the LGBTQ community there are plenty of professing Christians and other "religious" people who hate—and I mean hate—other Christians who disagree with their choice of lifestyle; and that hatred is just as categorically wicked as the non-peaceful Christians who hate their Christian brothers that struggle with same sex attraction. All sinful treatment of "gays" and "anti-gays" needs to stop, not just by those within the visible Church.

Last, but not least of importance, is this author’s claim that “Jesus was a traitor to the culture wars of his day.”

In context, that is said in a way which is supposed to make Christians consider what the “real” culture wars of our day are not (not what they actually are). Immediately we are supposed to associate “anti-gay” with the Pharisees who were against Jesus’ gospel of peace. We are supposed to think of Jesus crucified wrongly for his acceptance of all people, including gays. We are supposed to believe that because Jesus was a traitor to the culture wars of his day, that we also must have that same missional disposition toward whatever ways our culture is at war. This means Christians should not war over being gay and Christian. They should, instead, be “deeply concerned” about those who are anti-gay. 

My response to this is pretty simple. Culture wars vary from culture to culture, but the Law of God abides forever. Jesus' gospel was a gospel of peace, but Jesus was also God, and God's Law is Jesus' Law. In that Law, God calls the practice of homosexual behavior an “abomination” worthy of the death penalty in a criminal court (which is only applicable, for obvious reason, if persons were tried in a civil court that acknowledges God’s Law as morally binding). That, of course, is another touchy subject altogether! However, both Jesus and his apostles clearly endorsed it--thousands of years after the law was given--as having contemporary moral application: Matt. 15:3-6; Luke 23:39-43; Acts 25:11; Rev. 13:10. Moreover, within Scripture itself, God never rescinds his own view about the immorality of that behavior. The "Law" as a ministration of death for Israel, through which mankind could receive new life and draw near to God with a particular altar in a particular temple with a particular priesthood and particular sacrifices has indeed expired, but certainly not the moral character of God, which permeated all those Scriptures and gives us the very standard by which the sacrificing of Jesus himself is considered satisfactory for God's justice. 

This leads me to believe that when Jesus began his earthly ministry of peace, crying out “Repent! For the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!” that he was serious about repenting from those things which could keep fellow believers out of the kingdom of heaven. As I have already mentioned in passing, in I Cor. 6:9-10 St. Paul says “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Do not be deceived, Paul says. Do you not know, Paul asks. These statements imply that Christians can deceive themselves about homosexuality, even though they ought to know better. Christians are susceptible to believing the foolish lies of the world, just as much as non-Christians are. 

But Paul doesn’t just end with that clear denunciation of such homosexual behavior. He then addresses that Christian congregation with these words of comfort: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

Paul recognized that there were some among the saints in Corinth who once were practicing homosexuals, but no longer practiced that lifestyle because they were baptized. Also, by implication, his warning to them assumes that some of them might still be tempted to endorse such sins again. But Paul says that they shouldn’t be tempted to if they want to inherit the kingdom of God. 

Do you (the reader) want to inherit the kingdom of God? If you are a Christian who struggles with same-sex attraction, I suggest that you heed Paul's admonition to the saints in Corinth, and ask Jesus for stronger faith to obey His Word. Ultimately, your own relationship with Jesus, or lack thereof, will determine your inheritance, so don't pretend that Jesus would have brushed this issue off to the side as some sort of "secondary theology." Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ, and if you are a Christian, his words should be as good as the word of Jesus. You should seek strength from your Savior to trust, even as Paul said, that "such were some of you."






1.  Of course, I would readily encourage studying the Greek and Hebrew texts instead of an english translation of them, but I consider the ESV to be a considerate and generally accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts. That is why I recommend reading these passages in the ESV.

Faith as more than simple belief

Faith is more than simple belief because it involves commitment of a kind that is possible only between persons. I can believe that the ground beneath my feet is solid enough to build a house on and then construct one on the basis of that belief, but although I might say that I have "faith" in the ground, there is no relationship between us. For example, it would be unreasonable for me to pray to the ground in the hope that it might protect me from earthquakes. The ground does not have a mind or a will that would justify such behavior on my part, and no reciprocal relationship with it is possible. Faith in God, however, involves two-way communication, which means that there is something present both in us and in God that makes such dialogue meaningful. That something is what we call "personhood," and so it is with the personhood of God that our analysis of how we know and experience him must begin.1 

1.  Gerald Bray, God is Love: A Biblical and Systematic Theology  [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012] p. 106

"The Deceived Belief Must Be Genuine" (more from Greg Bahnsen's doctoral dissertation)

We have maintained that deceived people believe false propositions, and we have elaborated a basic characterization of belief. It will turn out on the analysis being developed here that self-deception actually involves two beliefs which are in conflict. This will be defended in chapter 4. What can be observed here, however, is that the conflict that exists within the self-deceiver can be adequately described as a conflict between two beliefs, and need not be portrayed as a conflict between knowledge and belief. That is, rather than saying that the self-deceiver knows one thing and believes contrary to it, it will be sufficient simply to say that the self-deceiver believes something and yet believes something contrary to it. The contrary belief in either case will be false. However, there is no need to maintain that the other belief to which it is contrary is true and held on good evidence; that is, there is no need to say that it is knowledge (a true belief held on good evidence) to which the false belief is contrary in self-deception. What the self-deceiver takes to be true (i.e., believes) need not actually be true. What is at issue is not whether the self-deceiver holds a false belief in conflict with a true one. It is equally appropriate in self-deception that the conflict be between a false belief and another false belief, for it is the conflict-state that constitutes the condition for self-deception. As long as the self-deceiver actually believes a proposition to be true, it can be objectively false and still serve to set up or generate a conflicting (and similarly false) belief. Our analysis of self-deception need not become complicated, then, with a mixture of knowledge and belief. A person can deceive himself about a belief which he holds whether or not that belief actually has good supporting reasons and turns out to be true or not. Those are extraneous matters here. The important thing is that the self-deceiver believe some proposition and then (falsely) believe something which is incompatible with it.1

1.  Greg L. Bahnsen, A Conditional Resolution of the Apparent Paradox of Self-Deception (USC Doctoral Dissertation [Philosophy], June 1978), p. 147-8. Underlines for emphasis are original.