A Refutation of John G. Lenhart’s Concept of “ModeleticsTM” and His Resulting Theology
A Brief Summary and Refutation of John G. Lenhart’s Concept of “Modeletics
TM” and His Resulting Theology Outlined in His Book “Modeling God.”

 

LENHART’S MODELING PROCESS. 3

Exposing Lenhart’s Modeling Process. 6

1.     Can You Say “Dynamic” When It Comes to Language?. 7

2.     Can You Say “Dynamic” When It Comes to Defining and Relating to People?. 9

3.     Isn’t Our Theology Supposed to be Derived from the Scripture?. 11

4.     Can We Get Some Hermeneutics Into The Process!?. 13

5.     Does Lenhart Know that Theological Modeling Has a Direction?. 15

6.     Is Non-Contradiction Adequate to Determine Truth?. 17

A Summary of Why Lenhart’s Modeling Process Is Inadequate. 18

A SUMMARY AND REFUTATION OF LENHART’S THEOLOGY.. 19

Lenhart’s Teaching on Who God Is. 19

Lenhart’s Teaching on Jesus’ Nature. 21

Lenhart’s Teaching on Sin. 23

Lenhart’s Teaching on Grace. 25

Lenhart’s Teaching on Salvation. 28

Is there a Moment at Which We Are Saved?. 29

Are We Saved by God’s Righteousness or Ours?. 30

Do We Need to Trust In Jesus to Save Us?. 31

So How Are We Saved According to Lenhart?. 32

Where Is the Cross?. 34

Where is the Holy Spirit?. 34

A Summary of Lenhart’s Basic Theology. 34

Lenhart’s Other Teachings. 36

CONCLUSION.. 36


A Brief Summary and Refutation of John G. Lenhart’s Concept of “Modeletics
TM” and His Resulting Theology Outlined in His Book “Modeling God.”

By Pastor Tim Snell

 

Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other message than the one we told you about. Even if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed. I will say it again: If anyone preaches any other gospel than the one you welcomed, let God’s curse fall upon that person.

Galatians 1:8-9 NLT

 

In his book “Modeling God,” John G Lenhart attempts to lay out a comprehensive framework (he would use the word “model”) of who God is, who we are, and how we are to relate to God.  In essence, he strives to present a comprehensive theology, or worldview, of God, salvation, and life - which he hopes will then guide the reader toward more intentional relationship with God as Lenhart has outlined for them.

From reading this book it is quite obvious Lenhart is extremely intelligent.  He uses his background in business and chemistry to derive principles which then serve as the basic mechanisms for building the theological model he presents.  His sharp mind and gift of deductive reasoning are quite impressive, and are on full display throughout the book as he “models God” for the reader.

Unfortunately, while Lenhart appears to have quite a sharp mind, it is obvious that his knowledge is limited to a very narrow range of fields.  The result of this limited knowledge is a modeling process that is fundamentally flawed, and a resulting theology that moves so far outside the bounds of the core of recognized orthodox Christian teaching that it can be called nothing less than heretical. 

Make no mistake -- “Modeling God” is not just another “Christian” theological paradigm akin to Covenant Theology, Dispensational Theology, Arminianism or Calvinism.  In the end, despite any differences or errors in these various theological systems, they all fundamentally tell the story of who God is, who man is, man’s sin and God’s ultimate redemption of mankind through the work of Christ on the cross. 

Lenhart’s theological teaching not only doesn’t embody some of these key components of orthodox Christian theology, it goes beyond this and fundamentally denies core tenants of the Christian faith.  Similar to other “quasi-Christian” theological offerings such as Mormonism or ancient Gnosticism, Lenhart’s theology presents a fundamentally different god than the God of the Bible, and offers a completely non-Biblical theological perspective for sin and God’s gift of salvation.  As such “Modeling God” must be placed outside the bounds of what is considered fundamentally “Christian.”

Let me briefly share, then expose and refute, both Lenhart’s modeling process and his resulting theology.

 

LENHART’S MODELING PROCESS

In his book, Lenhart lays out four “model building” principles which he uses to build his theological framework.  Since these principles are foundational to the conclusions he reaches, it is important we not only lay them out here, but also understand why Lenhart sees them as important.  Listen to what he says.

“We are going to cover the four principles that make up the foundation for every reasoning, interpretation, and logic tool that exists today….  I have called these principles ‘ModeleticsTM’ because we are applying these modeling tools in order to determine the non-contradictory worldview.  These are the same tools, however, used to solve problems and increase understanding in every other field (science, psychology, economics, etc.).  The limitations of every other reasoning tool can be corrected by these four principles.”[1]

Later on he adds:

“We all agree on what the Bible says, yet we still disagree.  This is because we disagree on what the Bible means.  The four principles of ModeleticsTM will resolve every disagreement.”[2]

Please understand!  Lenhart believes the modeling principles he articulates, (and no others) can lead us to a correct theology.  This assertion underlies everything within Lenhart’s book and leads to many of his erroneous conclusions.  We’ll come back to this a little later.

Lenhart then begins to lay out for us these modeling principles which he believes are the foundation for building a sound and Biblical theological model.  Let’s look at each of these briefly in turn.

1.     The first principle Lenhart gives us is The Principle of Non-Contradiction.  This principle states that any accurate theological model or framework must not be self-contradictory.  For example, if one part of our theology says that salvation is only by God’s grace, we can’t have another aspect of our theology that says we can earn it through works.

Lenhart illustrates the principle of non-contradiction this way:

“Contradictions don’t exist; conflicts do.  For instance, I can be both happy and sad.  This is a conflict.  However, I cannot be both happy and not happy at all.  This is a contradiction.”[3]

He then goes on, explaining how he is going to use this principle in building his model.

“We are going to use the words in the Bible, but we are going to determine the definitions according to their ability to be non-contradictory.”[4]

Basically what Lenhart says here can be summarized in two sentences:

·     No theological premise can be inherently contradictory with another theological premise and still be true.

·     Lenhart will use the principle of non-contradiction to determine definitions for key theological words which would otherwise be contradictory with other Biblical concepts.

As we’ll note, this principle is ultimately a principle of logic through which one eliminates certain possibilities.

2.     Lenhart then gives a second principle which he labels The Principle of Growth.  This principle states that God creates and intends for us to grow to understand him.  This is why He reveals himself.  When combined with the principle of non-contradiction, Lenhart says that a person who grows, welcomes any contradictions in his or her “model” because it exposes a flaw, and invites them to grow and learn more.

3.     The third principle is The Principle of Contrastive Thinking.  Contrastive thinking is the principle that exposes potential contradictions in a model or theological framework.  In other words, instead of just looking for what might agree with me or support the conclusion, I look to see if there is something that disproves it. 

To illustrate this principle, Lenhart uses the example of trying to convince someone he drives a Corvette when he really drives a Camry.  If he only lists the things that are the same between a Corvette and a Camry, you would not readily know he wasn’t being truthful.  However, the first time he tells you something that is different between a Corvette and a Camry, you would immediately know his claim of driving a Corvette doesn’t work. 

That is how the principle of Contrastive Thinking works.  It exposes internal contradictions within the framework of the theological model.

4.     Finally, Lenhart gives us The Principle of Causality.  This principle states that everything must have a cause.  In other words, if God acts a certain way, there is a reason God acts this way.  In this case, His very nature as God is the cause of His specific action.  That is how the principle of causality works as it is applied to building a theological model.

In addition to the four principles he outlines for building his “God model,” there are also three additional concepts he utilizes.  While these concepts aren’t listed as “principles,” they are key to understanding how Lenhart proceeds in building his theological framework.  These three concepts are:

1.     The Concept of “The Wall.”  Lenhart uses the concept of “the wall” to address how we gain perspective and see “the big picture.”  If I am studying one aspect of the wall up close, I often will fail to see the big picture.  But if I back up from the wall, I can begin to see how each piece of the wall fits together.

Lenhart’s goal in his book, of course, is to help you see the whole wall.  Yes, he gets down to some of the detail (we’ll get to some specific points of his theology later), but his larger goal is to help you see the larger framework and outline within which all the other pieces of the theological puzzle fit.  He believes (and to a large measure is correct) that if you get the framework wrong, you will not get the relationship of the pieces right.  What you will end with is a model full of theological contradictions.

2.     The Concept of “The Ladder of Abstraction.”  Lenhart uses this concept to speak to how we use human language in the development of the theological model.  Typically, he says, we will use vague and general terms in speaking about our theological model.  This would be the top rung on the ladder of abstraction.  The bottom rung would be where we have a very specific definition that is clearly understood.  

For example, Lenhart uses the example of Bessie the cow.   The most specific term is “Bessie.”  That would be the lowest rung on the ladder.  On the rung above that would be the word “cow.”  I can speak of a cow, and not be referring to Bessie.  But when I am talking about my specific Bessie, it definitely includes the notion of “cow.”  Continuing up the ladder, we would have the word “livestock,” then “farm animals,” then “farm assets” and so on.  Each term becomes more abstract as we go up the ladder.

Lenhart is correct when he points out that when we speak vaguely or abstractly, it creates confusion.  This is because the person listening will understand our words to mean something other than what we were intending.  In the development of a theological model, when we seek to remove contradictions, we need to be speaking on the bottom rung of the ladder, as specifically as possible.   

3.     The final concept is what I call The Concept of “The Starting Point.”  Now, these are my words.  I am not sure Lenhart uses these particular words to describe this concept.  But it is a concept that is foundational to his model, and one he uses in its development, so it is worth sharing.

Basically the concept of “the starting point” says that where we start in building the theological model matters.  Put slightly differently, how we set up our theological categories tends to significantly impact the theological conclusions we reach.

For example, if I start with the Sovereignty of God (a key starting point for Calvinistic theology) I tend to interpret things such as the possibility of human free will by whether it conflicts with that particular starting point.  Conversely, if human free will is my starting point, it will impact how I see the Sovereignty of God.

Lenhart uses this same concept, believing that the correct starting points for understanding God are God’s righteousness and His justice (which he seeks to define very specifically).  In the end, he develops his entire model in relation to these two aspects of God’s character, believing every other point of theology is properly derived only in relationship to these two starting points.  Lenhart states:

“Let me be clear about this; God has a lot of characteristics….  However, all of these characteristics are a result of being righteous and just.  None of these characteristics outweigh righteousness and justice.”[5]

Exposing Lenhart’s Modeling Process

Please bear with me here.  It is important, before we explore Lenhart’s theology, to understand the process by which he arrives at his theology.  Lenhart’s process directly leads to the theology he articulates.  Only after examining the flaws in Lenhart’s process can we adequately deal with the flaws in his theology.

The problem with the process Lenhart uses to build his model is not in what he knows, but in what he doesn’t know.  In fact, while his names for the principles and concepts above might be unfamiliar, they are concepts and principles incorporated into the development of all theological constructs and worldviews.

In reality, all theological constructs seek to use “contrastive thinking” to become “non-contradictory.”  If they didn’t, they would be internally inconsistent in key ways.   For example, no theological model that holds to God’s holiness and justice can also hold that God doesn’t have to punish sin.  Such a theological construct would be internally inconsistent.

Lenhart correctly understands these things.  So what he does is, he brings the principles he has learned in the scientific world for building “models” (within which one can understand the relationships between various truths about chemicals, atoms or molecules) and he then applies them to building a theological model.  Lenhart believes that by using these same principles, he can also determine truths related to God.  These principles and concepts by and large, in my opinion, are not off the mark. 

What is wrong, in my view, is not what Lenhart brings to the modeling process, but by what he fails to bring.  There are simply some key things he doesn’t understand or know about, which he fails to bring to building a model of theology.  Furthermore, Lenhart misapplies his “model building” principles.  Although these principles apply nicely to static and unchanging realities (such as chemicals, elements or atoms) they do not apply so easily to dynamic realities (such as language, concepts, and words) which can change over time, and from one context of communication to the next.

Let me outline the flaws of Lenhart’s modeling process below.

1.   Can You Say “Dynamic” When It Comes to Language? 

When Lenhart brings his modeling process over from business and chemistry and begins to apply it to theology, he makes a fundamental error.  Things such as the properties of elements are defined and contained within certain scientific laws.  In other words, once we define them, that definition will always fit.  Hydrogen today and hydrogen tomorrow will still be the same thing.  It would be fair to say that such things are static, at least in terms of their fundamental being.  (This may not be true of how they interact with other elements, but that is not germane to this discussion – at least not quite yet.)

Such an assumption is not true of language.  Language changes.  It changes over time.  It has nuances of meaning from situation to situation, from usage to usage, and from person to person.  This is especially true when that language is referencing concepts vs. physical realities.

For example, let’s imagine I say “I love my dog,” and then later that day I say, “I love my wife.”  Now, while both times I use the word “love” in my sentence, and while there is perhaps some commonality in that I have an affection for both my dog and my wife, that is where the similarity ends.  The reality is that in many ways, even though I am using the same words, I am saying things about my relationship with my wife which are not true of my relationship with my dog.

Here is another example.  Thirty years ago, if I told you “I am gay,” you would have likely heard me say that I was happy.  However, if I told you that same thing today, you would have likely heard me say that I was homosexual in my orientation.  Now, I use the same words.  But language is dynamic, not static, and as a result it changes over time and from one usage to another.

Here is where the problem comes in.  Lenhart apparently doesn’t understand there is an essential difference between the nature of language and the nature of physical realities with which he is accustomed to working, because he tries to do something with his “Ladder of Abstraction” that simply doesn’t work when applied to how language is used.  He tries to come up with a “one size fits all definition” for key theological words.  In other words, he assumes that what is meant by “grace” in one usage of it by Paul, is exactly what is meant when Peter uses the word in a different context…or, what is referenced by Paul when he speaks of “faith” in one context doesn’t have a slightly different nuance of meaning when Paul uses that same word later, but in an entirely different context.  This is an assumption one simply can’t make when it comes to the use of language. 

The meaning of words is not simply determined by the word itself, but also by the context, tone, mood, voice, and other aspects of language that Lenhart is evidently not familiar with.

The result of this attempt to give “one size fits all” definitions to key theological words is that he does one of two things very consistently throughout his modeling process:

·     First, there are times when he attempts to give us a definition of a word encompassing all uses of the word every time.  The problem is, in order to do that he must move UP the ladder of abstraction, not down.

Go back to our illustration of the word “love.”  In order to have a definition which fits both my use of it in relation to my dog and my use of it in relation to my wife, I’ll have to give a more general definition, not a more specific one.  That is moving UP the ladder of abstraction, not down.

Lenhart is right when he says that in modeling, where one is trying to pare things down very specifically, one must be sure he is using as tight a definition as possible so that communication is clear.  We can’t have two people discussing something, using the same word and meaning two different things.  The problem is, because he doesn’t understand how linguistics works, he constantly speaks on the top rung of the ladder of abstraction, but thinks he is speaking on the bottom rung.

As a result, his entire application of his other modeling principles (i.e. contrastive thinking) for the purpose of logically identifying contradictions becomes far too loose for the modeling process he is attempting to use.

·     On the other hand, there are times Lenhart does exactly the opposite thing with his definitions.  Instead of trying to encompass all usages of the word, he does get down to a lower rung definition and gives a definition that is tight – but it is tight only as it relates to certain uses of the word, not all the uses of the word.

Th