Evangelical Free Vantage Point

Celebrity Culture in the Church

2011-09-01T10:10:00.002-05:00

I’d like to weigh in on something that’s been on my mind a lot of late as I observe “Christian culture” at large, and going back even into the 1980s when we had the televangelist scandals.

I really believe we have too much of a celebrity culture in the church. I say that as someone who has been in the public eye for a long time, and as someone who’s had the chance to be around people who are considered really, really “high profile.” My late stepfather told me of an incident when he was out in California working as a custodian at a popular ministry often featured on TBN — and this particular ministry is now defunct after the leader was caught up in a scandal. My stepfather personally witnessed high profile speakers coming in, and after events, briefcases with thousands of dollars would be put into the trunks of limousines when the speakers would depart. And many of these guys off camera would be some of the most arrogant people you could imagine.

I would watch the same speakers in public appearances or on television/radio, and they would typically be on the receiving end of effusive praise. “Oh, you’re such a gift from the Lord. Oh, what a powerful message from a powerful man of God. Oh, you’re so talented and gifted. Oh, you’ve changed my life . . . “ and so on. Once in a great while, someone might actually give a little credit to the Lord, for which He could have said, “Thanks for the crumbs from your table, Mrs. Dives.”

I’ve seen the same thing myself over the years up close and personal, and not just on media. I’ve seen it in churches with pastors and speakers/teachers. It really gets nauseating after a while, and all the more so because it is such a trap to the human ego. People love being stroked and praised. At first, it starts out with no doubt genuine pleasure that someone has been blessed through their ministry. But after a while, the praise and hero worship becomes like an addictive drug. And the One being robbed of His glory is God. In the end, He ends up having to kick the slats out from under the one doing the robbing, because He will not give His glory to another.

I am discussing a broad generality of a problem to which we all can be susceptible, even if we are not in a high profile role. So much of this could be solved and resolved if we would just hold our praise and give it to Whom it really belongs. If you’ve ever been blessed by anything I’ve done, taught, written or said, wonderful. Praise God. And I do mean — PRAISE GOD. Not me. When someone begins gushing over me, the first thing I’m tempted to do is to follow the example of Barnabas and Paul in Acts 14 and “tear my robes.” Trust me, that would not be a pretty sight if I actually followed through!

Happy Independence Day!

2011-07-04T11:29:00.002-05:00

It's been quite a while since anyone has posted on this blog, and for that, I apologize. We've all been very busy with ministry, jobs, personal situations in our families etc. My mother (age 88) is facing heart surgery this week, and at her age it's not a light matter. Prayers are appreciated.

The contributors of Evangelical Free Church Vantage Point would like to wish everyone in the U.S. a very happy, blessed Independence Day. Our hope (and I trust that I can speak for our fellow contributors) is that we will all remember our history, and be thankful for the blessing of living in a free country. A freedom, by the way, that we are in great jeopardy of losing if we don't wake up.

Our freedom ultimately stems from the Gospel, and the faithful proclamation of a biblical Gospel and the resultant regeneration by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those who believe is ultimately the only hope for our troubled nation. It is the responsibility of the church (and believers as individuals) to proclaim that Gospel -- the unadulterated, unapologetic version of it. Let's get away from entertaining, being "seeker sensitive," groveling before the alter of postmodernism, and all the other troubles we face in our culture. As Christians, we have nothing of which to be ashamed, especially the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Some will hear and respond positively. Some will hear and respond negatively. Some will not hear at all. But that is not our worry and our responsibility. We plant the seed, and allow God to do what only He can do -- bring the growth.

Some thoughts on this Independence Day.

Warriors for Doctrine

2010-11-07T19:29:00.003-06:00

It's been a long while since I've posted anything on this particular blog, but I want to put up a clip from Philip Schaff's "History of the Christian Church." I found it interesting reading this weekend.

Born in Switzerland, Schaff eventually came to the United States and was a professor at Union Theological Seminary until his death in 1893. In Volume 3 of his church history, he takes up the issue of the early church and the battles over doctrine. It's worth reading.

The Nicene and Chalcedonian age is the period of the formation and ecclesiastical settlement of the ecumenical orthodoxy; that is, the doctrines of the holy trinity and of the incarnation and the divine-human person of Christ, in which the Greek, Latin and evangelical churches to this day in their symbolical books agree, in opposition to the heresies of Arianism and Appolinarianism, Nestorianism and Eutychianism. Besides these trinitarian and christological doctrines, anthropology also, and soteriology, particularly the doctrines of sin and grace, in opposition to Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, were developed and brought to a relative settlement; only, however, in the Latin church, for the Greek took very little part in the Pelagian controversy.

The fundamental nature of these doctrines, the greatness of the church fathers who were occupied with them, and the importance of the result, give this period the first place after the apostolic in the history of theology. In no period, excepting the Reformation of the sixteenth century, have there been so momentous and earnest controversies in doctrine, and so lively an interest in them. The church was now in possession of the ancient philosophy and learning of the Roman empire, and applied them to the unfolding and vindication of the Christian truth. In the lead of these controversies stood church teachers of imposing talents and energetic piety, not mere book men, but venerable theological characters, men all of a piece, as great in acting and suffering as in thinking. To them, theology was a sacred business of heart and life, and upon them we may pass the judgment of Eusebius respecting Origen; "Their life was as their word, and their word was as their life."

The theological controversies absorbed the intellectual activity of that time, and shook the formation of the church and the empire. With the purest zeal for truth were mingled much of the odium and rabies theologorum, and the whole host of theological passions; which are the deepest and most bitter of passions, because religion is concerned with eternal interests.

That last line really arrested me. "Religion is concerned with eternal interests." When I consider how loosely some in today's evangelical church throw doctrine around, I have to wonder whether they really have eternity in view at all.

On another note, I think we can also see that theological controversies never go away. That's because we have an enemy of our souls whose zeal to deceive has never relented. All the more so in these last days, and that makes it all the more important to hold on to biblical truth.

The Dangers of "Hip" Christianity

2010-08-18T10:23:00.003-05:00

We've all witnessed the piranhas in the tank pushing the church to be "cool" and "hip" and "trendy." Maybe it's time for a rethink on that issue.

Take it from this 27-year-old who writes for the WSJ. He thinks churches had best get back to biblical truth. Being markety and trendy will do nothing in the long run but push young people out the door. The new crop can see right through it.

Emergent Update

2010-06-10T12:27:00.001-05:00

Now and then someone forwards me an email with a new website or blog to add to my list of things to check out. Today, I received this 2008 article on the Emergent Church written by Eric Barger.

The article is archived on the website of a ministry called Sharing Biblical Truth. While I haven't had time to go through the whole site, it looks interesting and worthy of bookmarking. I certainly share the concerns about the Emergent Church movement, which some are saying is crumbling. I don't think it's really crumbling at all, it's just morphing into another form. The same errors will be there and will be until Jesus returns for His own.

A Godless Righteousness in a Brave New World

2010-06-02T14:45:00.002-05:00

by Bill Randles
Believers in Grace Ministries

Do you remember the social and moral revolution of the 1960s? The youth movement of the left was destined to break all the rules and liberate society from the dreary bondage of the past. They were going to show us how to do it the right way! As an anthem from that day proclaimed, “All the world over so easy to see, that people everywhere just want to be free.”

Isn’t it ironic that those same revolutionaries, now come of age, have created a society that is vastly more restricted than the one they worked so hard to undermine? We now live in a “brave new world” in which every aspect of daily life is hyper-regulated, speech is scrutinized to the point of absurdity, and even thought is criminalized (hate crimes laws)!

Although they have, in large part cast, off the shackles of any fear of God, they have a rigid concept of “righteousness”: they are very religious about global warming, population control , a woman’s right to choose (abortion), tolerance of all religions (except of course evangelical Christianity), woman’s liberation, transgender acceptance, and multi-culturalistic dogmas.

My theory is that they are so religious, although godless, because people are made in the image of God and must have some kind of religion. Furthermore, they are raised in America, where once a vast Christian consensus permeated our society and its institutions. It is for this reason that there has developed among the secular elite a “godless righteousness.”

The idea of any accountability for the sins enumerated in the ten commandments has been cast off, but they have their own tablets of stone. “Thou shalt not, ever, ever, make a moral judgment,” “Thou shalt not smoke (in public or private),” “Thou shalt support all forms of abortion,” “Thou shalt not claim any absolute truth,” “Thou shalt not think western civilization is any better than any other culture,” and so on and so forth.

It has often been pointed out that as long as these pieties are observed, it doesn’t really matter what a person does as an individual. All personal indiscretions are excused as long as these positions are held.

The real sins, which have proliferated and intensified as a result of the sexual revolution of the sixties (i.e. the rampant fornication, the destruction of marriages, homosexuality, adultery, abortion and pornography) affect the consciences of those who practice and promote them whether they believe in God or not. One cannot escape the psychological trauma of these evils by just dismissing the concept of a God or a binding personal morality.

That’s part of the reason why the Left has developed an alternative morality, to try to feel good about themselves, to assuage their conscience. They have to assure themselves over and over again that they are all right, because they support Cause x, and wear the ribbon in solidarity of Cause Y. They are good people, on the good side regardless of their personal immorality.

In short, godless righteousness isn’t individual – it is collective. As long as you hold to the positions of the Left Wing, you are “in right standing” regardless of your personal failings. This is why the counter culture has always shamelessly championed people like Che Guevarra, a mass murderer, Albert Kinsey a known fraud and pervert, and other personally sordid fellow travelers. As long as they hold to the dogma, it doesn’t matter.

The tragedy is that this righteousness is a sham and will be found to be as helpful as Adam and Eve’s fig leaves on the day of Judgment. It may feel good to “be in the right” with the culture – there is no doubt a certain satisfaction in it. But there is no way that “godless righteousness” can heal the troubled conscience. Is this why this generation needs so much valium? There is no possibility that “godless righteousness” can take away the shame of sin, and it certainly will not reconcile anyone to the true and Holy God.

There is a true righteousness, a right standing that can be obtained before God, but only as a gift to be received from Him. The good news is that what God demands, perfect righteousness, God provides for us, as Scripture says, “For he [God] hath made him [Jesus] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 2 Corinthians 5:21

Used with permission. You can also check out Bill Randles' blog by clicking here.

Revisiting the Fundamentals II

2010-04-26T10:38:00.003-05:00

This is an excerpt from "The Fundamentals," the classic, multi-volume turn of the century work on Christian doctrine.

by Dr. L.W. Munhall

Sin separates and estranges the sinner from God; and he becomes an enemy of God by wicked works (Romans 8:7), has no peace, (Isaiah 57:21), no rest (Isaiah 57:20), is polluted (Ephesians 4:17-19), condemned (John 3:18), and without hope (Ephesians 2:12). Oh, the curse and ruin of sin!

If unrepenting and unbelieving, the future has for him, first, inexorable and awful judgment, second, the wrath of God, and third, eternal torments . . .

The preacher who ignores these three awful and inexorable truths preaches an imasculataed Gospel, be he never so faithful in proclaiming other truth. He who preaches the love of God to the exclusion of God's justice and wrath proclaims idle sentiment. No one will ever truly desire salvation unless he first realizes that there is something to be saved from. "By faith, Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house" (Hebrews 11:7); all of which symbolizes the sinner,s condition, need, motive and hope.

In no way can the love of God be so clearly, beautifully, and convincingly set forth as in the fact that God makes plain to the sinner his condition and peril, then shows him the way of escape, having in His great mercy, Himself provided it at infinite cost. Now, at this point the Gospel comes in as indeed good news, showing God's love for the sinner.

Revisiting the Fundamentals

2010-03-30T15:07:00.003-05:00

I have recently begun reading the classic multi-volume set "The Fundamentals." Over at my own blog, I am going to introduce a weekly feature that will highlight clips from the series, about which you can read in a short history from Wheaton College. There is a possibility that I will also post it here.

The Fundamentals originally came out in the very early 1900s as a 12-volume set. Later, Dr. R.A. Torrey supervised combining most of the original essays into a four-volume set, which is available very reasonably through Christian Book Distributors.

This new feature will usually be posted on Saturdays or Sundays, but I'll give you a clip today just to show you what you're in for. It's really a treasure trove. The following is from Volume 1, and the essay "Life in the Word," by Philip Mauro . . .

Many unspiritual teachers in these last days, and many superficial readers of Scripture, deem it incredible that salvation, which is the beginning of the life of the risen Christ in the soul of a perishing man, should be wrought through an operation so apparently simple as that of receiving God's Word, through faith, into the heart.

The clear declarations of God's Word on this subject are indeed frequently ridiculed in pulpit utterances. But to such minds the germination of a seed by merely casting it into the ground would be equally incredible. These spiritually-blinded ones, wise in their own conceits, miss altogether the teaching of the Bible concerning the wonderful process of spiritual conception and generation, which, in view of the equally mysterious process of natural conception, should not be deemed "a thing incredible." "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Romans 1:20).

The passage in 1 Peter 1 sets forth, moreover, the fact that spiritual regeneration through the Word of God conforms to the great biological law stated with such emphatic iteration in the first chapter of Genesis, namely, that the life imparted is the same in kind as that of its source, all the characteristics of the latter being reproduced in it. Emphasis is laid on the fact that the seed is incorruptable, and that the Word, which is its source, is eternal. Moreover, as in John's Gospel, the new, incorruptable and eternal life, which proceeds from spiritual conception by the Word of God, is put into direct contrast with the natural life, or "flesh." "For," continues the Apostle Peter, "all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass." The prominent characteristic of grass is that it withereth, and of the flower of grass, or of plant life, is that it falleth away. "The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but "—in direct contrast with this—"the Word of the Lord endureth forever." So it does, and so do all they who are begotten of the incorruptible seed of the Word.

The passage closes with the unmistakably plain statement, "And this is the Word which, by the Gospel, is preached unto you."

McLaren Strikes Again

2010-03-13T17:48:00.003-06:00

This is posted by permission from Lighthouse Trails Publishing.

by John Lanagan
(free-lance writer and researcher)

In Brian McLaren’s latest book, A New Kind of Christianity, the reader is cordially invited to join the author in a heretical assault upon God and the Bible. Indeed, as McLaren enthusiastically demonstrates, it is not possible to attack one without attacking the other.

Acknowledging the work of fellow emergent travelers such as Phyllis Tickle, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt, McLaren tells us “something is trying to be born among those of us who follow Jesus Christ.” (pg.13) In fact, writes McLaren, “what is trying to be born today echoes the Great Reformation in many ways.” (pg.257)

But does McLaren’s paradigm vision really echo the Great Reformation? From the Reformation came the freedom of Sola Scriptura—the Word of God alone. The chains of a false religion were cast off. From the Reformation came men and women who were willing to die for the right to believe and proclaim Truth.

What does McLaren’s “reformation” offer? An errant eschatology. A New Age “christ.” The ascent of homospirituality into the temple. (2 Kings 23: 7) All made possible, of course, through creative misinterpretation of God’s Word. The author has brought us his Great Deformation, a theology that plays to the flesh even while being portrayed as a spiritual journey.

One of the major themes in A New Kind of Christianity, homosexuality, cleverly defines Christians who speak out against the homosexual lifestyle as suffering from “fundasexuality.” (Pg.174-5) However, you are only a “fundasexualist” if you speak out loudly against this sin.

McLaren decrees, “The term does not apply to the quiet, pious, respectful fundamentalism of straightforward, sincere people, but rather to the organizing, angry, dominating fundamentalism that declares war on those who differ.” (pg. 174-5)

In other words, when it comes to homosexuality, a good Christian is a silent Christian.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)

As my wife and I have both repented of this particular sin, it is difficult to comprehend Brian McLaren’s smiley-faced rebellion. But make no mistake: McLaren and others are being used to facilitate homospirituality, which may even assume an elevated, even sacred, status.

Ridiculous? Simply look to the Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. This is just the beginning. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)

Like Doug Pagitt, Brian McLaren believes Christians are trapped in a “Greco-Roman” understanding of the faith. “Now the god of this Greco-Roman version of the biblical story bears a strange similarity in many ways to Zeus,” he tells us, which “is a far different deity from the Jewish Elohim of Genesis 1…” (pg. 42)

Yet, no matter what name his god is given, you will not find this redesigned deity in the Old or New Testament. The only way to promote the existence of this “god” is to radically change biblical interpretation—which is exactly what the author spends much time and many pages seeking to accomplish. “There will be no new kind of Christian faith without a new approach to the Bible,” he opines, “because we’ve gotten ourselves into a mess with the Bible.” (Pg. 67-68)

In his chapter, ‘What is the Overarching Storyline of the Bible?’ McLaren notes he and others have “dared to tweak” the content of the Word of God. “We might question conventional theories of atonement or the nature and population of hell or whether concepts like original sin or total depravity might need to be modified.” (pg. 35)

McLaren does indeed “modify.” He modifies with a vengeance. Thus this emergent “Jesus” was never sent by the Father to die in our place for our sins. There is no substitutionary atonement. There is no original sin.

The Bible tells us, “I cried with my whole heart; hear me, O Lord: I will keep thy statutes.” (Psalm 119: 145)

McLaren believes traditional understanding of the Word of God has made Christians a nasty, dominant bunch. We apparently have difficulty with religious pluralism because of this flawed understanding. On top of that, Christians “currently control most of the world’s wealth, consume most of the world’s resources, produce most of the world’s waste, and sell and use most of the world’s weapons.” (Pg.215)

As in his other books, in A New Kind of Christianity McLaren exhibits his ability and talent to write well and draw readers with his conversational tone, seemingly measured, with humorous comments sprinkled in here and there. He gives the impression of allowing much room to disagree with him. He invites us on a journey, which he portrays as part of the natural “evolution” of Christianity.

“The old paradigm falls away behind us like a point of departure, and we are won over to new possibilities, caught up in a new way of seeing, looking toward a new and wide horizon.” (Pg.30) But since the author does not comprehend the Bible (1 Corinthians 2:14), what practices does he engage in to gain wisdom and knowledge?

Interestingly, McLaren identifies himself as a “contemplative/reflexive.” (pg. 226) He writes, “In the tradition of Julian of Norwich and St. Teresa of Avila and all the other mystics, we can learn to render ourselves vulnerable to the “favors of God”—those indescribable experiences that mock our dualisms and so saturate our imagination with abundance that they transcend our ability to convey joy and wonder. In the tradition of St. John of the Cross, we can learn to survive and derive benefits from the soul’s dark night.” (pg. 227) Like most leading figures in the emergent movement, McLaren advocates contemplative spirituality.

A New Kind of Christianity will serve as a lure for Bible-illiterate Christians. For believers who know the Word of God, McLaren’s heresy will sadden and astound. His book is aimed at the young, and at people who have perhaps grown up in households with little or no faith. It is aimed at the unsaved and the uncertain. It is for the disappointed and disenchanted, and for people who simply know no better. If you have a gripe against God or His people, this book will lick your wounds. But what this book will not do is provide any measure of godly hope and biblical virtue.

EFCA -- What Is Our Culture?

2010-02-05T11:07:00.002-06:00

Thought: It seems to me that the corporate culture of the EFCA is changing. I'm not a life-long EFCA-er, so I say this as a recent (c. 1998) arrival. I gather that the traditional corporate culture of the EFCA was congregationalist (almost ultra), dispensationalist, non-Pentecostal, 3-point Arminian, and Scandanavian. But it doesn't seem to me that the EFCA is quite that anymore. It seems to me that the congregationalist has become modified by the practice of multiple-elder leadership (flowing from influences by Gene Getz, Alexander Strauch, Presbyterian writers, and others). We've become much less dispensationalist and more covenantal (or some jumble of the two systems), with the exception of the Texas district. We're a lot less non-Pentecostal than we used to be, due to a continuationist view of the gifts taught at TEDS over recent years. We're a lot more Calvinist than Arminian -- or at least, a lot more Calvinist than many of our Arminian brethren wish we were! And it seems clear to me that the EFCA isn't culturally Scandanavian. That's one price of success and expansion -- growth brings variety.

Has our EFCA corporate culture settled down for awhile, or are we still changing at a rapid rate?

Grumblers in the Camp

2010-01-31T10:12:00.001-06:00

In apologetics ministry, we often use Jude 3, the passage about "contending earnestly" for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. Contending for the faith when it is under attack is every bit as much of a command as proclaiming the Gospel.

But there is more to Jude than just the third verse. Examine verses 16-25 . . .

These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage. But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

In the immediate context, Jude is primarily addressing false teachers who were peddling a forerunner of the Gnosticism that would become more fully orbed in the second century. However, the warning given by Jude can be applicable to any false teachers that surface within a congregation.

"Within a congregation," you say? Yes. Remember the warning of the Apostle Peter, who said, But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves (2 Peter 2:1).

That is what makes false teaching so insidious. Most Christians who consider themselves aware and discerning expect challenges and false teaching to come from the cults or other groups opposed to the Gospel. We expect it from unbelievers. But when it arises from within our midst at a Sunday school or from the pulpit, it really does take a lot of us by surprise or unawares. Sometimes it can be in your face and easily, shockingly obvious. Most often, it is very subtle and low-key, and eats its way into a congregation gradually. Think of the frog in a hot kettle.

Dr. Al Mohler last week decried the "lost art of discernment" in American evangelicalism. He was spot on correct. Evangelicals largely have become what the writer of Hebrews cited . . . For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. The Apostle Paul was also frustrated with the church at Corinth . . . I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able . . . (1 Corinthians 3:2).

You can't stand against false teachers if you don't know or understand even the core biblical doctrines of the faith.

We had best get back into the Bible and become reacquainted with the foundational principles of the faith again. We had best relearn what the non-negotiables are and stand like a rock on them. We had best realize all over again that it is perfectly right, good and acceptable to confront false teaching like good Bereans.

The consequences of not doing so are enormous.

Saved by Grace Alone: It's Non-Negotiable

2010-01-17T08:21:00.003-06:00

If there's one thing you can say about the human race and religion, mankind has been the same since Cain and Abel. In fact, the two brothers whose story is told in the book of Genesis are two prototypical examples of how man approaches God. One of them God accepts, and the other God rejects . . . for a very specific reason.

We even fall into the same argument within Christendom, although we shouldn't. Scripture itself is plain enough on the subject of grace versus human works in connection with salvation. But some insist that there has to be some human work involved to merit God's favor. Such an insistence is damnable heresy no matter how you slice it.

Here is what the Apostle Paul had to say about human works and their inability to merit God's favor:

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace (Romans 11:6)

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly (Galatians 2:21).

You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4).

We can see from these Scripture verses that trying to add works to the Gospel is a very serious matter indeed. This is such an important issue because it touches on the very sacrifice of Christ Himself on the cross. Any effort to throw human effort, merit, obedience to some command, ordinance or ritual, ANYTHING - nullifies the very Gospel itself and does violence to biblical soteriology. It is an insult to the Lord to imply or state outright that His sacrifice on the cross, His great mercy and redeeming love are not sufficient to buy the pardon of His elect.

What is the Gospel? Read 1 Corinthians 15 - the only place in the New Testament where the Gospel is defined. Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose again from the dead for our justification. Jesus paid it all and did it all. All we can do is believe, trust and be thankful. What about obedience? That is the product of our salvation, not what causes it.

Here is the final warning of God to all who would add works (including baptism) as conditions of salvation:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed (Galatians 1:8-9).

WILD GOOSE CHASE, by Mark Batterson

2010-01-12T08:41:00.009-06:00

I was sent a free copy of Wild Goose Chase, a gift from others. The following comments speak to why it put me a bit off...

Book: The Celts called the Holy Spirit the "Wild Goose...."

Me: If we're going to talk about how the Holy Spirit works in our lives, I think our starting point on the Holy Spirit ought to be God's Word, not a maybe-unprovable claim about what the Celts called the Holy Spirit. A Christian brother recently said to me that the phrase "Wild goose chase" still carries a negative connmotation, regardles sof how one might try and use it in a positive way. Wild goose chases are exercises in futility, just a wild running around in circles.

The Holy Spirit descended on Christ at the Jordan "like a dove." The Holy Spirit Himself never takes the form of a dove. Wind and fire are the normal manifestations that the Spirit assumed. This bird thing is way overdone. He is -not- the "Heavenly Dove." This wild goose thing is reaching the stage of becoming a cliche. And certainly we shouldn't think of God's Spirit as an erratic bird whose wild fluttering-around makes Him unpredictable.

Book: "Most Christians are bored with their faith"

Me: Most Christian writers make too many generalizations. This is akin to Christian social theory writers who say things like, "The Church in America is...", as if they really knew. Brother Batterson likely should say, "I have often been bored with my faith...", since the spirit of the book is quite auto-biographical. Maybe he knows several bored, lukewarm Christians. I do, too. But are most Christians bored with their faith? I don't believe that most Christians are bored with their faith. But this is something that nits at me whenever a writer does it. We preachers often seem to do this sort of thing, too. This just sounds similarl to the emergent-church straw men charicatures of American Christianity that I've read elsewhere.

Book: Jesus was trying to lead the rich young ruler into a fulfilling life of adventure.

Me: Rich, fulfilling life of adventure? Jesus was trying to get the rich young ruler saved. To make him a true disciple. It disturbs me when writers force Bible stories into an agenda like this. I don't think Christ's goal was to tear the rich young ruler loose from his boring existence, and get him involved in a God-given adventure.Isn't this an example of using a Scripture story to push your own idea?

Book: God doesn't usually act in logical, linear ways.

Me: o rly? Then why did He communicate with us through a book written in SENTENCES? I feel no sympathy with the sort of mysticism implied here. It isn't Scriptural. Paul the apostle said that God gave us a spirit of a sound mind, and the book of Proversb says that sound thinking is a gift from God.

Book: Whoever came up with the idea that Jesus died on the cross to keep you safe?

Me: I don't know. Who? I've never heard that, and I've been a Christian 36 years.

Book: When is the last time you asked God to make you dangerous?

Me: "Dangerous"? I don't want to be dangerous. I want to be kind, truthful, and effective. I can't imagine Jesus wanting us to be "dangerous" to anyone but the devil. I remember Him saying we should be as harmless as doves.

Book: Jesus was the most passionate man on earth. After all, His last days were called "The Passion."

Me: Learn your Latin! The word "passion" comes from a Latin word that means suffering, not "intensely emotional." Couldn't we retire the word "passion" for awhile? The English lit guy in me feels it's worn out -- like TV reporters who use the word "devastating" in every story.

Book: "It's laughable that a cupbearer should undertake such a task..."

Me: If I'm remembering my past Old Testament sermon prep right, "cupbearer" was the title for "imperial palace manager". Nehemiah wasn't just a guy who walked around carrying a cup. It's important to research the historical background to Bible words from which we draw lessons.

Are we supposed to first be Biblical, or be bold, convention-breaking, mystical xistentialists who use the Bible to validate our Existentialism? This book reminds me very much of Eldridge's Wild At Heart, which also seemed to cram the Bible into an Existential mindset. I didn't like Wild At Heart, either, because it seemed to come to God's Word with a philosophy of life already in place, and then manipulate the Bible to support that philosophy.

So...I never got into Eldridge before, and his appeal still escapes me. So maybe this book reminds me of Eldridge. It all seems really "fluffy", and not adequately grounded in carefully interpreted Scripture.

Our EFCA pastors group is going to read through this book, starting next week. It'll be my second time through it, and I'll be optimistic that I can learn from the other guys some good features that I haven't seen in it.

The Free Church Has Nothing To Envy Toward Charismatic Ministries

2010-01-04T13:28:00.002-06:00

I believe there are Free Church leaders who would kind-of like to be Charismatic. It might be that they were reared in dry- anti-emotional ministries that paid too little honor to the Holy Spirit. That was my experience, and I can understand the appeal. But the grass is not greener on the other side of the fence.

We should pull back from the Charismatic churches' false claims about apostleship:

I'm not an apostle, none of us are apostles, and that's because there are no apostles. The apostles, and prophets, were all part of the Church's foundation. I have no reason to expect, or want, or work toward, an apostolic ministry. So when various writers (like C. Peter Wagner) talk about apostles for today, or call themselves apostles for today, it leaves me unmoved -- because the Bible tells me better. I have the apostles, and the prophets, in the form of my New Testament. I have the Spirit of the apostles, living in my heart, granting me wisdom, and empowering my work. I don't need any more anointing than the one I received at my salvation. There are no conferences or revivals to which I need to travel, in order to add power to my ministry.

We need to remember that our intuitions are not the voice of God, contrary to what is commonly taught in Charismatic circles:

The Bible tells me that it, the Bible, is my Bible. The Bible is God's voice. The Bible is the word of the Spirit to me, in a personal way. The Bible claims to be completely sufficient for every need I have (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Of course I believe that the Spirit communicates with me directly. But so does my sin-nature, so does my human capacity for foolishness, and so can demons. So the Bible is the grid by which I evaluate my thoughts, emotions, and intuitions. There is far too much intuitionalism in Charismatic ministries. It is a grave sin to claim to speak for God, if what you are speaking is emerging out of yourself. I believe that sin happens all the time in Charismatic ministries.

We need to thank God for logic, since reasoning is a natural gift of the Spirit:

I dislike the disparaging of reasoning you hear in Charismatic ministries. It's unbiblical to disparage reasoning. God reasons. God is the ultimate Ground of reason. God spoke to the prophets in sentences that had subjects and verbs, and which made connective sense as He spoke in a linear, logical, "Western" (that's meant as a joke) manner. The Spirit tells us, in the early chapters of Proverbs, how supremely valuable are wisdom and knowledge. Ministries that tell me to suspend my thought processes, and go into semi-trancelike states, are not guiding me in accordance with the will of God. Suspended states of consciousness were sometimes caused by God to His children, from time to time (like Peter seeing a vision of a sheet, in Acts 10), but in all cases they were miracles caused by God -- they could not be self-caused by technique. If God wants to give me a dream, I have faith in him that He can do it, but I don't need to seek it, and having an experience like that wouldn't bring me any closer to Him than I already am.

We need to maintain the humility that knows, when it comes to the basic presence of the Spirit, we're no better or worse than any other child of God:

I received the Spirit in His fullness when I believed, and so does every other Christian. We may fail to obey the command to keep on being filled with the Spirit, but nevertheless He is in all of us believers, and upon all of us, and all around all of us, as His temple. My times of spiritual dryness are caused by many things -- neglect of worship, prayer and Bible reading, the sin of doubt in my heart, sometimes even physical sickness. But there is no Christian group that represents the "in" group. There is no ministry that can give me something that I don't already have, that will transport me into a superior class of Christian. And that is what Charismatic theology claims to be able to do. I object to that, in light of the Bible's promises that He already has all of me, and I already have all of Him. What I need to do is unpack more thoroughly what I already have been given.

Happy New Year!

2010-01-01T12:36:00.001-06:00

Dave, Jack and myself want to wish everyone a most blessed and Happy New Year! May the Lord be glorified in, and through, the lives of His people in the coming year!

Postmodernism

2009-12-23T15:06:00.001-06:00

Postmodernism rejects Modernism. So what is Modernism?

Modernism is a high belief in science, and scientific methods, to challenge the ideas of the past, and create new scientific breakthroughs, inventions, and discoveries, so that society improves. The Modernist has faith in science and reason as the forces that cause a society to progress.

Postmodernism rejects Modernism. Why?

• The issue is objectivity -- whether knowledge of truth is possible.

• The Postmodernist believes that subjectivity makes knowledge of truth impossible.

• Science, and the scientific method, cannot discover objective truth, because a scientist’s mind is colored with cultural assumptions and moral value-judgments that he/she brings into the situation and forces onto the data.

• Science is a tool used by people in power to justify the oppression of victim groups (ethnic minorities, females).

• Societies are neither good nor bad. They can only be defined descriptively, in terms of their own internal goals, purposes, and justifications.

• No over-all Theory of Everything exists (or meta-narrative).

• Words are not founded on anything unchangeably real (whether in the sense of a word referring to a physical thing, or being subject to foundational laws of logic).

Common secular criticism of Postmodernism:

• Postmodernism criticizes the use of explanatory theories, but it is itself an explanatory theory.

• Postmodernism uses reason to promote irrationalism.

• Postmodernism criticizes writers for bringing their value judgments to a subject, but criticizing that is itself a value judgment.

• Postmodernism attacks ideas and systems based on inconsistencies, but refuses to apply its own standards of consistency to itself.

• Postmodernism attacks the making of any type of truth claims, but is itself a series of truth claims.

• It produces a suffocating self-focus. For example, since postmodern preacher Brian MacLaren doesn’t believe that objective truth is attainable, his books end up self-focused around him and his own notions and emotions. They end up being about Brian MacLaren, instead of what each book is allegedly about.

• Postmodernism exaggerates the strange or unique features about a topic, but ignores the common, mundane features that it make it understandable.

• It produces a radical self-centeredness that destroys all morals and ethics. E.g., postmodernism teaching means that Nazi Germany, or the Soviet death-camps, were no more morally repugnant or commendable than the work of Theresa of Calcutta, or the Allied liberation of Europe in WWII.

It is a sin for any Christian to be a postmodernist, since it denies God's creative intelligence (a Christian postmodernist is forced to say that God wasn't intelligent enough, or powerful enough, to create the human race with sufficient ability to know truth or reality, which would include Him), it denies the understandability of the Bible (thus damning the soul by institutionalizing the sin of doubt), and re-defines doubt as a virtue (where the Scripture condemns doubt as a sin).

The Successful Pastor

2009-11-30T11:53:00.001-06:00

From EFCA seminary student Matt Proctor's blog:

D.A. Carson summarizes his father's life:

"Tom Carson never rose very far in denominational structures, but hundreds . . . testify how much he loved them. He never wrote a book, but eh loved the Book. He was never wealthy or powerful, but he kept growing as a Christian: yesterday's grace was never enough. He was not a farsighted visionary, but he looked forward to eternity. . . . His journals have many, many entries bathed in tears of contrition, but his children and grandchildren remember his laughter. Only rarely did he break through his pattern of reserve and speak deeply and intimately with his children, but he modeled Christian virtues to them. . . .

"When died, there we no crowds outside the hospital, no editorial comments in the papers, no announcements on television, no mention in Parliament, no attention paid by the nation. . . .

"But on the other side all teh trumpets sounded. Dad won entrance to the only throne room that matters, not because he was a good man or a great man--he was, after all, a most ordinary pastor--but because he was a forgiven man. And he heard the voice of him whom he longed to hear saying, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; enter into the joy of your Lord.'"

How Do We Feel When Someone We Love Dies Without Christ?

2009-11-18T09:46:00.001-06:00

We Christians believe in the existence of hell because Jesus believed in it, not because we like it. Since he's the Son of God, we're obligated to take his word on it.
The reason a hell even exists is because God is sovereign and holy, and people are evil. If people weren't evil, then hell wouldn't bother anybody. After all, who cares if the devil gets thrown into hell one day? He's a fiend, and we all figure he deserves to be there. But human souls that are, like the devil, in rebellion against God's authority, and are marinated in their sins, have no place in His heavenly home. God would no more allow such a person into heaven, than you would allow a cobra to slither in your door. We worry about tracking mud onto the carpet. God's not going to allow His house to be defiled.

We don't like to think of our loved ones as snak or defilers. That's because we're bound to them by the bonds of affection, and because we've become dull to their sins. We're also ignorant of most of their sins. And we've got so much latent snakiness inside us, that we look at someone else's snakiness and say, I don't get it, what's the big deal? But God never gets "used to" snakiness. God is just as upset by sin today as He was when Adam first bit the fruit.

God in the Bible describes himself as impartial. He doesn't slide the scales of justice based on liking one person better than another. God isn't a citizen of any nation, and he doesn't belong to any ethnic group, so He doesn't favor one country over another, or one race over another. We, however, definitely are not impartial. We say, "But that person is my (best friend, parent, offspring)...!" God says, "That person is a soul who for refuge to Jesus did not flee, so now I must and shall evaluate him/her according to my law."

I think there is a deep seriousness and sobriety that a Christian must feel at the passing of a non-Christian loved one, that we mix in with our sadness. It counterbalances the sad part. God's judgment against sin is not an unexplainable tragedy that peculiarly befalls people from down out of the sky. It's not like leukemia, or tumbling down a flight of stairs. Every person is born into this world that blares the presence of God at them from the first moment they open their eyes. The beauty of the skies, the mountains, and the seas shout the glory of God. The voice of moral conscience speaks truth inwardly to the soul. Even our outrage at the victimization of evil, committed against us or against others, speaks to us of a great Law-giver. Practical evidences of the providence of God happen all around us. Prayers get answered. Food arrives on the table. Sick people get well. Someone loves you.

By the time a person passes from this world into the next, they have experienced a graduate school course on The Existence & Glory of God 101. It's impossible for the departed person to plead ignorance of the glory of God. If they were atheists in this life, it's because they wanted to be.

In the end, we are on the Lord's side. That's what it comes down to. I have chosen the Lord's side. You have chosen to devote your life to fighting my Savior. You have chosen to be God's enemy, so, when the last day comes, that means you are my enemy, even though I love you. Christ drew a line in the sand. You're either for me or against me, he said. Christ said that he came with a sword, to divide families against each other. Whose side are you on? When the children of Israel were rioting, Moses cried out, who is on the Lord's side? The Levites responded, "We are!", and began slaying their cousins with the sword, in order to restore order. Christ in the gospel says, "Who is on my side?", again and again, and again and again over the centuries we take sides.

I don't want you to go into final judgment. I've prayed and worked, even wept, that you would repent. But nobody forced you to sin, not even once were you forced; and nobody forced you to live your life defying God in the particular way you did it. I am not your judge, and for that I thank God. You answer to Someone a million times higher than I. You may be my father, my mother, my sister, my brother, or my child, but I defer the handling of your case to the Lord, who is the only one who can be trusted to do the right thing by you. God is no sadist. He orchestrated the murder of his own Son for you, so that you could be offered redemption. The suffering in your life that you blamed on God, would have been healed by God, if you had brought them to Him, but you refused. Instead, you used them as another excuse to live how you please. I've chosen my side. When the final judgment day comes, I won't feel any divided loyalties. I won't be happy for your judgment, but I won't be un-happy with my Lord, either. I recognize that you are individual living life in the sight of the God who made you for Himself, and I know that, in the end, you will have to stand before God as you, with me standing by and watching from the sidelines.

My View of the Emergent Church

2009-11-09T14:57:00.003-06:00

When taking up a subject such as the Emergent Church (EC) movement, great care is needed. By now, most reasonably informed Christians have heard of the EC phenomenon within evangelicalism. It's been written about and discussed widely, and some even think it's on the wane. I personally think it will just morph into a new form, but that's another subject.

Few subjects in recent years have excited as much controversy, or dare I say, conversation. I personally have some key theological, biblical and doctrinal concerns about this movement that dislikes being called a movement. Other Christian leaders and theologians have expressed concerns both in print and the blogosphere. I hope to reinforce concerns that have been expressed, as well as make it clear to the proponents of EC (on the extreme end) that these concerns are not going to go away despite a concerted effort to squelch criticism.

To their credit, some EC supporters, pastors and authors have appeared to take the concerns raised very seriously and have called their followers not to abandon biblical doctrine in a well-intentioned effort to reach postmoderns for Christ. Sadly, others have been disdainfully dismissive of any criticism. Some ignore it outright while others respond in answering questions in a purposefully vague, imprecise fashion. To the committed postmodern, this is the standard MO.

The first thing I want to do is highlight some "givens." The EC is NOT monolithic. They do not all agree on every plank given in related authors' books, church programs etc. There are those that lean toward the conservative end of theology, while others such as Brian McLaren are on the other end. In fact, some theologians I respect highly have called McLaren an outright heretic. Frequently, those in the EC often rightly identify problems within evangelicalism that need to be addressed, then proceed to take the wrong approach to deal with these problems. While much of their language is couched in "niceness" - if you read between the lines, the things they say about evangelicalism and evangelicals are little short of a kick in the groin. One example..the call to "authentic" worship. Am I to assume from this that my worship, and that of other evangelicals, is NOT authentic? Some EC authors confuse the issue of "proof texting." This is a common tactic cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses use, taking Bible verses out of context to "prove" one of their doctrinal aberrations. This is a FAR cry from citing biblical authority on core doctrine and orthopraxis. I remember reading somewhere that some EC authors/pastors say they get nauseated when someone quotes the Bible to them. Hmmm. I imagine Satan got a little queasy when Jesus kept saying "It is written" to Ol' Slewfoot's temptations. Think about it.

The following are eight key areas where I think the extremes of the EC have problems, protest though they may. I wish to commend my colleague and fellow Evangelical Free Church member Rev. Joe Whitchurch for reminding me of the eighth area after I had come up with my original list of seven. Phil Johnson of Grace to You has done excellent work in evaluating this subject, and I have drawn from his material along with my own thoughts. Anyway, here are the problematic areas:

1. A Low View of Epistemology

2. A Low View of Scripture and Scriptural authority

3. A Low View of the Reformation

4. A Low View of the Doctrines of Grace

5. A Low View of Eschatology

6. A Low or Distorted View of Apologetics

7. A Low View of the Biblical Gospel

8. A Low View of Biblical Ecclesiology

One note of caution. I do not accept the insistence of some in the EC that one must follow Matthew 18 in dealing with them, especially with those whose writings and electronic communications are widely disseminated. They seem to think that one must visit each EC service, talk to each EC author ad infinitum (and ad nauseum) before you dare comment on the subject. Ridiculous, of course. If they can't defend their writings and public teachings to criticism, then they had best not publish. Public error must be corrected publicly, as the Apostle Paul did with the Apostle Peter. Matthew 18 does not apply in this situation as we are not dealing with personal offenses or sins. It's doctrine, doctrine, doctrine!

Why Was Elijah Depressed? A Warning To Pastors

2009-11-06T08:50:00.002-06:00

1 Kings 19

I'm preaching on Elijah's depression this week. Here's just some thoughts to chew over...

Someone in the government was trying to murder him (19:2-3). Ever have someone trying to murder you for years at a stretch? I never have, and I hope I never do. This is a little worse than just having the deacon board mad at you over something. Elijah's emotional fiber was stretched to the limit, he had spent long months alone near a spring, hiding out from the government, and he snapped.

He was (partly) driven by perfectionistic aspiration (19:4). I was raised by a selfish, unfaithful father. I vowed to be nothing like him. But, spiritually and emotionally speaking, it wasn't enough for me to grow up by the vow, "I won't be anything like my dad." It's like a vortex. The fear of slipping down into parity with my father can eat at you. It's not an energizing motivation. It's driven by contempt and fear. You can't go through life haunted by the fear that you will fail, and be no better than your ancestors. You're already no better than your ancestors, when measured against the incomparable perfections of God. Might as well accept it, and take joy in the justice of your own justification through Christ's blood. Go ahead and sin boldly, Phillip, then repent boldly, too, because the righteousness that saves us is entirely extrernal to us (Luther).

He wasn physically weakened (19:5-8). He fled in mad haste, and then stimbled out into the desert on a doomsday mission The Lord fed and watered him with miracle cake. God worked a miracle, to re-energize Elijah's body.

He was completely overpowered by feelings of isolation, injustice, and hopelessness (9-10). He felt like the lead in The Omega Man. He had been cruelly persecuted, even though he was the good guy in the story. The nation had gone to hell in a handbasket, his friends had been murdered, and he felt he was the only believer left. He was mistaken about that last part, by the way. God saved that bit for verse 18.

He misunderstood the power of God. I think this is the meaning of the events at the cave (the shattering wind, raging fire, and rolling earthquake, followed by a soft, gentle blowing). It's that little voice of the Spirit who turns people around -- not nature miracles. The nature miracles have their place, an important place. But they don't have any power to turn back the sinful heart.

How many people in the ministry are spiritually depressed because they...

1. Are being persecuted?
2. Are perfectionists?
3. Are not feeling physically strong and healthy?
4. Are oppressed by the viciousness of people?
5. Feel alone?
6. Are frustrated by the failure of their own God-given gifts?

The Greatness of Christ An Eternal Fountain of Wonder

2009-11-05T20:55:00.004-06:00

"All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
(Matthew 11:27-30)

Come to Christ, ye laboring ones, because he is an inconceivably great mediator.Where do I get that? Why, from this — that no man knows him but the Father. So great is he, so good, so full of all manner of precious store for needy sinners. No man knows him but the Father. He is too excellent for our puny understanding to estimate his worth. None but the infinite God can comprehend his value as a Savior. Has anyone here been saying, “Christ cannot save me; I am such a big sinner”? You don’t know him, my friend you don’t know him. You are measuring him according to your little insignificant notions. High as the heavens are above the earth so high are his ways above your ways, and his thoughts than your thoughts. You don’t know him, sinner, and no one does know him but his Father. Why, some of us who have been saved by him, thought when we saw the blessed mystery of his substitutionary sacrifice, that we knew all about him; but we have found that he grows upon our view the nearer we approach, and the more we contemplate him. Some of you have now been Christians for thirty or forty years, and you know much more of him than you used to do; but you do not know him yet; your eyes are dazzled by his brightness; you do not know him. And the happy spirits before the throne who have been there, some of them, three or four thousand years, have hardly begun to spell the first letter of his name. He is too grand and too good for them to comprehend. I believe that it will be, the growing wonder in eternity to find out how precious a Christ, how powerful, how immutable — in a word, how divine a Christ he is in whom we have trusted. Only the infinite can understand the infinite. “God only knows the love of God,”and only the Father understands the Son. Oh! I wish I had a week in which to talk on this, instead of a few minutes! You want a great Savior? Well, here he is. Nobody can depict him, or describe him, or even imagine him, except the infinite God himself. Come, then, poor sinner, sunken up to your neck in crime, black as hell — come unto him. Come, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and prove him to be your Savior. The fact that no one knows how great a Savior he is except his Father may encourage you.

--Charles Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Vol. 62, number 3502

Lazarus - John 11

2009-10-21T14:06:00.002-05:00

As I read through John 11 this morning, I thought...

Jesus knows how our stories ends -- which is why he isn't upset (4). A story concludes hen the dramatic tension climaxes, and resolution results. Only then do we see what the preceding story had been all about. Our story isn't finished until Christ raises His people. Christ said Lazarus' sickness was not for ("unto") death. To the mind of unbelief, death is the end, and it empties everything that came before it of all meaning. To the mind of faith, Christ's glory as Resurrector is the real pay-off. When Christ raises all of us in the resurrection, all the praise will go to him. Then will we see what all our stories were really all about.

Jesus didn't live in fear of dying (9). He compared the guidance of God to the light of day. As long as he walked in the guidance and fellowship of God, he knew no fear. If we walk in the guidance of God, we don't need to fear "the arrow that flies by day, or the pestilence that stalks by night."

Lazarus' suffering was for other people's strengthening (15). Jesus was glad that he wasn't there to save Lazarus? This sounds cold. But this is not cold, because he already knew what he was going to do. Jesus saw benefit in Lazarus' death, because his response to the death would lead to the disciples' faith. When something goes wrong, but you know that you have complete power to fix it up even better than it was before, doesn't that take the sting out of the situation? Would we be willing to suffer a great hardship, if God's coming into the situation to deal with it resulted in the salvation of someone else?

Thomas spoke his unbelief. (16) Thomas' statement was a blatant expression of unbelief. Jesus said he was going back to Bethany to wake Lazarus up. Thomas replied, No, we are all going to die. This was blatant sin on Thomas' part, and an insult to Christ. How often do we insult Christ by the words we say about the future? Thomas sinned in verse 16.

Martha spoke her faith. (21) Martha had confidence in Christ's identity, intentions, and abilities. She knew he would have healed Lazarus, if he had been there. She knew that anything he asked God to do, God would do. Why? Because she knew he was the Son of God (27). She believed in the future resurrection of the body, and in the immortality of the redeemed soul (25-26). Our bodies die, but we do not.

Jesus has the ability to be confident in God and sympathetic with us at the same time (32-36). Christ groaned with pain in his heart. He was upset, and wept. But not for Lazarus. Lazarus was in paradise with Abraham. No, Christ sympathized with the heartache of his friends and the people. It is not "faith" to be stoic and unmoved at a Christian funeral, and even less seemly to put on a hap-hap-happy face.

Silly Claims Made Against General Atonement

2009-10-14T11:01:00.003-05:00

Just got done reading Jay Adams blog post from September 24, 2009, about limited atonement. He repeats the same silly canards about general atonement that have turned me off in the past. My reaction is...

General atonement is not impersonal! This is a totally silly claim, as if Reformed theologians are groping for a pitch that will sell well to individualistic Americans. Once you say that God is all-knowing and personal, then He had each and every individual person in mind just as if no one existed but that one person.

Christ's death doesn't unilaterally save. The Reformed view on limited atonement is as if it would have been enough for the Passover lamb to be slain, to protect the Jews from the death angel (in the Exodus story). But it wasn't enough. They had to paint their doorposts and lintels with the blood. The sick Israelites needed to look at the bronze serpent, to be healed. The worshiper at the tabernacle had to lay his hand on the lamb's head, to signify the personal (ceremonial) imputation of his guilt for sin. None of the types and shadows of atonement ever depicted the cross as working in a unilateral way. If it does, then we would need to say that the sins of the unsaved elect are already propitiated, which, historically speaking, is a documented Reformed heresy. But Romans 3:25 says our sins are propitiated through faith. Until you haver trusted in Christ, your sins are not propitiated. This is a problem with limited atonement -- it's hyper-objectivity.

Christ's death does make salvation "possible" for all, unless God is a liar. Why is God, being righteous, able to remain "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ"? Because Christ died for all. God cannot morally or ethically promise everyone the gift of forgiveness, without first establishing the basis of the offer, which is Christ's death. If Christ did not die for so-and-so, then God cannot offer that person forgiveness without lying in the process. The bronze serpent on the pole was available to all the sick Israelites, including any who, in bitter unbelief, wouldn't and didn't look at it. God made salvation from the snake venom possible for all.

It's ridiculous to say that God "failed" if everyone for whom Christ died doesn't come to Christ. Since God never said that Christ's death would save everyone, then God can't be accused of "failure". God said that Christ's death saves everyone who trusts in it, and in Him.

I believe in general atonement because the Bible clearly teaches it, and the arguments made in favor of limited atonement are all based on logic fallacies. Jay Adams needs to eschew these foolish, canned, preaching-to-the-choir arguments. If limited atonement is true, then he doesn't know if Christ died for him, since (if limited atonement is true) then no one knows for whom Christ died. I choose the certainty that comes from faith in an objectively-knowable atonement, over the doubt, fear, and neurotic self-examing that limited atonement doctrine creates.

Pastoral Responsibility and Accountability

2009-10-13T18:54:00.003-05:00

If you caught the appearance by televangelist Joel Osteen during an appearance on Fox News Sunday a couple of years back, you might have been as surprised as me. To recap, Osteen told host Chris Wallace that he considered Mormons true Christians, much to the dismay of not only apologetics ministries, but also to pastors and church leaders who take the Word of God -- not to mention their responsibility before God -- seriously.

And that is what I want to discuss briefly. We can imagine the usual defenses that get thrown up regarding incidents like this, at least from acolytes or the televangelists themselves. Some of these we've heard before when other high-profile Christian leaders have made similar stupid, unbiblical statements. The one that really incenses me is "Well, I am not a theologian. I'm a pastor (or evangelist)." Ahem! Cough-cough.

A pastor by the very nature of his office is a teacher. He's the spiritual leader and shepherd of his congregation. He bears direct responsibility before God as to what his flock is being fed. Here's what God's Word has to say:

An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2).

Did you note the "able to teach" part? That's important in the role of a pastor. And the teaching role of pastor comes with a very sober warning:

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment (James 3:1).

I don't know about you, but that particular warning from James -- the brother of the Lord -- always makes me very nervous when I am called on to fill a pulpit or teach a class. God forbid that I misrepresent the Lord when opening His Word to others.

When it comes to false teachers, there is an element that often gets overlooked by Christians. Whether it's because a lot of attention is given to cults on the outside, or because they simply don't hear the warning from the pulpit, this very important truth gets overlooked despite the warning of Scripture. False teachers often come from among us, and because of that, they can do a serious amount of damage before they are called on the carpet and expelled, or brought to repentance. Here's what the Apostle Peter had to say on that subject:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves (1 Peter 2:1).

Look at that verse closely. It says false teachers "AMONG YOU." And how do they introduce their "destructive heresies?" Do they do it loudly, with a megaphone? No. They do it secretly, more often than not. And by the time the people in a church finally wake up to what's going on, half the church is carried away by the error and a split takes place. Those who call attention to the error and sound the warning are called "divisive." They get accused of fomenting dissension and disunity. They're called "unloving." But in truth, the disunity is caused by those bringing in the false teaching, not the ones who are making the stand for biblical truth.

What about Joel Osteen? I do not know the man's heart. I don't think much of his preaching and teaching. He's really more of a motivational speaker than he is a pastor. I would hope that he'd admit his error publically and welcome correction.

I am reasonably certain that some will want to blast me out of the water for posting this. "How dare I attack a man like Joel Osteen, who has brought encouragement and hope to millions?" Encouragement and hope is fine, but if it's not encouragement and hope according to the truth of God's revealed Word, it's worthless. Cotton candy that melts away and leaves a bitter aftertaste. Or more accurately, it tastes sweet like anti-freeze tastes to a dog, but in the end it kills the dog.

I believe we are in the last days, and as such, deception will be increasingly rampant. As Jesus Himself asked . . . When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth (Luke 18:8)?

TEDS Professor Dr. Carson's works

2009-10-09T22:07:00.002-05:00

Available at the Gospel Coalition Website:

The Comprehensive Bibliography of D. A. Carson Including 344 Free PDF Downloads