sheepwalking

Decisions decisions

2012-02-04T17:42:00.004-06:00

This post by Bobby Jamieson presents some interesting propositions about the issue of voluntary resignation from a church. While I agree with a lot of things the 9Marks organization promotes, and even see a few valid points in this particular article, I also have to take issue with some of Mr. Jamieson's conclusions.

Yes, it is good for the pastor and the leadership of a church to perform some due diligence when a member resigns. It is good to see if the resigning member is actually asking for help or for a listening ear, or if something in the church needs correction or modification. Every case is different, but certainly there can be those times when the leadership might urge the resigning member to reconsider.

But ultimately, if a member decides to leave that church, they can do so. Jamieson writes,

A member cannot unilaterally resign.

It would be a scary statement if it were true. This is not 16th-century Europe after all. Heck, it's not even 17th-century Massachusetts. A member can, in fact, unilaterally resign. He can even resign without giving the church a reason for doing so. Continuing to serve with a particular local church body is a voluntary decision on the part of the individual member.

Jamieson also quotes from the constitution of his own church:

"The church shall have authority to refuse a member's voluntary resignation or transfer of membership...for any...reason the church deems necessary or prudent."

Well, that is a very bold claim, but you can't just name it and claim it. The focus of Jamieson's article, that of drawing the attention of church leaders and pastors to the issue of losing members through the proverbial back door, is something to be concerned about. But the solution is not authoritarian overreach or unrealistic assertions of power. It is a humble servant-attitude, sound teaching and a loving, edifying environment. Even then, some members will choose to resign.

They can.

Just Sayin'

2011-09-02T20:50:00.000-06:00

Here's another review of Dan Phillip's book, The World-Tilting Gospel. This one is by blogger Fred Butler. Looks like we had a similar take on the book.

The Tilting Truth

2011-08-28T15:48:00.005-06:00

A recently released book by Dan Phillips explores how the gospel turned the first-century world upside -down (Acts 17: 6) and how modern evangelicalism too often constructs barriers against its having the same effect today. The World-Tilting Gospel, published by Kregel Publications, is what Phillips refers to as a "whole-Bible" approach to the gospel, beginning not in John 3: 16 (as important as this verse is) but in Genesis 1: 1.

If you've ever visited Phillips' blog or the Pyromaniacs blog where he is one of the team-bloggers, then you probably already know he is an excellent wordsmith with a technical scribal talent that enables the reader to glide through his prose with remarkable facility. In The World-Tilting Gospel, he combines his considerable skill in the mechanics of the written word with a propensity for direct and unambiguous communication, tosses in the occasional proverb and the intermittent dash of wry humor, and sets forth his case for a whole-Bible, world-tilting worldview.

The book has more theology than you likely realize while you're reading it, even a few brief word-studies in Hebrew and Greek, and is instructive, doctrinal, evangelical, exhortative. It ministers to the curious seeker, the new convert, and the mature believer alike. It makes you a little uncomfortable. Sometimes a lot uncomfortable. Lots of the teaching comes straight at you but some of it has a little more nuance (he gets some predestination and unconditional election in there without being overt about it. He even makes a brief but compelling argument that regeneration precedes faith). It is a book that can be handed out as a tool for evangelism or taught chapter-by-chapter in a Bible Study group.

He starts with a definition of who man is and who God is. He exegetes from the first three chapters of Genesis with some insights from this text that you may not have considered before. He defines sin, and expounds on the doctrine of original sin. He sets forth a very complete Christology and detailed straightforward teaching on substitutionary atonement. He explains imputed forensic righteousness and salvation by grace alone through faith alone. He does these things in understandable language, and many readers probably won't realize how much doctrine and theology they're actually getting. He discusses sanctification, and deals effectively with three widespread errors in the Christian growth paradigm-- categories which he labels "Gutless Gracers" (easy-believism), "Crisis Upgraders"("carnal" vs. "spiritual" Christians) and "Muzzy Mysticism" (Inward rest/victorious walk). He provides one of the better definitions of the "flesh" I recall seeing, even in more formal works.

He talks about Gospel obedience, and exhorts the believer to "get on with" living and telling it. He doesn't attempt to finesse or sidestep on key doctrinal issues, and this will no doubt disturb the postmodern crowd. He takes a world-tilting approach to a world-tilting subject.

Out of Perspective

2011-08-14T17:14:00.005-06:00

In the previous three posts I have discussed the issue of legalism in response to an article by Timothy Gombis in Christianity Today titled, "The Paul We Think We Know." Gombis endorses a New Perspectives view that seeks to minimize the pervasiveness of legalism in first-century Judaism and reinterpret Biblical passages that are clearly dealing with the issue of legalism.

Because of this effort to downplay the effect of the erroneous view that one could establish a works-based righteousness by works of the law, Gombis asserts, "First-century Judaism didn't have a legalism problem; it had an ethnocentrism problem." Gombis holds that Jewish believers in Paul's day wanted to convert Gentiles professing faith in Christ to Judaism because they viewed Christianity as being inherently Jewish. Thus, Gombis refers to Romans 3: 20, which says,

"because by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight;for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." (NASB)

This, says Gombis, is not to refute Jewish legalism, but refers to the fact that "God does not justify a person merely because he is ethnically Jewish." If this is his New Perspective on Romans 3: 20 then he needs a New New Perspective. Paul does often address the fact that the gospel is offered to both Jews and Gentiles, but in Romans 3: 20 he is making two points:

1) By the works of the law (Greek: ergown nomou) no flesh (sarch) will be justified, or declared righteous, before God;

2) through the law is the real knowledge (epignowsis) of sin.

The first point establishes that no human will be judged righteous because he earned his righteousness by keeping the law. It is a clear repudiation of legalism. The second point clarifies that, rather than having the achievement of a meritorious righteousness as its goal, the purpose of the law is to reveal to the sinner his sinful condition. This too refutes the legalistic notion that the purpose of the law is to earn a righteous standing. In Romans 3: 20 Paul emphasizes that the law does not justify and the law is not intended to justify, but rather to reveal sin. In Romans 3: 21-28 Paul explains that justification is a gift, by grace through faith, concluding in verse 28,

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works ofthe Law." (NASB)

The idea that Paul is not making a carefully developed case against legalism, or the false notion of works-based righteousness, cannot be sustained by a close reading of the text. The apostle makes very clear in the first three chapters of Romans the manifold ways both Jews and Gentiles have transgressed the Law, concluding in Romans 3: 9-19 that all humanity is under sin, then begins in Romans 3:21 and following to explain that righteousness is not earned but is a gift through faith in Jesus Christ. Note the summary of his case in verses 23-24 of Romans 3 (NASB):

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;".

It is, no doubt, a direct doctrinal challenge for the legalists of Paul's day and also through the centuries since. We should be careful not to detract from Paul's clear teaching about the righteousness of Christ credited to the believer by grace through faith. In declaring the believer righteous, God did what the law could not do. That is the truth Paul preached.

What It Is

2011-07-28T21:01:00.004-06:00

My previous two posts discuss legalism in the first century, both among the Pharisees and as a threat to the early church. I pointed out that it manifested itself in two forms: as an attempt to establish a works-based meritoriously achieved righteousness, and as a system of extrabiblical man-made rules and regulations which are used in addition to, in place of, or even in some cases, in contradiction to scriptural commands.

It may be helpful here to clarify what legalism is not. It is popular in some circles to respond to every exhortation to obey scriptural commandments with the misplaced accusation of legalism (sometimes the term "Pharisee" is even used). But legalism is not obedience to biblical standards of conduct. It is not moral behavior or holy living. These are requirements on the Christian, not as a means of earning salvation, but as a servant-heart response to the lorship of Christ. A new creation is expected to live like a new creation and a repentant sinner should behave like they are repentant. Obedience to God is not legalism and Christ said "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments."

Freedom from legalism is not an excuse to sin, as Paul makes emphatic and unambiguous:

"What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!" --Romans 6:15 (NASB)

The New Testament is filled with exhortations for obedience to God's commandments, thus it is not legalistic to enourage others to obey these commandments. So Paul tells the Galatians "For ye, brethren, were called for freedom; only use not your freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through love be servants one to another (Gal. 5: 13)." The apostle James exhorts, "but be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves (James 1:22)." The apostle Peter commands, "But like as he who called you is holy, be ye yourselves also holy in all manner of living (1 Peter 1: 16)." John says "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous (1 John 5: 3)." The writer of the letter to the Hebrews instructs, "Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen (Heb 13: 21)."

In fact, chapters 6-8 of the book of Romans make clear that it is precisely because believers are free from the law of sin and of death that we are also free to obey God. While the Christian will not achieve perfect obedience until meeting Christ and being made perfect, there should still be a pattern of sanctification, maturing, and growing obedience in the life of the Christian. There should be a desire to obey and an increasing fruit of obedience.

And that is not legalism.

Legalism Part II

2011-07-27T21:50:00.007-06:00

In my previous post I discuss an article by Timothy Gombis in Christianity Today titled "The Paul We Think We Know". Specifically, I address Gombis' New Perspectives notion that Paul would not have considered Judaism legalistic and that the early church was not tempted toward legalistic works--based righteousness. In that post I covered some examples from Luke's and Matthew's gospels showing the grip legalism had on the Pharisees, who in turn were regarded as experts and teachers (John 3: 10) of the people of Israel.

In this post I want to discuss examples of the first-century church's struggle against legalism. While Paul's letter to the Galatians provides one prominent indication of this struggle, his letter to the Colossians is also instructive in this area. It highlights the syncretized nature of the legalistic attack on that particular church which came not only from a background of pharisaical law, but also mystical pre-gnostic ideas and attempts to achieve righteousness through a rigid asceticism. Paul deals with all these legalistic forms in his letter to the church there.

So he warns, "Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day, or a new moon, or a sabbath day (2: 16)." Then, "If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances, handle not, nor taste, nor touch...(2: 20,21)" He describes these things in verse 23 as having only a show, or appearance of wisdom and religiosity. Earlier in verse 8 he commanded the believers to "see to it" that they not be taken captive according to human tradition, human wisdom, and worldly tenets. It shows a concern on the apostle's part that there was danger and he wanted them on guard against legalistic tendencies.

It is interesting to note that at the end of the letter Paul sends greetings from Luke, who was obviously with him at the time. The emphasis in Luke's gospel on Christ's adamant rebuke of the legalism of the scribes and Pharisees shows that Paul's perspective was shaped by Christ.

Luke's Law Review

2011-07-24T21:13:00.005-06:00

We have misconceptions. So states Timothy Gombis in his article in Christianity Today titled " The Paul We Think We Know". Basically, Gombis claims that Paul didn't stop being Jewish (agreed), first-century Judaism was not legalistic (disagree), the early church did not have a problem with legalism (disagree), and Paul was more into the salvation community while we tend to focus on individuals (false dichotomy--it's both/and). He also says Paul was not physically imposing (agree--but I don't think many have the misconception that he was), and that Paul was not particularly eloquent (disagree--he was not a smooth talker, but was very eloquent).

In this post I want to deal some with the legalism issue. Gombis presents his own nuance of the "New Perspective" view that Paul did not come from a legalistic background when he was introduced to Christianity. He asserts that "Paul would not have regarded Judaism as legalistic." Gombis also insists that "The problem in the early church , therefore, was not the temptation toward legalistic works righteousness."

Legalism comes in two forms, and both were prevalent in first--century Judaism and also a challenge for the early church. One form of legalistic thought is the false belief that salvation can be earned or that humans can be justified by their own works. The other type of legalistic teaching adds extra-biblical rules and regulations as behavorial requirements, in some cases even as exceptions or replacements to scriptural commands.

Paul himself in Philippians 3: 5 describes his former life in terms of his legalistic proclivity identifying himself "as touching the law, a Pharisee;" and "...as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless." He is speaking here of an earthly "righteousness" and a blamelessness from the world's viewpoint, not God's. To see the formidable obstruction that legalism presented in the Jewish community, particularly within the sect of the Pharisees, one need only go to the insights recorded in the gospel of Luke, who was Paul's traveling companion and fellow-servant of the word of truth. At the beginning of chapter 6 he decribes a dispute between the Pharisees and Jesus over what is lawful on the Sabbath. They assert that the disciples aren't allowed to eat grain from the stalks while walking through the fields on the Sabbath; Jesus reminds them He is Lord of the Sabbath and He's okay with it. Later on, He healed a man's hand on the Sabbath knowing full well the Pharisees were watching because they wanted to claim he had violated the law.

In chapter 11 of Luke's gospel we see Jesus correcting the Pharisees over whether a ceremonial washing of dishes is required before a meal, and in verse 46 he accuses them of weighing men down with "burdens grievous to be borne" while not lifting a finger to help with the burden. In Luke 16: 15 Jesus tells the Pharisees, "Ye are they that justify yourselves in the sight of men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God."

In Luke 18: 9-14 Jesus tells the famous parable of the Pharisee and the publican, for the express purpose, Luke says, of addressing those "who trusted in themselves, that they are righteous, and set all others at nought." The Pharisee in the parable relates how he is not a sinner, ticks off a list of sins he says he's not guilty of, points out how often he fasts and how completely he tithes, while the publican simply and humbly begs for mercy. The conclusion is the publican "went down to his house justified rather than the other..." having found the justification that comes by grace.

In Matthews's gospel, in the first nine verses of chapter 23 Jesus chastises the Pharisees for altering God's commandments with their own legalistic system, "teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men". And in the first 34 verses of Matthew 23 Jesus makes a comprehensive indictment of the legalism and hypocricy of the Pharisees, saying they "strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel."

The gospels demonstrate that the legalism of the Pharisees was a definite burden upon those under their influence and Jesus repeatedly rebuked them for it.

Now You Tell Me

2011-07-23T13:14:00.006-06:00

Campus Crusade for Christ is changing its name to Cru--or is it cru? The organization has its reasons. And in a list of frequently asked questions it seeks to provide an explanation for the change through its answers to these questions.

Some answers appear more direct and explanatory than others. For example, question #6 asks, "What does Vonette Bright (wife of the late Bill Bright, with whom she founded the organization in 1951) think about the new name?" We get a sort of non-answer for an answer. "...Vonette was involved throughout the process..." (that isn't the question) "...We sought her special counsel along the way..." (not asking if you sought her counsel or if you thought it was special...what does she think about the name change?) ..."She is excited about the outcome and the future of Cru." By "outcome" are you referring to the name change choice? Was "Cru" her choice? Did she vote in favor of it? Does she endorse the decision? Did she favor another choice over "Cru"?

Question #7 tries to explain why a brand consulting agency was hired. But question #10 is where the design emerges. It asks, Why did we take the name "Christ" out of our name? It is, in effect, a repeat of question #1, Why is Christ no longer in the name? But while the answer in question #1 is four paragraphs of that sort of non-answer thing, in question #10 the organization finally gets around to answering what is probably the primary question on everyone's mind.

And the answer is troubling. It begins with a repeat of the claim made in the answer to question #1 that they weren't trying to eliminate the word Christ from their name. But then they admit that, well, in fact, that is exactly what they were doing: "Cru enables us to have discussions about Christ with people who might initially be turned off by a more overtly Christian name."
Well, you probably couldn't get more overt than than the ministry's now former name, so if their objective was to turn on the ship's cloaking device they would seem to have succeeded.

Then again, maybe these sorts of shenanigans are why so many young people are choosing the YRR movement (see my previous post) over a more "seeker friendly", market--driven, and ultimately, watered-down approach.

It has been a long time since I was in high school, but I was heavily involved with Campus Crusade for Christ at the time. I received many blessings from that involvement. I once had the privilege of meeting Bill Bright. Although I was a believer, he did not take it for granted and made sure to confirm my relationship with Jesus Christ before our conversation concluded.

I wonder what he would think of the new name.

Check it Out if UR a YRR

2011-07-21T22:04:00.004-06:00

John MacArthur posts the first in what looks to be an interesting series aimed at YRR ("young, restless Reformed") believers. While appreciating the trend in which many young people are choosing sound theology over postmodernism and emergent ambiguity, he exhorts these young Calvinists to keep reforming, press on toward maturity, and work on settling down that first "R" in the YRR designation a bit.

Do We Stay or Do We Go?

2011-06-18T10:34:00.006-06:00

While attempting to revive an often-refuted case against the idea of an end-times rapture which is separated by a short duration from the Second Coming, Matthew Dickerson also employs a somewhat novel tactic of comparing pre-trib rapture adherents to Gnostics. In his article appearing in Christianity Today titled "Who Gets Left Behind" Dickerson warns of embracing Gnosticism and Plato and Socrates (oh my!) as what he sees as the potential outcome of holding to a pre-trib rapture construct.

Dickerson needn't worry, I'm definitely no Gnostic--and I don't think any of my amil friends have ever called me one because of my eschatological position. I'm also not buying his argument. While he reinterprets the classic pre-trib rapture passage in 1 Thess 4: 13-18, Dickerson neglects to cite 1 Cor 15: 50-56. At the rapture, we don't leave our physical bodies behind, they come with us, instantly transformed into eternal, imperishable, but physical bodies. Even the bodies of saints who died centuries before are taken and transformed into a glorified but still physical state. So let's please dispense with irrelevant comparisons to Gnosticism. The hope of the rapture includes the hope of the resurrection and a new eternal glorified physical body for each believer.

Dickerson also frets that folks who expect to depart the earth when raptured by the Lord Jesus one day will treat this world more like a hotel than a home and won't give enough attention to working as "redeeming and restoring influences in this world of space, time, and matter." To which I respond that if he means we won't be caught up in the latest environmental myth like global cooling, ozone depletion, global warming, climate change, and whatever the next fad that comes along masquerading as science might be, then he may be right. But since we pre-trib people tend to lean toward the literal in our hermeneutics, I think most understand, as I do, that Genesis chapters one and two are to be taken as a literal historical narrative. And therefore I think most have no problem understanding the earth is a gift from God which we should be good stewards of while we're here. We're just not seeking to get lured into every politically correct economic reorganization scheme disguised as environmental concern.

So if Dickerson would like to believe that 1 Thess 4: 13-18 describes an event in which believers are raptured into the air and then make an immediate U-turn so they can come back to earth and get back in line again with unbelievers to be re-separated in the Judgment of the Sheep and the Goats described in Matt 25: 31-46, after having already been raptured, he is free to do so. And if he feels the unexpected surprise coming of the Lord depicted in Matt 24: 44 is a description of the same event as that in Rev 19: 11-21 which doesn't appear to surprise anyone, not even the birds...then he is free to do so. I tell my amil brothers and sisters that the Lord won't leave them behind just because they got their eschatology incorrect.

But that Gnostic argument just isn't going to fly. We believers will, though.

You Keep Saying That Word...

2010-11-20T08:16:00.010-06:00

In a recent study by Barna Research three out of ten Protestant pastors described their church as "Calvinist" or "Reformed". The 31% figure out of a sampling of 600 pastors compares to 32% of a similar sample size ten years ago. Those pastors who assigned a "Wesleyan" or "Arminian" label to their congregations dropped to 32% currently from 37% ten years ago. Attendance size in the congregations of both categories showed an increase from the previous decade.

So what does this mean?

According to a Christian Post article Pastor Kevin DeYoung sees the news as relatively neutral and also believes the number of young believers coming to embrace what is called "New Calvinism" is increasing.

Ed Stetzer thinks the sort of study that was performed is neither large enough nor specific enough to identify the Calvinist resurgence which he feels is a subset of very large pool of the general Protestant category.

The study, while interesting and informative, certainly has its limitations and would not suffice as a basis to discount what many believe is an increase in Calvinistic--leaning believers within evangelicalism. And its director, David Kinnaman, does not seem to interpret it as discounting the possibility of this resurgence.

For example, the survey does not identify the terms such as "Calvinist", "Reform", "Wesleyan", or "Arminian". Respondents , in addition to categorizing themselves, are also left to identify the terms for themselves. So does an Amyraldian put himself in the Calvinist category or choose "none of the above"? Does a Southern Baptist, who, if she affirms The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is at the very least agreeing with two of the five points of Calvinism (natural man's total inability in spiritual matters and perseverance of the saints) call herself a Calvinist, "none of the above", or an Arminian? What about the respondent who doesn't know what the terms mean but vaguely recalls that Prebyterians are supposed to be Calvinists and he's not a Presbyterian, so he decides he must not be a Calvinist?

Another factor that the survey does not appear to account for is the number of mixed-view congregations, which may very likely be the most significant display of the Calvinist resurgence, but may still be categorized as Arminian by head pastors. In many of the local bodies an increasing number of the membership (possibly even some of the pastoral staff) may have embraced or become sympathetic to the Calvinist position. The remainder of the flock may be composed of Amyraldians, 2-pointers, Wesleyans, and those who just haven't decided. But the pastor may take the approach that the default position is Arminian, even if he himself is one of those leaning Calvinist.

Perhaps the study does confirm, if one accepts that the sample is sufficiently large, that in general the percentage of Protestant churches who officially designate themselves as "Calvinist" or "Reform" has not increased. But it does not measure whether there is an increasing influence of Calvinism on evangelicalism, or whether an increasing number of Evangelical Protestants are Calvinists, or whether a Calvinistic resurgence has influenced a number of former Arminians to adopt an Amyraldian position or a two-pointer position.

And it doesn't tell us about recent trends in the relationship between Calvinism and the Southern Baptist denomination.

Not Bots

2010-09-08T20:35:00.003-06:00

There is a great deal of discussion and not a little debate within Southern Baptist circles these days about the fact there are those within the denomination who hold to a Calvinistic soteriology. It is primarily an intramural debate among brothers and sisters in the faith and need not be a cause for division. The primary sticking point seems to be the U in the TULIP acronym: Unconditional election based on the sovereign will of God (the Calvinistic position) vs the Arminian viewpoint that the human will is free to decide whether or not to follow Christ.

The essential default argument made by many on the Arminian side is that the sinner must be free to choose whether they will accept or reject the gospel; otherwise they are nothing but (drum roll...) ROBOTS! (cymbal clash).

So let's explore that "robot" argument in light of what Southern Baptists believe. The June 14, 2000 Baptist Faith and Message can be affirmed by both Calvinists and Arminians (or more accurately, 4-point Arminians; some Arminians insist the 5th point is optional). In it, the P in TULIP is unequivocally upheld:

All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and
sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall
persevere to the end.

So why won't the believer fall away? It is because God won't allow it. He exercises His sovereign will and His omnipotent power (John 10: 29; Romans 8: 31-39) to ensure that the believer perseveres.

Has the believer become a robot? Certainly not. Believers are the only truly free humans. Yet they are a new creation, they are God's workmanship created to walk in the good works He has prepared beforehand (Ephesians 2: 10). And they will do this, because it is God's will that they do.

So the question for the (4-pt.) Arminian is: If the saint is not a robot after coming to faith, yet remains in the faith because of God's sovereign will directing the will of the believer, then why would the unbeliever be called a robot when God draws the unbeliever to faith in Christ through the Lord's sovereign power?

We are saved by grace. We stay saved by grace.

Numbers

2010-05-30T17:17:00.005-06:00

Recently released LifeWay Research data projects a decrease of approximately 50% in Southern Baptist membership by 2050 if the current 50-year trend continues. The numbers also show that recent membership "growth" numbers have sunk into the negative.

A factor which may be contributing to the latest apparent decline is a resolution adopted at last year's SBC convention encouraging member churches of the denomination to "clean up" their membership rolls by removing names of inactive or non-participating members and those who have moved on to other churches or denominations, so that the rolls reflect a composition of individuals who actually participate in the life of the church. Thus, the latest negative figures may simply be a correction in data that may have already been a reality in terms of actual bodies in the pews. Even so, the trend appears to show that the numbers are not increasing, and may be dropping.

Denominational numbering, while arguably necessary, can be problematic. For example, events such as "high attendance Sunday" can be reduced to a particular congregation's ability to attract people through the front door on a particular Sunday rather than focus on making disciples over the long term on a day-to-day basis. And while downward-attendance trends that last for years may signify an issue of concern, a temporary reduction in attendance over a period of several months because the pastor is preaching some hard truths (albeit "in love"; Eph 4: 15) may in reality signify a church that is being restored to spiritual health.

Good preaching can result in an increase or a decrease in numbers over the short term, depending on the maturity and spiritual perception of the audience. The apostle John describes, in chapter 6 of his gospel, a sermon Jesus preached to an immature multitude that was so difficult "...from that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him. (v. 66)" Of the twelve who remained was one who would eventually betray Him.

The correct response to the numbers news would seem to be for each congregation to evaluate whether they are faithfully proclaiming the truth of the gospel in love and whether each member of the local body is doing their part to edify the church and make disciples. The response should not be to repeat mistakes of the past in which an emphasis on numbers distracted some shepherds to the point of de-emphasizing doctrine and sound teaching for the sake of an entertainment-focused service designed solely to attract more people.

Truth Entrusted

2010-05-01T20:10:00.006-06:00

A LifeWay research study conducted in August 2009 indicates that 65% of "Millennials"--young adults born between 1980 and 1991--identify themselves as Christians.

But while 2 out of 3 profess to be Christians, approximately the same number of this particular group of young adults, who were under 30 at the time of the survey, indicated they rarely or never read the Bible. Since the survey was conducted on people within the US, the availability of the Scriptures cannot be seen as a factor in the lack of attention the Sacred Text receives from this age group.

In this, it would appear that Nathaniel Hawthorne's caricature of the imposter posing as Bunyan's Evangelist is gaining increasing results today. In The Celestial Railroad he dispenses pasteboard squares as substitutes for the antique parchment roll that had been borne by Christian in Bunyan's classic, The Pilgrim's Progress. Whatever substitute those who neglect God's word find today, the results appear evident in other survey responses.

For example, on two issues which go to the heart of essential Christianity, survey responses reveal a significant disparity in the 65% who claim Christianity and those who are even able to comprehend what basic Christianity affirms. 53% do not believe the Bible is God's word or is 100% accurate. 50% do not accept that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Of those who do believe it, only 31% strongly agree. And, in perhaps the most shocking display of ignorance of the truth, 50% say they don't believe Jesus was without sin. These facts: that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible and entirely truthful word of God, that Jesus is the only way to eternal salvation, and that He qualifies to atone for our sin by virtue of His perfectly righteous life lived entirely without sin, are foundational Christian truths which the believer must accept. They are not the only doctrines the follower of Christ must affirm, but they are not negotiable.

The doctrinal wandering in the generation which is just now moving into adult roles of leadership and authority is symptomatic of a drift that has been underway for some time in the wider population of professing Christians in America. Too many in the Church have relegated doctrine and theology to a diminished role for too long and the consequences of this lack of clarity are becoming more obvious. We need to take seriously Paul's admonition to the younger Timothy in 2 Tim 2: 2:

And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men,who shall be able to teach others also.

It's generational.

Five Points...of Christmas

2009-12-19T20:05:00.005-06:00

...being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.

Philippians 2: 6,7

In these two verses Paul supplies a brief christology containing five nonnegotiable propositional statements. Think of it as the Christmas Story in its very essence. Leave out one of these truths and you will miss the gravity of the event in Bethlehem for which an ordinary manger was appropriated as the royal basinet for the King of kings.

First, He pre-existed His human conception and birth, or better, pre-subsisted, since, being God, His power to be came from His own essence as the Creator rather than from the dependence a created being has upon the Creator. The present participle conveys the eternal precedence of His being.

Secondly, as God in very essence, though He was rightfully entitled to every Divine privilege and prerogative, He did not cling to or grasp these entitlements when He humbled Himself as Paul describes in these verses.

Thirdly, He "made Himself of no reputation", or literally from the Greek text, He "emptied Himself," not of attributes or essence, but temporarily of His lofty position high above the heavens and the earth, and of His unapproachable splendor on His exalted throne. Instead, He lay as a helpless newborn in a feeding trough for animals as His family struggled to comply with an edict issued by a pagan dictator.

Fourthly, He "took upon Him the form of a servant." The extent of this servanthood is described in the rest of verse seven and in verse 8, stating that Jesus became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. The purpose of His being conceived as a human in the womb of His virgin human mother, so He could be born as a human infant, and grow up as a man, was so He would go to the cross and pay the sin-debt that we could not pay.

Finally, He "was made in the likeness of men." And this addition of the human nature to the fully Divine nature of God the Son, the eternal Logos, is permanent. Even after His crucifixion and resurrection Jesus Christ remains, for all eternity, the God-Man, fully Divine and fully human, a dual nature in one Person.

We might call them the Five Points of Christmas. If they are not the core of your Christmas celebration, then you are celebrating something other than Christmas.

Essential Evangelicalism

2009-08-08T12:12:00.007-06:00

The state of Evangelicalism is the subject of Phil Johnson's blogpost yesterday. He compares the current character of the movement with Evangelicalism's foundational doctrines and finds that many of these truths have been vacated by a large number who claim the title. Many teachings which were previously considered essential and settled have increasingly been re-opened to negotiation by postmodernists who have commandeered the movement while others who might still hold technically to the historical essential truths have allowed themselves to be distracted by fads, trends, and PR concerns.

John MacArthur makes a similar case in chapter 7 of his book, The Truth War, pointing out that methodology and pragmatism have replaced theology and faithful proclamation of the truth in modern evangelicalism. On page 149 MacArthur says,

"The sad truth is that the larger part of the evangelical movement is already so badly compromised that sound doctrine has almost become a nonissue."

So neo-evangelicalism has both been infiltrated by those pretenders who deny the historical Scriptural truths of the faith and by those who deny that these truths can be affirmed with any certainty. In addition, there are those who are willing, when pressed, to acknowledge the validity of the foundational doctrines but are distracted by chasing the latest trend in pragmatic methodology, marketing, or showmanship. Still others fail to assert the truth out of fear that its bold proclamation will dishearten would-be "seekers".

Interestingly, the more wishy-washy and devoid of orthodoxy the mainstream denominations become, the more they continue to lose membership. But even were this not the case, gaining membership into an undefined organization which borrows a few labels but does not identify its core beliefs is not the goal of the Church. The Church must boldly proclaim and teach the truth. There will be those who accept and receive it, and there will be those who reject it. Let them at least have the opportunity to hear it.

The Substitute

2009-04-10T13:05:00.004-06:00

Why would the Son of God, in anticipating the cross, state that He was "exceeding sorrowful, even unto death" (Matthew 26:38; also see Mark 14:34)? Why would the gospel writers describe Him as sorrowful, troubled, (Matt 26:37, Mark 14:33) and in such agony that "His sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood falling down to the ground." (Luke 22:44)?

There was no evil scheme that man could devise that could cause this response in Jesus; even though humanity would reveal its wickedness in full force on the day Christ was crucified, He feared no attack His enemies or this world could form against Him.

There is only one explanation for the agony and distress our Lord had concerning His mission and it is not the anticipation of any physical or mental distress men could inflict.

The reason for Christ's anguish was not that He would endure man's evil deeds, but that on the cross He would (and did) pay in full the sin-debt of believers by suffering, as our Substitute, the full measure of God's wrath and punishment for our sins. While the result was joyful the process was mournful, and it was the temporary separation from the Father which caused the Son to be distraught. It was the vicarious payment by the innocent Lamb of the sin--debt elect sinners could never have paid that caused His grief.

Those who deny that He went to the cross for the purpose of paying this debt deny the gospel.

Of Surveys and Salvation

2008-12-27T10:08:00.013-06:00

The Pew Forum has released a follow-up survey subsequent to the previous U. S. Religious Landscape Survey to focus on the question of what Americans who profess to be Christians believe concerning the exclusivity of their faith.

The previous survey of 35,000 Americans found that 70% of professing Christians and 57% of those who identify themselves as evangelicals believe that "many religions can lead to eternal life". In a previous post I suggested that perhaps respondents were thinking of many denominations within the Christian religion rather than other religions outside of Christianity when answering this survey question.

This suggestion was raised by many who analyzed the results, and the Pew Forum proceeded with the subsequent survey which included a much smaller sample of 2905 adults. It clarified to the people being surveyed that the exclusivity of Christianity compared to non-Christian belief systems was in view and, as expected, the results were significantly different. While the numbers of professing Christians who don't understand what Christianity is remains dramatically high (my conclusion, not the survey's), the Religious Landscape Survey's 70% of those who feel "many religions can lead to eternal life" drops to 52% that feel at least some non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life (a distinction in both number and degree) when the ambiguity is removed from the question. That 52% of professing Christians erroneously allow for the possibility that some non-Christian belief systems may result in salvation is still cause for great concern.

Among Protestant evangelicals surveyed the results went from a 57% majority in the previous Religious Landscape Survey to less than half (47%) in the current survey who feel many religions can lead to eternal life. Therefore, it appears there was some misunderstanding of the question in the first survey.

Another issue I pointed out in my previous post on the Religious Landscape Survey is the question of the extent to which someone who identifies themself as a Christian or evangelical actually understands or practices the faith with which they identify. I pointed out in a blog post in July 2008 that a LifeWay Research study found that 80% of evangelicals reject the idea that eternal life can be obtained through a belief system outside Christianity when an evangelical is identified as someone affirming certain minimal doctrinal beliefs and attending church at least once a month.

In my blog post last summer about the Pew Forum's Religious Landscape Survey I had written:

For example, we think of an evangelical as one who attends church regularly, yet according to the survey, only 58% of those who said they were evangelicals claimed to attend church at least once a week. It would be interesting to know how the regular attenders would respond to the "many religions" question.

The recent Pew Forum Survey shows 60% of evangelical Protestants who attend church at least weekly affirm that theirs is the one true faith leading to eternal life, double the figure for those who attend less than once a week. Thus an obvious distinction between a said faith, or religious category selected by default (e.g., someone's relative belongs to a particular religion or the respondent attended a particular church as a kid) and a practiced faith is also going to affect the answer given. Obviously we don't know which respondents fall in which category but a further clarification of minimal doctrines and church attendance such as the LifeWay survey attempted would be helpful.

Interestingly, only 2% of the respondents believe in Universalism, or the erroneous belief that everybody goes to heaven.

According to the Pew Forum, nearly 80% of the U. S. adult population claims to be Christian, but only 17% affirm the Protestant doctrine of faith alone in Christ alone. The message to us evangelical Protestants is: America is a mission field. Let's proclaim the gospel. The message to the church: Let's make disciples.

Infinite Condescension

2008-12-23T22:18:00.002-06:00

The humble circumstances of the birth of Jesus Christ (relative to, say, an earthly king's baby being born in the royal trappings of a palacial estate) offer a veiled glimpse to our human perception of the magnitude of our Lord's voluntary descent. The extent to which He emptied Himself (Phil 2: 7) when He added a perfect human nature to His eternal divinity and became the Babe Who would be born of a virgin in the manger in Bethlehem is a scale of measureless length.

This fathomless step by the the sovereign Creator, Who is without beginning or end (Heb 7:3), subsisting in His very essence as God (Phil 2:6), was only a first step when He became flesh (John 1:14).

As Paul describes in Philippians 2: 8, the voluntary obedience of God the Son to God the Father continued as He "became obedient unto death, even the death of a cross."

The extent of the humility He endured and the lengths He covered to save us from our sins are a sobering reminder of how desperate and helpless was our plight.

As Charles Wesley wrote,

Light and life to all He brings, Risen with healing in His wings. Mild He lays His glory by, Born that man no more may die, Born to raise the sons of earth, Born to give them second birth.

For those who believe in Him, every day is a joyful Christmas indeed.

It was Supposed to be a Walk in the Park

2008-11-29T17:23:00.006-06:00

"True religion is not a series of guesses at truth..." -C.H. Spurgeon, as quoted by Phil Johnson in an excerpt posted at Pyromaniacs.

In Essentials Unity

2008-11-23T14:03:00.005-06:00

After a meeting that won't be confused with Wittenberg, It appears the Evangelical Theological Society has decided not to amend their doctrinal basis or include some recommended minimal propositional statements to sufficiently define the group as...well,...evangelical.

Such appears to be the state of a significant portion of evangelicalism today, or at least of many who want the label but don't always want to sign on to the essential doctrines. No doubt many members will offer divergent and varied rationales for their respective votes against an amendment which would have required a super-majority to pass, but ultimately failed to come close to even 50% in favor. Likely many nay-voters agree with the doctrinal points made in the amendment offered but for one reason or another don't want to require assent for membership purposes.

It's disappointing. These were not points that would have separated Calvinists from Arminians, charismatics from non-charismatics, premils from amils, or credo-baptists from paedo-baptists. They were just some basic statements affirming a basic definition of the gospel, and also clarifying what Evangelicals mean when they refer to the Bible (no, it does not include the book of Tobit). And they defined the authority of Scripture (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) as exceeding that of any earthly ecclesiastical leader or organization.

In voting down the amendment, the ETS lost an opportunity to affirm the truth with clarity.

Various Opinions. One Truth.

2008-11-09T18:12:00.003-06:00

The so-called "epistemological humility" of the postmodern herd seeks to renegotiate the unalterable truths delivered once and for all to the elect. Today at Phil Johnson's blog he posts a reminder from a famous 19th-century preacher that truth is not on the negotiating table.

People are free to believe what they want (I'm referring here to rights, not the subject of predestination). They are free to believe, or claim to believe, nothing if they want. They are free to be tossed to and fro by every new religious fad that erupts and to live their lives in a clueless haze. They can stick their fingers in their ears and sing "nanananana-I can't hear you-nanananana..." every time a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ tries to tell them the truth.

But the truth is the truth, and it does not become altered based on whether or not one believes it. It is not created through deliberation and not subject to committee vote. It does not change because the culture changes or because times change.

Even if no human on earth believed it, the truth would still be the truth. And anything other than the truth would still be untrue. And every human would still be accountable for the truth. Accountable to Jesus Christ, Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The truth of the gospel can be discovered and understood, but it can't be re-engineered, although people can delude themselves into thinking they can remake it.

Believe it or not.

Who Says?

2008-07-03T12:04:00.005-06:00

A LifeWay Research study of 2500 Protestant adults may have a different take on how many evangelicals adhere to the soteriological exclusivism of Christianity than does the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey.

While the surveys are far from identitical in structure and format, in many ways the differences appear to help clarify the data. For example, rather than categorize an evangelical as self-designated, the LifeWay study requires the subject to agree with minimal evangelical essential doctrines in order to be classified as such. In addition, the LifeWay study focuses on those who attend church at least once a month. So while the Pew study indicates 57% of those who fancy themselves as evangelicals also hold to the erroneous notion that many religions can lead to eternal life, the LifeWay results show that 80% of evangelicals reject the idea that eternal life can be obtained through religions other than Christianity-- when the evangelical category is defined by meeting essential beliefs common to the evangelical community. And again, the LifeWay results are confined to those who attend church at least minimally.

One conclusion that might be drawn from a comparison of the two studies is a lot of folks who think they are evangelicals don't understand what an evangelical is. Another is that both the Pew and LifeWay reports highlight recent weaknesses in evangelicalism in the area of teaching sound essential doctrine to the flock under the care of evangelical leaders, pastors, and teachers.

In 1 Timothy 3: 15 the apostle Paul describes the church as the household of God and the pillar and support of the truth. This is both a tremendous blessing and sobering responsibility.

Surprised?

2008-06-28T15:40:00.006-06:00

26% of a recent survey sample of 35,000 Americans identified themselves as Evangelicals according to the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion and Public Life U.S. Religious Landscape Survey . Of these, a surprising 57% felt that "many religions can lead to eternal life."

On the other hand, it is not so surprising. And while the survey results should be interpreted as a warning siren to pastors and teachers in evangelical circles concerning the degree to which the flock apprehends essential doctrine, there also appears to be some conclusive weaknesses in applying these numbers to the typical evangelical as held in the perception of most Americans.

For example, we think of an evangelical as one who attends church regularly, yet according to the survey, only 58% of those who said they were evangelicals claimed to attend church at least once a week. It would be interesting to know how the regular attenders would respond to the "many religions" question.

Also, according to the survey, 88% of evangelicals agree that the Bible is God's word. I'm not exactly sure why the other 12% identify themselves as evangelicals, but such are the strange tendencies of humankind at times. So it is entirely possible that some of those responding to the question of whether many religions can lead to eternal life mentally replaced the term "religions" with "denominations" when considering their answer. If 88% agree that the Bible is God's word, it would be expected that a similar number would agree with Jesus' statement in John 14:6:

"...'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.' "

Likewise, the 88% should concur with Peter's statement in Acts 4:12 when he referred to Jesus by saying:

" Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

At least if the question were posed this way, it would remove the ambiguity. Still, the results show that there is lots of opportunity to proclaim the gospel, both within the Professing Church and outside it.

There were a number of other interesting things in the report. It seems 21% of atheists believe in God. Huh? But I thought...oh, and in a similar vein, 12% of atheists believe in heaven and 10% believe in hell, according to the report. Hmmm...in fact, per the report, 8% of atheists are absolutely certain they believe in God, while 18% of agnostics undermine their nomenclature by being absolutely certain of their belief in God. And while the 18% of agnostics who pray weekly or more can be understood to be perhaps attempting to cover all their bases, I'm not sure why 10% of atheists pray at least once a week.

Well, we have church tomorrow, so if you're an evangelical, be there and improve on that 58%. Hey, you atheists are invited too.

Manifestly Insufficient

2008-05-17T11:59:00.004-06:00

Albert Mohler won't sign it. I have to agree with him. The Evangelical Manifesto has much to applaud, some points to disagree with, and raises perhaps as many questions by what it doesn't say as it does by what it says. Curiously, it seems more comfortable with unequivocal propositional statements about culture than about theology or doctrine, and thus has very little of the latter. This alone causes its attempt to define an evangelical to fall short. The document, which doesn't fill 20 pages (and I'm not criticizing the length) comes with a shorter summary and a longer study guide. The study guide makes a little more obvious the agenda behind the document.

Why does a paper this short even need a study guide? Is it because in the study guide we see that an evangelical is not really being defined by this effort, but instead we see an attempt to coax a redefinition of the term?

For example, in the study guide, Session 1 (six sessions are prescribed), Part 1, question #5 it asserts that while Jesus was Bible-believing,"it was nowhere near the heart of the good news he announced." Wrong. We could spend six sessions covering how many ways that statement is filled with error and still not cover them all. And if that declaration represents the way in which An Evangelical Manifesto wants to redefine evangelicalism, then it misses manifestly.

In the Reformation of Our Behavior section of the study guide, Session 4, Part 2, Discussion question #5, the centrality of the cross is compared with concern about the creation. The reader is asked whether there is "... equally rich teaching...(in concern about) creativity and the arts, or about a proper care for...earth and our fellow creatures on the earth?"As my wife often asks, "Are You Serious"? Are they really comparing the cross to the arts? As for the environment, while we should be good stewards of it, concern about one's carbon footprint in no way compares to the importance of the gospel message of the cross. Here, the study guide suffers a huge miss in the attempt to define an evangelical.

On the one hand, the study guide incorrectly asserts that the veracity of Scripture is not central to the gospel message, on the other, it erroneously equates stewardship of the arts and the environment with the centrality of the cross in the gospel message.

There has been quite a bit written already about the manifesto itself, and as more folks read the sub-manifesto in the study guide I think there is going to be even more blogging from various sources about its content.

I Have a Bit of a Problem With That

2007-12-22T12:49:00.000-06:00

In a Christian Post article on Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention, Audrey Barrick points out that a LifeWay Research study indicates Baptists are becoming increasingly TULIP oriented. Being a Southern Baptist and one who affirms the five points of the Doctrines of Grace, I'm happy to have the company.

I'm also happy to see the Convention's amicable view toward those of us who agree with the soteriology of one of the greatest Baptist preachers and evangelists of history, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

But I must respectfully disagree with a comment from Convention President Frank Page quoted in a paragraph of the article:

Promoting former SBC president Paige Patterson's practical suggestion, Page said, "When pastor search committees approach pastors and seminary graduates about possible positions, they need to be very honest with these individuals about what they will allow regarding teaching in this area."

Pastor Page said as much here. It is certainly important for a pastor search committee to determine the doctrinal position of prospective occupants of the pulpit. And questions on the Calvinism/Arminianism issue are appropriate, whichever view the particular church hiring the pastor takes (my guess is that most Southern Baptist churches don't take a particular view one way or the other. Unfortunately, most Southern Baptist pastor search committees probably also don't ask many questions about a potential pastor's doctrine, in this area or others).

It's that part about "what they will allow regarding teaching in this area" that I have a problem with. It's not the job of the search committee to "allow" teaching that is part of a family debate within the bounds of orthodox Christian belief. If they hire (or recommend) a pastor who has answered their interview questions honestly and forthrightly, then they must accept what he chooses to preach and teach concerning Calvinism/Arminianism, and in other areas (such as eschatology), as long as he is not teaching heresy or error and as long as he has not, since being hired, changed his position on a view particularly important to the church. You don't get to say, "We're going to hire you even though you're a Calvinist, but you can't preach Calvinism." What, does he take a month off when you get to John chapter 6 or Romans 9, etc, etc?

But I'm glad Pastor Page is open for dialogue on the issue.

Born. Of a virgin.

2007-12-16T17:55:00.000-06:00

It is no accident that imbedded in many, if not most, heresies concerning the Person and Nature of Jesus Christ is a denial of the doctrine of the virgin birth. Isaiah the prophet foretold "...a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son..."(7: 14). Matthew reminds us of the prophet's words (1:23) and and devotes considerable space in his gospel narrative to describing their literal fulfillment. Luke also carefully relates that Christ was born of a virgin, a miraculous fact also affirmed in the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. It is upheld by the church fathers, among them Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Athanasius. It is the proclamation of the Church. It is Christian doctrine. It is the truth.

The fact that Jesus, after approximately nine months' gestation, was born the way all babies are born indicates His Humanity. The fact His mother was still a virgin at His birth indicates He is the Eternal God, the I Am of Exodus 3: 14 and John 8: 24 and 8: 58, the Creator of the universe. Unlike other babies, the Son of God did not begin to exist at conception, but has existed for all eternity with the Father (John 1:1, 18; Philippians 2:6).

He went to considerable effort just to come and talk to us. And that was only the beginning.

How About Absolute Certainty?

2007-12-08T11:03:00.000-06:00

Now, I figure that one of the last things any visitor--as if this blog had any visitors-- wants to read at a blog on which the author hasn't posted in a good while is a post about the fact that the author hasn't posted in a while; and since I have already conceded an entire sentence to that topic (which I insist on limiting to one sentence, regardless of how many clauses and commas it takes), I'm going to leave it at that.

I have some comments about this post by Phil Johnson of Pyromaniacs fame. Mr. Johnson notes the postmodern tendency to make equivocating statements even about those propositional truths being affirmed by the source. Specifically, Mr. Johnson takes issue with the fact that many who identify with the Emerging Church, or Emerging Conversation, etc. decry absolute certainty (or "Excessive Confidence") about any doctrine.

Phil is correct in his assertion that adherents to the Emerging "dialogue" (which is in reality a mere monologue being restated from various sources) are predisposed to extol doctrinal uncertainty as a virtue. Ambiguity means magnanimity in the Land of Emergents, where one is free to join the "conversation" as long as one doesn't claim to know anything.

Even the adjective "excessive" as applied to to being firmly rooted ("excessive confidence", "excessive certainty") indicates the postmodern failure to grasp the kinetic relationship of truth, faith and practice. "Excessive certainty" seems a non sequitur; one is either certain or uncertain. Can certainty be quantified? What does adding the inflammatory adjective do to enhance the "Conversation?" And what is "missional" about cutting into the base of the sapling with the serrated edge of doubt?

If Christians don't have the truth, then we might as well sleep in on Sunday morning. See 1 Corinthians 15: 12-19. Thankfully, we do have the truth. See verses 20-26. Let's proclaim it with certainty.

One Reason Not to Write Them in Longhand

2007-09-06T10:57:00.000-06:00

Yeah, It Has Been Awhile

2007-07-21T16:10:00.000-06:00

Kingdom Promise

2007-03-18T16:41:00.000-06:00

In Acts 1:6, The disciples ask Jesus,

...Lord, wilt Thou it at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

In His response, Jesus tells them that it is not for them to know the times or the seasons. He does not correct their eschatological viewpoint or say that all those previous kingdom prophecies and teachings were only meant in a metaphorical and spiritual sense. So after three years of being taught by Him, they still expect an earthly kingdom, and even though He is getting ready to ascend to the Father and they are to establish the Church (and indeed, Christianity itself) and be the authorities on doctrine and practice, He does not insist that their eschatological hermenautic is too literal.

Wonder why that is? I think the reason is that, while the disciples may have been clueless about the time frame ( and indeed, we still don't know the times or seasons), they were correct in their expectation of an eventual earthly kingdom.

This was after the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24 and 25, so they obviously did not read into that text, as so many partial preterists and amillennialists do, the absence of an earthly kingdom. For more comments on Matthew 24, see here, here, and here.

Perhaps the disciples anticipated an earthly kingdom because of the words of Jesus to them in Matthew 19: 28:

Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

It is apparent that the disciples saw this as a literal prophecy, because in Matthew 20: 20-23 James, John and their mother have a conversation with Jesus in which she requests that the two brothers be granted the honor of being seated at the right hand and left hand of Jesus in His kingdom. Jesus does not correct their interpretation or insist that they misunderstood Him. Rather, He says the privilege they requested is "...for whom it is prepared of My Father."

So what do we make of the fact that Jesus taught about a future earthly kingdom and the disciples expected one? Looks like premillennialism to me.

Help Me Help You Help Me Understand

2007-03-14T09:59:00.000-06:00

Well, it seems an intense discussion (yea, a verbal firestorm of sorts) has been roaring through (okay, maybe just crackling through) a few of the blogs I frequent. One of my favorite expositors, John MacArthur, recently expressed the opinion that he felt a premillennial eschatology was more consistent with reform soteriology than an amillennial view.

I have long agreed that if 5-point Calvinists would apply the same earnest diligent hermeneutic to their study of the prophetic Scriptures that they apply to those passages which deal with soteriology, they'd be premillers instead of amillers.

By the way, when I refer to the amillennial eschatological view, I include the postmillennial viewpoint in that category. I don't see much difference in the two perspectives, since both camps believe the millennial reign of Christ described in Revelation 20:4 is a description of the church age prior to the Second Coming, and many in the postmillennial group, like the amillennialists, reject a literal 1000-year time frame as the duration of the age described. One might argue that the posties are more optimistic about the way things are headed than some of the amillennialists regarding the conclusion of the church age, but I still think that divergence is a sub-category within the same general doctrinal eschatological construct. Sorry, what I mean to say is, I think they still hold the same general view and get there using the same general interpretive principals.

Now, there are all sorts of rationales and explanations given why the amillennialists don't accept that the words of Revelation 20:4 actually mean what the words of Revelation 20:4 say, or why a thousand years would not mean a thousand years, even though it is repeated 6 times in verses 2-7 of chapter 20. Seems to me that the apostle John really wants the reader to get the fact that the duration he is referring to is a thousand years. The rationales of the dissenters vary some from one amiller to the next, but generally rely on terms like "allegory", "prophetic language", etc. I dealt with some of these general issues in my former blog here and here.

I think the real challenge one should consider in reading this passage is, unless one brings a pre-established eschatological view with them when reading it, there is nothing there which compels the described thousand-year post-Second Coming reign of Christ to be taken any way but in the literal sense. There is nothing difficult about interpreting the narrative in the way it describes future events. There is no difficulty in understanding the plain meaning of the narrative and the context does not insist on resorting to allegory to understand it.

Also, there is a precedent concerning previous prophetic time-frames in Scripture which appear to have a literal meaning. Seven days in Genesis 7: 4 meant seven days. Three days in Genesis 40: 12-13 meant three days. Seven years in Genesis 41: 26-30 meant seven years. Forty years in Numbers 14: 33-34 meant forty years. Seventy years in Jeremiah 25:11-12 meant seventy years. Three days in Mark 10: 31 meant three days. There are more examples, but I think the point is made that an appeal to "prophetic language" does not automatically exempt one from accepting a time frame specifically defined in a Biblical prophecy. The only reason amillennialists are forced to impose a nonliteral interpretaion on the thousand-year reference is because the Church Age has already extended more than a thousand years and they have to reconcile that fact with the eschatological view they have settled on.

Having said all this, the issue is not one to divide over. Orthodox evangelicals can agree to disagree on the premill/amill issue. But we premillers do need to continue to make our case without apology to our amillennial brothers and sisters. After all, our eschatological hermeneutic should be consistent with the way we interpret the rest of Scripture.

Here a Blog, There a Blog...

2007-02-10T19:45:00.000-06:00

So this is beta. Hello again to the very few regular readers of my former blog, the number of which didn't require a site meter to calculate; the accounting capacity of the digits on one hand were sufficient, with fingers to spare, I think. My Dear Wifely, on the other hand, gets a little more traffic at her blog and suggested that maybe if I post more often than 16 times in 14 months I'll pick up another reader or two. After a little primary research on my part, I have concluded that, in fact, there are 18 posts on my former blog in that time frame, which averages 1.29 posts per month, give or take. Okay, so maybe I could post a little more often.

My Dear Wifely started her blog at almost the same time I started mine (actually, a little bit after mine) and has been fairly prolific in her number of posts; I don't know that I'm ever going to match her frequency of posting. But maybe I will blog a little more often...maybe.

I know she'll be reading, anyway...