gay marriage

In the wake of recent elections regarding homosexual marriage, Michael Wittmer asks:

1. What is our new and improved definition of marriage? If marriage is no longer a covenant between one man and one woman, then what is it?
2. What is the source of this new definition? It doesn’t come from the scriptures or tradition of any world religion. It doesn’t come from natural law (as most junior high boys could tell you, the possibility of gay penguins does not overturn the basic facts of biology). Are we grounding our new definition in social convention? If so, is that a suitable foundation, or have we just taken a giant leap down the slippery slope? If our definition of marriage is grounded in something as ephemeral as social norms, what happens when these social norms change?
3. While it is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals in most employment opportunities, the majority of our churches and religious organizations are constrained by the Word of God to not hire unrepentant, practicing homosexuals. Are we committed to provide an exception to these groups?

I continue to read and be saddened by the church's embrace of the homosexual agenda. To Wittmer's thrid point, we ought not discriminate but to embrace the legitimatizing of a sin is unconscionable. Listen to Tony Jone's infamous claim:

GLBTQ can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.

What!?!?! Because we sin we should stop calling it sin for one group engaged in a specific sin. Even worse, we should bless it?!? It's interesting that many who embrace this kind of thinking also reject the atonement. Many well meaning brothers and sisters are sympathetic to the homosexual agenda but it is because they fail to grasp our fallenness and that redemption comes through the cross. They see any confrontation of sin as condemning as opposed to the Biblical reality that it is the beginning of freedom.

Paul tells us to flee specifically from sexual immorality because we were bought with a price (1 Cor 6.18-20). Does that make other forms of sin ok? Absolutely not. But there is particular attention paid to sexual sin. Those caught in and supporting these perversions do so because they suppress the truth (Rom 1.18-32). They do not honor God. They claim to be wise but instead they are foolish. And God gives them over to their impurity. Rather than seeing God for who He truly is and confronting our need for forgiveness of sin, they fail to acknowledge Him and become all the more debased.

What really angers me is that they become deceived such that, as Jones, they think confronting sin is hateful and condoning it is loving. This is the opposite of the God of the Bible who loves man, confronts his sin, and sets him free from it by His grace.

Technorati Tags: homosexuality

people in hell

Don Carson on "How can God be loving and yet send people to hell?"

How can God be loving yet send people to hell? from A Passion for Life on Vimeo.

worldliness

"Being dead to the world means that every legitimate pleasure in the world becomes a blood-bought evidence of Christ's love and an occasion of boasting in the cross. When our hearts run back along the beam of blessing to the source in the cross, then the worldliness of the blessing is dead, and Christ crucified is everything." ~ John Piper, Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die

walls

Michael Wittmer:

Postmodern innovators seek to break down the walls between Christians and non-Christians and emphasize our common journey with God. Machen agreed that “The Christian man can accept all that the modern liberal means by the brotherhood of man. But the Christian knows also of a relationship far more intimate than that general relationship of man to man, and it is for this more intimate relationship that he reserves the term ‘brother.’ The true brotherhood, according to Christian teaching, is the brotherhood of the redeemed.”

I see this. I see that in our love for right belief and our requirement to confront error, we have too often neglected that real people are involved. And these real people are in need of grace just as we are.

My issue is that the postmodern, in an attempt to be inclusive, misses that ultimately Christianity comes with a prerequisite not shared by all.

christian experience

“Spiritual experience that does not arise from God’s word is not Christian experience. . . . Not all that passes for Christian experience is genuine. An authentic experience of the Spirit is an experience in response to the gospel. Through the Spirit the truth touches our hearts, and that truth moves our emotions and effects our wills.” - Tim Chester and Steve Timmis, Total Church

HT:FE

how do you respond

I like this from Matt Dabbs ...

How do we respond when the truth about our lives is fully revealed? Do we embrace it or do we kick, scream and fight against it?

Read how Jesus "gets testy" ...

the liberal cross

Michael Wittmer:

Some postmodern innovators object to the traditional understanding of the cross: Why does God demand the sacrifice of his innocent Son to satisfy his wrath? Machen noted that modern liberals raised the same issue. He wrote: “Modern liberal teachers…speak with horror of the doctrine of an ‘alienated’ or an ‘angry’ God,” for this implies that God is “waiting coldly until a price be paid before He grants salvation.” Liberals deny that “one person” may “suffer for the sins of another,” and “persist in speaking of the sacrifice of Christ as though it were a sacrifice made by some other than God.” They insist that a loving God would forgive without penalty.

This relates back to an earlier Wittmer quote and is reinforced as one postmodern writes;

I have looked at virtually the entire spectrum of reformed theology. From my perspective, the problem stems from our historical understanding of the Garden and the nature of the problem. As we rethink the the nature of the problem, our understanding of the solutions (specifically the cross) will radically change.

The bottom-line is that many postmoderns prefer to see man as broken rather than as sinners. On that basis many then fail to see the need of all that was accomplished on the cross. They do a great job of seeing elements of Christ's work that are often missed by others but they do so at the cost of rejecting ultimate life saving truths.

I have not read much of Scott McKnight but the few quotes I've seen seem balanced. McKnight of course is right leaning in comparison to most other key Emergent voices.

As Tony Jones clearly states contrary to Scripture:

Some people today may find it compelling that some Great Cosmic Transaction took place on that day 1,980 years ago, that God's wrath burned against his son instead of against me. I find that version of atonement theory neither intellectually compelling, spiritually compelling, nor in keeping with the biblical narrative.

Instead, Jesus death offers life because in Christianity, and in Christianity alone, the God and Creator of the universe deigned to become human, to be tempted, to reach out to those who had been de-humanized and restore their humanity, and ultimately to die in solidarity with every one of us. Yes, he was a sacrifice. Yes, he was "sinless." But thank God, Jesus was also human.

The hope he offers is that, by dying on that cross, the eternal Trinity became forever bound to my humanity. The God of the universe identified with me, and I have the opportunity to identify with him.

This sounds attractive but ignores the basic doctrines of the cross.

Technorati Tags: Emerging Church

more sola scriptura

R.C. Sproul on Sola Scriptura ...

Sola Scriptura, like the Scriptures themselves, recognizes that God has gifted the church with teachers and pastors. It recognizes that the church has progressed and reached consensus on critical issues in and through the ancient ecumenical creeds. It affirms with vigor that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. But it also affirms that even these giants have feet of clay. And there is where the Bible does in the end teach sola Scriptura.

A couple of other references here and here in contrast to the typical postmodern innovator approach of negating something before properly understanding and then replacing it with some fluffy sounding misdirection to ultimately undermine truth.

One emergent puts it this way:

The end of Sola Scriptura actually means that we are coming to terms with our limitations to get it right. It means we’re realizing that we have to listen to community, science, imagination, history AND the Bible to create a more robust picture. Because as broken human beings we sometimes get it wrong.

So because we fail in some of our understanding, we will deny the Scripture is our final authority? The pretense is that we fail. So what confidence should we have in our understanding of these other things? And how does undermining the authority of Scripture address our problem with understanding?

But this emergent goes further:

The final subject in the turn away will be how we address homosexuality in the church. [Phyllis Tickle] reiterated that it’s not if Sola Scriptura ends but when. ...

And now we see what's really behind this. If we can undermine the authority of Scripture, we can substitute our works based thinking and false definition of love and God Himself in place of God's standard. Interestingly, the sin the emergent embraces is the lust Paul tells us God gave man over to as man "suppressed the truth" (Rom 1.18-32). So in this context, as man rebells against God and embraces his own lusts, yes, Sola Scriptura ends.

Furthering his error, this emergent writes:

Tickle talked about the faulty logic of Luther’s choice for Sola Scriptura and the inevitable consequences of it but she mentioned something today that really caught everyone’s attention. She went extensively into the concept of division and how Sola Scriptura is naturally bent towards division, which is eventually a recipe for chaos and unending conflict.

Again, correct, if we throw out a final authority and allow anything, we can have what appears to be unity. But that in the end will fail. If we hold up truth, yes, there will in fact be division (e.g., the sheep and the goats) but not chaos and unending conflict.

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths" (2 Timothy 4:3-4). I guess the post modern innovator is right in terms of what is happening in practice. He just doesn't realize it is happening to him.

Technorati Tags: Emerging Church, Scripture

god loves gays

"God loves gays." What does a person mean when they say that?

Some mean God loves them as He loves anyone? Yes ... while that could use more fleshing out I'd say, "yeah sure". He loved me even when I was a rebel sinner. He even suffered and died so that I might die with Him. And He rose so that I might live again in Him. Amazing love!!!

Others mean that we ought not engage in unloving activity toward homosexuals. I get that also. I'm not sure what the anti-gay bill in Uganda is all about but if Iggy's report is accurate, this is not Christ-like living. I'm not sure how to balance law in regard to many of life's moral questions (not just homosexuality) but this bill feels over the top.

Outside of these two contexts however, the other meanings/implications I've heard just don't hold up. Some mistakenly think that homosexuality is consistent with Christ-like living. It's not ... a few months ago Kevin DeYoung wrote a kind and concise post regarding the Biblical position. Homosexuality in practice is sin.

In the mind of the postmodern innovator who can skip over belief to living, "God loves gay" equates to "God doesn't see homosexuality as sin which in turn leads to separation from Him." Because right belief isn't needed, right living can be defined anyway the innovator wants. And what they want is to cull the sin of homosexuality out from others, treat it as special, and confront anyone who addresses it head on as a homophobe who treats homosexuality as different - ironic isn't it?

Dan Phillips wrote yesterday (based on the precept that only those born of God can truly love - 1 John 3:10-18; 4:7, 16, 19; 5:1-2; 2 John 6) that homosexuals cannot love. I thought this was a great post because Phillips was careful to define love and to note that this inability to love properly is not isolated to homosexuality. Anyone who does not submit to Jesus as Lord has this same problem.

Today DeYoung wrote A Status Confessionis Issue. Here are some key excepts (ok, pretty near the whole thing - emphasis mine):

The phrase status confessionis ... means that a particular doctrine is essential to who we are as a church ... it means this is a make or break issue ... it means that the church will not tolerate others views on this matter ... it means that this is not an indifferent matter or one on which we can agree to disagree ... it means that if we are to be faithful in confessing the gospel we must confess this.

Homosexuality is a status confessionis issue. If we tolerate the doctrine that says homosexual behavior is a gift from God, we have tolerated too much. We must confess, always with love and graciousness, that homosexual behavior is a sin and we must not allow our churches, our ministers, our schools, or our professors to say otherwise.

The quick reply to this last paragraph will be, “Hold on just a minute. Why are we singling out one sin and making it a litmus test for our denomination? This is an important issue, but not as weighty as the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the resurrection. Those are the kinds of issues that are status confessionis, not acts that some people claim are sinful.” This line of reasoning sounds plausible, but it’s not exactly true. In adopting the Belhar Confession ... the RCA is saying that the specific sin of racism is a status confessionis issue. ... In the 1980s, the RCA broke off ecumenical relations with the Dutch church in South Africa because of apartheid, effectively communicating “No matter how great your sermons may be and how wonderful your doctrines of grace, if you are a racist, you have not understood the gospel.” The same is true of homosexuality. No matter how many other things we may hold in common, if you affirm homosexual behavior, you have not understood the gospel. This is one issue on which we must not compromise. We cannot agree to disagree. We cannot hold hands together in mission.

Those last few sentences may sound too strong. A bit over the top. Maybe we should allow for different interpretations on this issue, you think to yourself. Maybe we are making too big a deal out of this. Maybe this isn’t a make or break status confessionis kind of issue. But consider:

• Homosexual behavior is repeatedly and clearly forbidden in Scripture. The order of creation informs us that God’s plan for sexuality is one woman and one man (Genesis 2). This order is reaffirmed by Jesus (Matthew 19) and Paul (Ephesians 5). The Old Testament law forbade homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18, 20). Paul reiterates this prohibition by using the same Greek construction in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1. Paul condemns same sex behavior (among many other sins) in Romans 1. Jude in his epistle links sexual immorality and the “unnatural desire” present in Sodom and Gomorrah.
• Our confessions speak against the sin of homosexuality. “We are temples of the Holy Spirit, body and soul, and God wants both to be kept clean and Holy,” Heidelberg Catechism Answer 109 states. “That is why [God] forbids everything which incites unchastity, whether it be actions, looks, talk, thoughts or desires.” 1 Cor. 6:18-20, where homosexual behavior is listed as a sin, is cited as a Scripture proof. Likewise, Q/A 87 quotes from 1 Cor. 6 to the effect that no unrepentant sinner is going to inherit the kingdom of God. Unrepentant sin is no light thing. Moreover, Belgic Confession Article 29 says in connection with the marks of the true church, “As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or the left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.” Christians are not expected to be perfect. But as the Spirit works in us, we will be marked by fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, including sexual sin and ethical righteousness.
• If 1 Corinthians 6 is true, unrepentant homosexuals (along with unrepentant thieves, drunkards, idolaters, adulterers, revilers, swindlers, and those who are unrepentantly greedy) will not inherit the kingdom of God. Heaven and hell literally hang in the balance. Of course, homosexuality isn’t the only sin out there. But no one else that I know of in our denomination is advocating idolatry, drunkenness, or stealing. Yet, many are advocating homosexuality. It is not an overstatement to say that such advocacy is in danger of leading people to hell. This isn’t because homosexuals are worse sinners than all the rest, but because unless we turn from our sin and fight against it in faith–with victories and defeats to be sure–we will face God’s wrath. By tolerating the doctrine which affirms homosexual behavior, we are tolerating a doctrine which leads people farther from God, not closer. This is not the mission Jesus gave us when he told us to teach the nations all that he has commanded.
• For 99% of church history, Christians have said unequivocally that homosexual behavior is immoral. No one had to write a confession about it, because it was an implied status confessionis. No church would have tolerated a difference of opinion, let alone practice, on this issue.
• The overwhelming majority of our brothers and sisters in the two-thirds world understand that homosexuality is a sin. Further, they understand, as African leaders in the Anglican church could testify, that this is not an agree to disagree kind of issue. We can love those who disagree. But we do not hold hands in mission and dialogue ad nauseum. We call homosexual advocates to repent much like we call perpetrators of racism to repent.
• If we tolerate homosexual behavior and advocacy in our denomination, we undercut the efforts of men and women in our congregations who struggle–in faith and repentance–to overcome same gender attraction. Affirming homosexuality denies the grace of God to change sinners and our most entrenched and confusing desires (1 Cor. 6:11).

Technorati Tags: homosexuality

god's will(s)

For those of you who struggle with predestination, this won't help ...

• Jeremiah 25 - God sent Babylon to punish Juda, but God also punished Babylon for acting wickedly against God's people ...
• Acts 2.23 - God planned the death of His son and yet those who killed Christ were called lawless men ...

Divine sovereignty and human responsibility ... I have no issue with the two together. God is sovereign, He works all things to His glory, and He is not the author of sin.

the difference

I love David Rudd's post today on The Difference Between Christianity and Every Other Religion. Again, I find this timely as I wrestle with the postmodern works oriented response to the perceived evangelical belief-only position. Here is Rudd's post in its entirety ...

Hebrews 9:26 says: "But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

Three words in the middle of that verse define the distinction between Christianity and every other religion in the world.

ONCE FOR ALL.

Virtually every world religion shares one fundamental similarity. At the heart of the religion is instruction for achieving "eternal life", or whatever else might be the ultimate goal of the religion (eg. Nirvana, Heaven, etc.). Another way to say this is to say that the majority of religions tell you what you need to do. I think this concept of religion resonates with most people.

Let me provide a few examples.

Buddhism is built on a process of holding to or believing four noble truths. The fourth of these noble truths instructs Buddhists to follow the eight-fold path, which is a list of eight activities designed to help the Buddhist gain liberation from attachment and suffering. Following the eight-fold path means doing the following:

- Right View
- Right Intention
- Right Speech
- Right Action
- Right Livelihood
- Right Effort
- Right Mindfulness
- Right Concentration

According to the Buddha, apart from doing these things, one cannot hope to rid himself or herself of attachment or suffering, and has no hope of reaching nirvana.

Islam is a religion which many consider in the same family as Christianity. Muslims find their roots in Abraham's family tree (albeit their branch is Ishmael, not Jacob). Muslims are monotheistic, a trait they share with Judaism and Christianity (and maybe some "Christian-like" cult groups).

The core of the Islamic ethic is rooted in the Five Pillars of Islam. These five activities are the core of the Muslim's hope to one day find their way into the heaven of Allah:

- The shahada -- a confession that there is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet
- Ritual prayer, five times a day
- The giving of alms to aid the poor and further the advance of Islam around the world
- Fasting during the month of Ramadan
- A pilgrimage to Mecca (those who are physically unable or cannot afford a pilgrimage are exempted)

(I've listed here the Sunni Muslim pillars. Other branches of Islam have slightly different but essentially similar pillars)

As with the Buddhist, performing these duties is essential for the Muslim if he hopes for a "good ending" in the after-life.

Most people assume (understandably so, due to the obvious emphasis of nearly every world religion) that our destiny in the afterlife is directly tied to what we DO in this life. Many people even assume that this is the perspective of Christianity, that our adherence to the rules in the Bible affects our ability to make it into heaven.

This is the misunderstanding that Hebrews 9:26 corrects.

First, let me point out what some might view as the ethical foundation of Christianity. Many people would view the eight-fold path and the five pillars as parallel lists to the ten commandments of Judaism and Christianity, or the three commandments of Jesus in the new testament (Love God, Love your neighbor, Love one another). However, the Bible is CRYSTAL CLEAR that someone who adheres to the ten commandments and/or the three commandments all their life will NOT earn their way into heaven.

The message of Christianity is that no to-do list of good deeds will ever be sufficient to eradicate the sin that separates us from God (if this post wasn't getting too long already, I'd discuss how our first three years of life and college put us so far behind on the good deed-bad deed ledger that we can never hope to catch up).

If you'll notice in this verse, Jesus does ALL the work. Nothing is left to us. While other verses explicitly discuss our weaknesses, this verse clearly implies our inability to be right with God on our own.

Instead, we rely on the fact that Jesus has already accomplished the necessary work to make us right with God. We only need to rely on His work on our behalf. His sacrifice was ONCE. It requires no on-going work on our part, it requires no repetition, it requires nothing in the future. It was a one-time historical event that eradicated the penalty of sin for all who believe. His sacrifice was for ALL. We can understand this to mean that his sacrifice was good for all people of all races, tribes, creeds, etc. We can also understand this to mean that his sacrifice was good for all time, it left nothing undone that needed to be done.

According to the Bible (Hebrews 9:26 particularly), my eternal destiny is completely dependent on ONE past historical event. My ability or inability to follow a list of rules or an ethical code has no impact on my standing with God. phew!

It boils down to this:

- Religions require an ongoing process of deeds as the only way to be purified from wrongdoing.
- Christianity recognizes one righteous act by God was sufficient to put away sin.

How do you respond to this truth?

- For some, this brings great relief as they willingly place their reliance in Christ's work
- For some, this brings confusion as it conflicts with life-long deeply held notions about religion, God, and Christianity
- For some, this brings frustration as they still cling to the idea that they are good enough on their own to be okay with God and therefore they don't need someone else
- For some, this causes laughter as they simply cannot conceive of such a simple salvation

How do you respond?

PS - if you don't subscribe to Rudd's blog you should.

will of desire

Kevin DeYoung on God's will of desire ...

The will of God in this passage does not refer to the way God ordains things, but to the way God commands us to live. Walking in the will of God for the apostle John is the opposite of worldliness. Doing the will of God means we say no to the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eyes, and out pride in possessions (1 John 2:15-17).

The will of God, as His will of desire, means that we do what is pleasing in His sight (Hebrews 13:20-21).

Again, we see the will of God is shorthand for obedience to God''s commands and walking in His ways-this time from the lips of Christ Himself (Matthew 7:21).

This is the closest we come to finding the will of decree and will of desire side by side in the same verse. God has secret things known only to Him (His inscrutable purposes and sovereign will), but He also has revealed things that we are meant to know and obey (His commands and His Word) (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Technorati Tags: sovereignty

good and sin free

Michael Wittmer:

Some postmodern innovators believe that people are basically good and free from serious sin. Likewise, Machen observed that the defining belief of modernity was its “supreme confidence in human goodness.” He wrote that “according to modern liberalism, there is really no such thing as sin. At the very root of the modern liberal movement is the loss of the consciousness of sin.” This absence of sin led Machen to wryly observe that the liberal church “is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task—she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance.” Machen countered that the gospel must begin with sin, for “Without the consciousness of sin, the whole gospel will seem to be an idle tale.”

Classic stuff ... this is the same as we see today, the postmodern innovators seem more focussed on deconstructing the church than confronting rebel sinners with their need for a savior.

Technorati Tags: Emerging Church