whiplashing

I'm 50/50 (qualitatively speaking, not quantitative) on what Ken Silva claims as true. That is, I think his quotes are technically correct but he makes links and implications that I don't always see. In that, and due to his general 'tone', to me, he comes across as harsh and unhelpful. Even when I agree with his point, it takes a bit of effort to weed through the rhetoric to get to the issue he is exposing. From my vantage point, I see more harm than good.

One of the harms is that he has created a backlash. I see some who defend those Silva attacks not because they agree with the person or group but because they are driven to be a defender. While I think this is noble, I don't understand why they jettison truth along the way. Others embrace the accused because they simply do not want to be associated with the ugliness they perceive among Silva's ilk. Sadly, they haven't sorted out that truth can still be upheld in a loving way.

Coincidently, I just read Silva's QUEERMERGENT ADELE SAKLER AND EMERGENT VILLAGE while a friend of mine just did an on-line interview with Adele Sakler. In Silva's post, he rightly builds on the postmodern innovator's rejection of knowable truth. For some reason, because we cannot know all truth the postmodern has decided we cannot know any truth. Since they now suppress the truth (Rom 1.18), it is a simple step for them to embrace sin (namely homosexuality - Rom 1.26-27).

Sakler boasts about McLaren, Rollins, and others who have helped her question Scripture and thereby enable her to embrace her sin.

In 1997 I moved to Los Angeles and began living a double life as a Christian and as a gay woman. I began to read Brian McLaren and found him writing things I had felt inside but was very afraid to express outwardly to anyone. In 2002 I went to Northern Ireland to do a DTS (Discipleship Training School) with YWAM.

I met the great Peter Rollins and we developed a great friendship. His teachings and writings on postmodernism and Christianity radically shaped how I viewed my faith. I could no longer hang onto certainty with regards to interpreting scripture. (Online source)

Sakler writes more:

Evangelicals are hyper-concerned with pointing out how being queer is a sin, and that the Bible explicitly denounces homosexual acts. Trust me, I get it all firsthand. But I’m not buying the rhetoric. I disagree with what I have come to consider outmoded and out-of-context religious interpretations. (Online source)

That caused me to wonder if I am "hyper-concerned" with this but then I realized, only in reaction to the onslaught of ideas trying to pervert God's truth. I do not seek these out. I do not mention it except when I find it in the course of my normal reading. And these days it seems the attack on Biblical truth is everywhere.

Note Sakler's enlightened state. The position that homosexuality is sin is to her "rhetoric", outmoded and out-of-context religious interpretations. Wow.

But now to my friend's interview with Sakler. In fairness, I stopped 34 minutes into the 71 minute interview but I didn't sense it was going to change course. In the interview I hear my friend say some concerning things. I sense he desperately wants to model the heart of Jesus but in doing so made some off-target points.

First my friend is learning to "love people without an agenda" because "Jesus accepted me as I am". While I get the 'spirit' behind this he misses the point. Yes Jesus loved him, suffered and died for him while he was still a rebel sinner. But Jesus had a clear agenda, he did this to (among other things) redeem us from lawlessness, to purify us, and make us zealous for good works (Titus 2.14). Jesus then instructed us to do the same. That is, go love the sinner but do so with an agenda (Matt 28.19).

My friend's message is that love is unconditional but he confused unconditional love with us not having a mission, i.e., an ultimate goal. He reinforced this wrong thinking by stating that we all have "junk in our lives" and spoke at length about sin in the church which he and Sakler (1) identified as hypocrisy and (2) as justifying homosexually as consistent with Christian living.

First, yes we have sin. Even as the redeemed, we sadly still sin. But we call it that. We do not embrace it and state that it is who we are - lashing out at those that dare call it sin. My friend infers this by calling it "junk". But the homosexual is not calling homosexuality "junk". They are saying it is ok. Why my friend misses this is beyond me.

Contrary to 1 Cor 6.9-10, my friend and Sakler believe there is nothing inconsistent with "being gay and having a relationship with Jesus." Sakler states that "no one can judge me except God" and that she is "saved by grace". God has already spoken on the matter in if she were saved by grace (which is the only way for all of us), then she would see that. She would read 1 Cor 6.11 as a promise not as "outmoded and out-of-context religious interpretations" used by fundamentalists to beat up others.

Second, it's interesting that they want to say that the homosexual "Christian" deserves kindness and understanding but the Christian struggling with some other sin is "hypocritical". So are these things sin or not? And is the person in sin struggling or hypocritical?

Finally, if I'm struggling with sin, it seems they would have me embrace it rather than speak out against it. Does that make me a hypocrite? Well, that depends on my heart. If I'm honestly wrestling to overcome and simply speaking God's truth on the matter, than no, I'm not. But they don't seem to see this.

Sakler proclaims in regard to her homosexuality, "I'm great with it and fine with it ... and God embraces me ... I'm the happiest that I've ever been." She throws out the Bible as a story that has and needs to change through the generations and accepts her 'story' as the truth - the error of the postmodern (although not new at all) mind.

I could go on but it's basically more of the same. Bottom line, I get - and respect - my friend's compassion. But I'm deeply concerned with his ultimate approach to this sin. In contrast, I also just read John Starke's An Open Letter to Adele: A Response to Queermergent. I found Starke most compassionate in that he spoke kindly yet upheld truth. To speak kindly at the cost of truth is not compassion, it is fear.

Starke challenges Sakler (and McLaren and Rollins) with, "We should not base our knowledge on what we can know but what God has made known to us.

In response to Sakler saying, "There were more important things in kingdom living than where we go after we pass from this world to the next, like poverty, AIDS, the environment, etc." Starke writes:

I believe you have made an "over-correction" to the Church's neglect of these social concerns. There are "other" important things in kingdom living like poverty, AIDS, etc, but the ultimate remedy to these things is the hope that we have in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not our efforts to remedy them in this life. Just the simple truth of "what does a man gain if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?" should speak loudly to this. If we look to remedy the poor and sick without remedying their sinful condition, we have only prolonged their suffering.

I agree with him. And I love his closing challenge:

Please repent and stop what you are doing and approving of at Queermergent. Consider the consequences of your practices and your hearty approval of the practices of others. You say, "About 2.5 years ago I FINALLY came to terms with my sexuality. I found peace with myself and with God." Finding peace with God is not coming to terms with yourself and concluding what is or is not acceptable in life. Finding peace with God is only found in the Gospel - the forgiveness of our sins through the cross of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1). Please don't abandon the Gospel. The peace, reconciliation, love, and community you and others are blogging about at Queermergent can be found at local any YMCA or community center. The peace, reconciliation, love, and community you speak about is not Christian, because it is not centered around what God has done on our behalf. The hope for change from homosexuality and any sin in this life is not to (as you put it) "pray the gay away" or even making your best effort to be straight. But the hope for change is found in trusting in the power of the Gospel because it is the power of God.

I encourage my friend to continue in love but to add a balance of truth.

Technorati Tags: Emerging Church, homosexuality

marriage and christ

"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5.25)

When we befriend the world we are adulterers (James 4.4). The image of Christ and His Church as a marriage union is an important one and is reflected in human marriage. It is a mystery and has only one proper manifestation (pure, love-based, male-female, etc., Eph 4, Gen 2.24). Marriage is meant to make Christ's love for his people more visible in the world (Eph 5.32). There is only one true love and it is found in and through Christ alone.

a real view of god

“The design of every false scheme and system of religion is to depict the character of God in such a way that it is agreeable to the tastes of the carnal heart, acceptable to depraved human nature. And that can only be done by a species of misrepresentation: the ignoring of those of His prerogatives and perfections which are objectionable, and the disproportionate emphasizing of those of His attributes which appeal to their selfishness—such as His love, mercy, and long-sufferance. But let the character of God be faithfully presented as it is actually portrayed in the Scriptures—in the Old Testament as well as the New—and nine out of every ten of church-goers will frankly state that they find it impossible to love Him.” The plain fact is, dear reader, that to the present generation the Most High of Holy Writ is “the unknown God.” — A. W. Pink (1886–1952)

HT:The Bororean

the gospel

“Were I asked to focus the New Testament message in three words, my proposal would be adoption through propitiation, and I do not expect ever to meet a richer or more pregnant summary of the gospel than that.” — J.I. Packer, Knowing God

HT:OFI

god's will

Kevin DeYoung on God's will ...

• that we live holy, set-apart lives (1 Thess 4.3)
• that we always rejoice, pray, and give thanks (1 Thess 5.16-18)
• that we know God's will so that we can bear fruit and know Him better (Col 1.9)
• that we be full of the Holy Spirit (Eph 5.17-21)

Quoting Gerald Sittser in The Will of God as a Way of Life:

And what is that will [of God}? Is it some specific, secret plan God has for us and wants us to spend days, weeks, even years discovering? Not at all. Rather it consists of a sober life, living in the power of the Holy Spirit, and offering praise and gratitude to God for his goodness. Paul's main concern is about how believers conduct themselves in ordinary life.

DeYoung again:

Simply put, God's will is your growth in Christlikeness. God promises to work all things together for our good that we might be conformed to the image of His Son (Rom 8.28-29).

every day

“It’s no wonder that self-help books top the charts in Christian publishing and that counseling offices are overwhelmed. Our pride and our neglect of the gospel force us to run from seminar to seminar, book to book, counselor to counselor, always seeking but never finding some secret to holy living.

Most of us have never really understood that Christianity is not a self-help religion meant to enable moral people to become more moral. We don’t need a self-help book; we need a Savior. We don’t need to get our collective act together; we need death and resurrection and the life-transforming truths of the gospel. And we don’t need them just once, at the beginning of our Christian life; we need them every moment of every day.”

- Elyse Fitzpatrick and Dennis Johnson, Counsel from the Cross

HT:FE

which i

"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." Gal 2.20

Note, "it is no longer I who live" and "I now live". Which is it? Do I live or do I not live?

It is "I" who died and now it is a different "I" who lives (2 Cor 5.17; Eph 2.5-6). Our old self is dead (Rom 6.6) and now a new self lives. A self who can do all things prepared beforehand by the Father (Phil 4.13; Col 1.29; Rom 15.18; Eph 2.10).

Which life are you living?

life v. afterlife

Michael Wittmer:

Some postmodern innovators focus on this life rather than the afterlife. Machen said that liberals in his day believed that concern for the next life is “a form of selfishness.” Consequently, “the liberal preacher has very little to say about the other world. This world is really the centre of all his thoughts; religion itself, and even God, are made merely a means for the betterment of conditions upon this earth.”

Machen responded that we must not treat Christianity “as a mere means to a higher end. …Christianity will indeed accomplish many useful things in this world, but if it is accepted in order to accomplish those useful things it is not Christianity.” Those who seek first the kingdom of God will find that “all these things shall be added unto you. But if you seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness in order that all those other things may be added unto you, you will miss both those other things and the Kingdom of God as well.”

Machen agreed that our Christian faith must change the way we live here and now, but he insisted that “there can be no applied Christianity unless there be ‘a Christianity to apply.’ That is where the Christian man differs from the modern liberal. The liberal believes that applied Christianity is all there is of Christianity, Christianity being merely a way of life; the Christian man believes that applied Christianity is the result of an initial act of God.”

Technorati Tags: Emerging Church

extended salvation

Michael Wittmer:

The postmodern innovator favors a watered down version of inclusivism which extends salvation to those who have not believed in Christ. Machen said that liberals in his day wanted “a salvation which will save all men everywhere, whether they have heard of Jesus or not, and whatever may be the type of life to which they have been reared.” He replied that such openness would remove the offense of the gospel and change its historic meaning. He wrote: “What struck the early observers of Christianity most forcibly was not merely that salvation was offered by means of the Christian gospel, but that all other means were resolutely rejected. The early Christian missionaries demanded an absolutely exclusive devotion to Christ. . . . Salvation, in other words, was not merely through Christ, but it was only through Christ.”

Thus, Machen would probably disagree with those postmoderns who suggest that simply being postmodern enables them to transcend the modern liberal-conservative controversy. Instead, Machen would likely argue that these postmoderns repeat too many of the mistakes of modern liberalism to get very far past it. Their “third way” is too much like the old way to become a new way.

A better way to transcend the liberal-conservative controversy is to incorporate the insights of each. Liberals emphasize ethics and conservatives defend the specific, historic doctrines of the Christian faith. Don’t we need both? Is it even possible to have one without the other? The Apostle John writes that God commands us both “to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commands us” (1 John 3:23).

Conservatives must acknowledge with James that faith without works is dead, for how can we claim to believe in God if we do not pass on his love and serve our neighbor? (Jam. 2:17-26). And liberals must concede with Paul that works without faith are vain. Works without faith give us reason to brag—look what we did—but they are useless in earning any part of our salvation. Paul explains, “If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God” (Rom. 4:2).

Technorati Tags: Emerging Church

assurance

R.C. Sproul on Rejecting False Assurances:

If we think the Bible teaches universal salvation, we may arrive at a false sense of assurance by reasoning as follows: Everybody is saved. I am a body. Therefore, I am saved.

Or, if we think salvation is gained by our own good works and we are further deluded into believing that we possess good works, we will have a false assurance of salvation.

To have sound assurance, we must understand that our salvation rests on the merit of Christ alone, which is appropriated to us when we embrace Him by genuine faith. If we understand that, the remaining question is, "Do I have the genuine faith necessary for salvation?"

Again, two more things must be understood and analyzed properly. The first is doctrinal. We need a clear understanding of what constitutes genuine saving faith. If we conceive of saving faith as existing in a vacuum, never yielding the fruit of works of obedience, we have confused saving faith with dead faith, which cannot save anyone.

The second requirement involves a sober analysis of our own lives. We must examine ourselves to see whether the fruit of regeneration is apparent in our lives. Do we have a real affection for the biblical Christ? Only the regenerate person possesses real love for the real Jesus. Next we must ask the tough question, "Does my life manifest the fruit of sanctification?" I test my faith by my works.

Coram Deo: What is your response to the questions posed in this reading: Do you have the genuine faith necessary for salvation? Do you have a real affection for the biblical Christ? Does your life manifest the fruit of salvation?

Psalm 9:14: "That I may tell of all Your praise in the gates of the daughter of Zion. I will rejoice in Your salvation."

Psalm 13:5: "But I have trusted in Your mercy; my heart shall rejoice in Your salvation."

Psalm 20:5: "We will rejoice in your salvation, and in the name of our God we will set up our banners! May the Lord fulfill all your petitions."

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

chicken wings

How to eat a chicken wing properly ... finally ...

accusations

“…when the devil comes and says, ‘You have no standing, you are condemned, you are finished’, you must say, ‘No! my position did not depend upon what I was doing, or not doing; it is always dependant upon the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ.’ Turn to the devil and tell him, ‘My relationship to God is not a variable one. The case is not that I am a child of God, and then again not a child of God. That is not the basis of my standing, that is not the position. When God had mercy upon me, He made me His child, and I remain his child. A very sinful, and a very unworthy one, perhaps, but still his child!

And now, when I fall into sin, I have not sinned against the law, I have sinned against love. Like the prodigal, I will go back to my Father and I will tell Him, “Father, I am not worthy to be called your son.” But He will embrace me, and He will say, “Do not talk nonsense, you are My child,” and He will shower his love upon me! That is the meaning of putting on the breastplate of righteousness! Never allow the devil to get you into a state of condemnation. Never allow a particular sin to call into question your standing before God. That question has been settled.”

Martyn Lloyd Jones, The Christian Soldier, p. 255

HT:JF

will of decree

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

God works out everything - the big picture, the little details, and everything in between - according to His own good and sovereign purposes (Eph 1.11).

God micromanages our lives. He doesn't just plan out a few big ticket items. Praise the Lord. He knows the smallest sparrow and the grayest hair. And neither falls tot eh ground unless our heavenly Father wills it (Mat 10.29-30).

Every human lamentation and woe must look to the cross. For there we see the problem of evil "answered" - not in some theoretical sense - but by pointing us to an all-powerful god who works all things for good. Shocking as it sounds, the most heinous act of evil and injustice ever perpetrated on the earth - the murder of the Son of God - took place according to God's gracious and predetermined will (Acts 4.27-28).

Our lives unfold, open and close, according to God's providence. As the crafters of the Heidelberg Catechism put it so eloquently back in the sixteenth century, "Providence is the almighty and ever present power of God by which he upholds, as with his hand, heaven and earth and all creatures, and so rules them that leaf and blade, rain and drought, fruitful and lean years, food and drink, health and sickness, prosperity and poverty - all things, in fact, come to us not by chance, but from his fatherly hand (Psa 139.16).

God knows all things and sovereignly superintends all things. God's will of decree is absolute. It is from before the creation of the world. It is the ultimate determination over all things, and it cannot be overturned (Isa 46.9-10).

Technorati Tags: sovereignty

faith v. love

Michael Wittmer:

Some postmodern innovators teach that it matters more that we love like Jesus than that we believe in him. At any rate we should not exclude good people from the kingdom just because they do not believe our Christian faith. Machen wrote that the liberals in his day insisted that “Christianity is a life, not a doctrine,” and that conservatives should focus on “the weightier matters of the law” (Christian ethics) rather than use the “trifling matters” of doctrine to divide the church.

Machen responded that doctrines such as Christ’s “vicarious atonement for sin” is not “trifling” and that Christ is not merely “an example for faith” but is “primarily the object of faith.” He explained: “The religion of Paul did not consist in having faith in God like the faith which Jesus had in God; it consisted rather in having faith in Jesus. …The plain fact is that imitation of Jesus, important though it was for Paul, was swallowed up by something far more important still. Not the example of Jesus, but the redeeming work of Jesus, was the primary thing for Paul.”

christ necessary

“We never feel Christ to be a reality until we feel him to be a necessity.”

- Austin Phelps, quoted by Gordon Keddie in Preacher on the Run: The Message of Jonah

HT:FE

A roadblock for postmodern innovators who think they have discovered many ways to God.

the cycle continues ...

In dealing with the liberalism of his day (1923), J. Gresham Machen and fellow conservatives declared five fundamental doctrines:

• The inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture (against liberalism’s attempt to reduce the Bible to a work of men)
• The virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ (against the liberal view that Jesus was only human, and not God)
• Christ’s substitutionary atonement (against the liberal position that Jesus saves by supplying a moral example)
• The literal, physical resurrection of Jesus (against the liberal position that dismisses the supernatural events in Scripture as mere symbols of a spiritual truth)
• The literal, physical return of Jesus (against the liberal position that dismisses it as a reality)

Interestingly liberals today (postmodern innovators) fail at that same points and now, as then, think they are onto something new. And as those that went before them, default to the same worn our strategies to avoid truth, "doctrine divides, love unites."

Worse, now, as then, this angers conservatives who fall into the trap of doctrinal interrogations that actually become divisive and make them appear to pick on "the peace-loving liberals".

There's nothing new under the sun ...

Technorati Tags: Emerging Church

words can express

God is more than His words can express but not less.

Technorati Tags: Scripture

slavery to sin

From Josh Harris:

I’m reading J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Fellowship of the Ring to my two older kids. Last night we read the passage in which Gandalf explains the history of the pathetic Gollum as well as story of the One Ring to Frodo. I thought the following description of Gollum’s wretched state as a slave to the ring was an apt description of what it’s like to be a slave to sin:

“All the ‘great secrets’ under the mountains had turned out to be just empty night: there was nothing more to find out, nothing worth doing, only nasty furtive eating and resentful remembering. He was altogether wretched. He hated the dark, and he hated light more: he hated everything ,and the Ring most of all.

“What do you mean?” said Frodo. “Surely the Ring was his precious and the only thing he cared for? But if he hated it, why didn’t he get rid of it, or go away and leave it?”

“You ought to begin to understand, Frodo, after all you have heard,” said Gandalf. “He hated it and loved it, as he hated and loved himself. He could not get rid of it. He had no will left in the matter.” (page 54)

Isn’t that what it’s like when you’re ruled by your sinful desires? (Eph. 2:1) All the promises of sin and illicit pleasure turn out to be “empty night” and the very things you once thought would satisfy you learn to despise. And yet you can’t turn away. You have a desire to be free, a desire to do what’s right, but lack “the ability to carry it out” (Rom. 7:18).

Without Jesus I am Gollum–calling what is killing me “my precious” and all the while hating myself. Praise be to God that Jesus Christ came to redeem sinners like me. He gave up his life on the cross so that I could be forgiven and freed to know and serve God forever.

HT:PC

self-authenticating

John Calvin wrote, "[Scripture] carries with itself its own credibility in order to be received without contradiction, and is not to be submitted to proofs or arguments. ... Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste. ... For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men's hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded."

Now, as always, men reject the truth of God as they reject the Spirit of God.

Technorati Tags: Scripture

bearing or keeping

The new way of obedience is fruit-bearing, not law-keeping. "You have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we my bear fruit for God" (Rom 7.4).

temptation

I love this encouragement by Ray Ortlund ...

A voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." Matthew 3:17

"There are many other voices speaking -- loudly: "Prove you're worth something." "Prove you have any contribution to make." "Do something relevant." . . . These are the voices Jesus heard right after he heard, "You are my beloved." Another voice said, "Prove you are the beloved. Do something. Change these stones into bread. Be sure you're famous. Jump from the temple, and you will be known. Grab some power so you have real influence." . . . Jesus said, "No, I don't have to prove anything. I am already the beloved."

Henri Nouwen, Leadership Magazine, Spring 1995.

There is more than one way to be strong. We can be strong with the dark energy of anxiety, because we need approval, or we can be strong with the bright energy of assurance, because we are already approved.

We have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. 1 Thessalonians 2:4

You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 Timothy 2:1

color blind

Aside from spelling 'colour' wrong (yes I know), Martin Downes posts this timeless quote by J.C. Ryle in 1884. It seems the Church has always endured heresy. The Emergent Church, among others, is not a new phenomenon. The attack against truth is not new and we shouldn't be surprised.

... one of the "pressing dangers" facing the Church [includes] the rise and progress of a spirit of indifference to all doctrines and opinions in religion. A wave of colour-blindness about theology appears to be passing over the land. The minds of many seem utterly incapable of discerning any difference between faith and faith, creed and creed, tenet and tenet, opinion and opinion, thought and thought, however diverse, heterogeneous, contrariant and mutally destructive they may be.

Everything...is true and nothing is false, everything is right and nothing is wrong, everything is good and nothing is bad, if it approaches under the garb and name of religion. You are not allowed to ask, What is God's truth? but What is liberal, and generous, and kind?

credentials

As picked up on FaceBook today ...

"As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials." - - Newt Gingrich

Technorati Tags: politics

none should perish

I was chatting with my son regarding 2 Peter 3.9 and referenced RC Sproul on the matter ...

DOESN’T THE BIBLE SAY THAT GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH?

The Apostle Peter clearly states that God is not willing that any should perish. "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" ( 2 Peter 3:9 ).

How can we square this verse with predestination? If it is not the will of God to elect everyone unto salvation, how can the Bible then say that God is not willing that any should perish?

In the first place we must understand that the Bible speaks of the will of God in more than one way. For example, the Bible speaks of what we call God’s sovereign efficacious will. The sovereign will of God is that will by which God brings things to pass with absolute certainty. Nothing can resist the will of God in this sense. By his sovereign will he created the world. The light could not have refused to shine.

The second way in which the Bible speaks of the will of God is with respect to what we call his preceptive will. God’s preceptive will refers to his commands, his laws. It is God’s will that we do the things he mandates. We are capable of disobeying this will. We do in fact break his commandments. We cannot do it with impunity. We do it without his permission or sanction. Yet we do it. We sin.

A third way the Bible speaks of the will of God has reference to God’s disposition, to what is pleasing to him. God does not take delight in the death of the wicked. There is a sense in which the punishment of the wicked does not bring joy to God. He chooses to do it because it is good to punish evil. He delights in the righteousness of his judgment but is “sad” that such righteous judgment must be carried out. It is something like a judge sitting on a bench and sentencing his own son to prison.

Let us apply these three possible definitions to the passage in 2 Peter. If we take the blanket statement, “God is not willing that any should perish,” and apply the sovereign efficacious will to it, the conclusion is obvious. No one will perish. If God sovereignly decrees that no one should perish, and God is God, then certainly no one will ever perish. This would then be a proof text not for Arminianism but for universalism. The text would then prove too much for Arminians.

Suppose we apply the definition of the preceptive will of God to this passage? Then the passage would mean that God does not allow anyone to perish. That is, he forbids the perishing of people. It is against his law. If people then went ahead and perished, God would have to punish them for perishing. His punishment for perishing would be more perishing. But how does one engage in more perishing than perishing? This definition will not work in this passage. It makes no sense.

The third alternative is that God takes no delight in the perishing of people. This squares with what the Bible says elsewhere about God’s disposition toward the lost. This definition could fit this passage. Peter may simply be saying here that God takes no delight in the perishing of anyone.

Though the third definition is a possible and attractive one to use in resolving this passage with what the Bible teaches about predestination, there is yet another factor to be considered. The text says more than simply that God is not willing that any should perish. The whole clause is important: “but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

What is the antecedent of any? It is clearly us. Does us refer to all of us humans? Or does it refer to us Christians, the people of God? Peter is fond of speaking of the elect as a special group of people. I think what he is saying here is that God does not will that any of us (the elect) perish. If that is his meaning, then the text would demand the first definition and would be one more strong passage in favor of predestination.

In two different ways the text may easily be harmonized with predestination. In no way does it support Arminianism. Its only other possible meaning would be universalism, which would then bring it into conflict with everything else the Bible says against universalism.

Technorati Tags: Calvinism

worship basics

In case you are struggling with your moves at church ...

Technorati Tags: worship

the other side of gw

Of course, with ads like this, I can see why many buy into man made global warming ...

global warming smoke

Senator Inhofe apparently doesn't realize that facts aren't an important factor to the global warming zealots. The ironic part is that while the zealots accuse those not with them in their over-reaction of doing nothing, they fail to do some simple steps that all would agree are good for the environment.



Text here ...

questions

NakedPastor posts this today.


He notes that it is preferred over a previous version.


His comment is that the former is more what his blog is about. I respect that and I'm ok with it ... in regard to his blog. But unfortunately many think the former is what Christianity is about. I think Christianity is the first followed by the second. All of our preconceived notions are drawn into question when confronted with Christ but then they are shattered as He provides the answers. We do not remain unsure but rather we can finally know real truth in Him.

The New Bible Dictionary on Knowledge:

All men ought to respond to the revelation in Christ which has made possible a full knowledge of God, no more intellectual apprehension but an obedience to his revealed purpose, an acceptance of his revealed love, and a fellowship with himself (cf.Jn. 17:3; Acts 2:36; 1 Cor. 2:8; Phil. 3:10). This knowledge of God is possible only because God in his love has called men to it (Gal. 4:9; 1 Cor. 13:12; 2 Tim. 2:19). The whole process of enlightenment and acceptance may be called coming to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; 3:7; Tit. 1:1; cf. Jn. 8:32).

Both Paul and John write at times in conscious contrast with and opposition to the systems of alleged esoteric knowledge purveyed by the mystery cults and syncretistic ‘philosophy’ of their day (cf. 1 Tim. 6:20; Col. 2:8). To these knowledge was the result of an initiation or illumination which put the initiate in possession of spiritual discernment beyond mere reason or faith. Against them Paul (particularly in 1 Cor. and Col.) and all the Johannine writings stress that knowledge of God springs from committal to the historic Christ; it is not opposed to faith but forms its completion. We need no revelation other than that in Christ.

Wayne Grudem writes in regard to knowledge through Scripture:

It will be argued below that all people ever born have some knowledge of God’s will through their consciences. But this knowledge is often indistinct and cannot give certainty. In fact, if there were no written Word of God, we could not gain certainty about God’s will through other means such as conscience, advice from others, an internal witness of the Holy Spirit, changed circumstances, and the use of sanctified reasoning and common sense. These all might give an approximation of God’s will in more or less reliable ways, but from these means alone no certainty about God’s will could ever be attained, at least in a fallen world where sin distorts our perception of right and wrong, brings faulty reasoning into our thinking processes, and causes us to suppress from time to time the testimony of our consciences (cf. Jer. 17:9; Rom. 2:14–15; 1 Cor. 8:10; Heb. 5:14; 10:22; also 1 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:15).

In the Bible, however, we have clear and definite statements about God’s will. God has not revealed all things to us, but he has revealed enough for us to know his will: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29). As it was in the time of Moses, so it is now with us: God has revealed his words to us that we might obey his laws and thereby do his will. To be “blameless” in God’s sight is to “walk in the law of the Lord” (Ps. 119:1). The “blessed” man is one who does not follow the will of wicked people (Ps. 1:1), but delights “in the law of the Lord,” and meditates on God’s law “day and night” (Ps. 1:2). To love God (and thereby to act in a way that is pleasing to him) is to “keep his commandments” (1 John 5:3). If we are to have a certain knowledge of God’s will, then, we must attain it through the study of Scripture.

In fact, in one sense it can be argued that the Bible is necessary for certain knowledge about anything. A philosopher might argue as follows: The fact that we do not know everything requires us to be uncertain about everything we do claim to know. This is because some fact unknown to us may yet turn out to prove that what we thought to be true was actually false. For example, we think we know our date of birth, our name, our age, and so forth. But we must admit that it is possible that some day we could find that our parents had given us false information and our “certain” knowledge would then turn out to be incorrect. Regarding events that we personally have experienced, we all realize how it is possible for us to “remember” words or events incorrectly and find ourselves later corrected by more accurate information. We can usually be more certain about the events of our present experience, so long as it remains present (but even that, someone might argue, could be a dream, and we will only discover this fact when we wake up!). At any rate, it is difficult to answer the philosopher’s question: If we do not know all the facts in the universe, past, present, and future, how can we ever attain certainty that we have correct information about any one fact?

Ultimately, there are only two possible solutions to this problem: (1) We must learn all the facts of the universe in order to be sure that no subsequently discovered fact will prove our present ideas to be false; or (2) someone who does know all the facts in the universe, and who never lies, could tell us some true facts that we can then be sure will never be contradicted.

This second solution is in fact what we have when we have God’s words in Scripture. God knows all facts that ever have been or ever will be. And this God who is omniscient (all-knowing) has absolutely certain knowledge: there can never be any fact that he does not already know; thus, there can never be any fact that would prove that something God thinks is actually false. Now it is from this infinite storehouse of certain knowledge that God, who never lies, has spoken to us in Scripture, in which he has told us many true things about himself, about ourselves, and about the universe that he has made. No fact can ever turn up to contradict the truth spoken by this one who is omniscient.

Thus, it is appropriate for us to be more certain about the truths we read in Scripture than about any other knowledge we have. If we are to talk about degrees of certainty of knowledge we have, then the knowledge we attain from Scripture would have the highest degree of certainty: if the word “certain” can be applied to any kind of human knowledge, it can be applied to this knowledge.

This concept of the certainty of knowledge that we attain from Scripture then gives us a reasonable basis for affirming the correctness of much of the other knowledge that we have. We read Scripture and find that its view of the world around us, of human nature, and of ourselves corresponds closely to the information we have gained from our own sense-experiences of the world around us. Thus we are encouraged to trust our sense-experiences of the world around us: our observations correspond with the absolute truth of Scripture; therefore, our observations are also true and, by and large, reliable. Such confidence in the general reliability of observations made with our eyes and ears is further confirmed by the fact that it is God who has made these faculties and who in Scripture frequently encourages us to use them (compare also Prov. 20:12: “The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both”).

In this way the Christian who takes the Bible as God’s Word escapes from philosophical skepticism about the possibility of attaining certain knowledge with our finite minds. In this sense, then, it is correct to say that for people who are not omniscient, the Bible is necessary for certain knowledge about anything.

This fact is important for the following discussion, where we affirm that unbelievers can know something about God from the general revelation that is seen in the world around them. Although this is true, we must recognize that in a fallen world knowledge gained by observation of the world is always imperfect and always liable to error or misinterpretation. Therefore the knowledge of God and creation gained from Scripture must be used to interpret correctly the creation around us. Using the theological terms that we will define below, we can say that we need special revelation to interpret general revelation rightly.

Technorati Tags: Bible study, Emerging Church, Scripture

unconditional grace

“To preach the Gospel of the unconditional grace of God in that unconditional way is to set before people the astonishingly good news of what God has freely provided for us in the vicarious humanity of Jesus. To repent and believe in Jesus Christ and commit myself to him on that basis means that I do not need to look over my shoulder all the time to see whether I have really given myself personally to him, whether I really believe and trust him, whether my faith is at all adequate, for in faith it is not upon my faith, my believing or my personal commitment that I rely, but solely upon what Jesus Christ has done for me, in my place and on my behalf, and what he is and always will be as he stands in for me before the face of the Father. That means that I am completely liberated from all ulterior motives in believing or following Jesus Christ, for on the ground of his vicarious human response for me, I am free for spontaneous joyful response and worship and service as I could not otherwise be.” - TF Torrance
HT:JH

Technorati Tags: grace

hate sin

Do you hate sin? I do. And it is excellent that I just read Jude 17-23.

But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.”It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.

Over the past weeks I've been bombarded by emails, FaceBook, discussions, and blogs involving those in the Emergent Church and their passion for sin disguised as compassion for sinners ... well, they cannot even say sinners, they say "the broken". They not only sin themselves but build-up those that do. My default position is to want to call them out but that is unfruitful and stems from my desire to control.

I love Jude's words, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passion." If that doesn't describe what I see in the emergent movement I don't know what does. But rather than be angry these words build me up. We are living in the last times. These days are drawing to an end. I'm encouraged to see how God will work all of this for His glory. My role is to love and to sow seeds of truth, not to get angry or embroiled in fruitless bickering.

Yes these folks are "devoid of the Spirit" but praise God, my desire is to keep myself in the love of God, edifying His holy Church, the Bride for whom He returns. Rather than rebuke and fight with them, I'm to "have mercy on those who doubt." Perhaps the same Spirit that rescued me from darkness will do the same for them.

The beauty of this life in the Spirit is that it can be lived as one showing both mercy yet hating sin, i.e., "the garment stained by the flesh." This is a concept those without the Spirit cannot grasp. Thank God for His unmerited favor.

Technorati Tags: Emerging Church

warrant for truth

Michael Wittmer writes the following based on Alvin Plantinga's Warrant and Proper Function:

If we have good reason to believe that our minds and sensory equipment are functioning properly and that we are in a suitable environment for them to detect truth, then we may justifiably believe whatever we perceive in the world. And what reason do we have to believe this? Our belief in God. Only if we believe that there is a God who made us to flourish in this world do we have warrant to trust that what our eyes and ears report is going on around us. According to Plantinga, those who do not believe in God cannot claim to know anything at all.

we died

John Piper, Reason #30 Why Jesus Came to Die ... That we might die to sin and live to righteousness.

Strange as it may sound, Christ’s dying in our place and for our sins means that we died. You would think that having a substitute die in your place would mean that you escape death. And, of course, we do escape death—the eternal death of endless misery and separation from God. Jesus said, “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish” (John 10:28). “Everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die” (John 11:26). The death of Jesus does indeed mean that “whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

But there is another sense in which we die precisely because Christ died in our place and for our sins. “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die . . .” (1 Peter 2:24). He died that we might live; and he died that we might die. When Christ died, I, as a believer in Christ, died with him. The Bible is clear: “We have been united with him in a death like his” (Romans 6:5). “One has died for all, therefore all have died” (2 Corinthians 5:14).

Faith is the evidence of being united to Christ in this profound way. Believers “have been crucified with Christ” (Galatians 2:20). ...

The fact that I died with Christ is linked directly to his dying for my sin. "He himself bore our sins ... that we might die." This means that when I embrace Jesus as my Savior, I embrace my death as a sinner. My sin brought Jesus to the grave and brought me there with him. Faith sees sin as murderous. It killed Jesus, and it killed me.

Therefore, becoming a Christian means death to sin. The old self that loved sin died with Jesus. Sin is like a prostitute that no longer looks beautiful. She is the murderer of my King and myself. Therefore, the believer is dead to sin, no longer dominated by her attractions. Sin, the prostitute who killed my friend, has no appeal. She has become an enemy.

My new life is now swayed by righteousness. "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might ... live to righteousness" (1 Pet 2.24). The beauty of Christ, who loved me and gave himself for me, is the desire of my soul. And his beauty is perfect righteousness. The command that I now love to obey is this ... "Present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness" (Rom 6.13).

christus victor

Postmoderns today are trying to force a false dichotomy. There is a separation of living in the Kingdom here and now from life eternal. Some of this is an over-reaction to poor communication by modern evangelicals. I think most of it however stems from a wrong understanding of Christus Victor. Here is Martin Downes' excellent post on Christus Victor and Penal Substitution.

The first question of the Heidelberg Catechism views the atoning work of Christ as dealing with the satisfaction made for all our sins (penal substitution) and his redeeming us from all the power of the devil (Christus Victor).

What is your only comfort in life and in death?

That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death, am not my own, but belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ, who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, that all things must work together for my salvation. Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live unto Him.

Thus the Catechism holds together what ought never to be separated. Here we have the Godward dimension of the atonement (satisfaction) and the polemic dimension (conquest). The latter, however, is dependent on the former.

When Scripture explicates how Christ conquers the devil, the reality of which is anticipated in the proto-evangelium (Gen. 3:15), it views the power of the devil as the power of deception and accusation. Our legal position before God, in view of Adam's breaking of the covenant of works (Gen. 2:15-17), and our own sins, has rendered us guilty, cursed, and under the sentence of death (Rom. 6:23).

How does Christ redeem us from the power of the devil?

By dying for us (1 Peter 3:18). By taking our curse and punishment (Gal. 3:13). By enduring the wrath of God (Rom. 3:25-26). By taking the full penalty of the law (Gal. 3:10).

The legal accusations of Satan are silenced by the blood of the Lamb that has brought us forgiveness for all our sins (Col. 2:13-15; Eph. 1:7; Rev. 12:10-11; Rom. 8:1, 33-34!).

How has Christ conquered Satan?

By his active and passive obedience, by making atonement and justification. And now without God's law to condemn us, Satan has no power to accuse us (1 Cor. 15:56). What truth then will he seek to overthrow with all his might? The truth that the blood of the Lamb saves, the doctrine of penal substitution.

The Lamb slain saves us. The Lamb slain silences Satan's accusations. It is seeing this connection that will stop the pendulum from swinging from penal substitution to Christus Victor. As Henri Blocher argued, in a much neglected essay, these doctrines are seen in the biblical proportions and glory together. It is really Agnus Victor, not what is commonly understood as Christus Victor, that best explains the conquering of Satan.

facebook users

Ok - I get where Gary Rohrmayer is coming from but this eliminates everyone ... maybe that's the point?

1. The Let-Me-Tell-You-Every-Detail-of-My-Day Bore."I'm waking up." "I had Wheaties for breakfast." "I'm bored at work." "I'm stuck in traffic." You're kidding! How fascinating! No moment is too mundane for some people to broadcast unsolicited to the world. Just because you have 432 Facebook friends doesn't mean we all want to know when you're waiting for the bus.
2. The Self-Promoter.OK, so we've probably all posted at least once about some achievement. And sure, maybe your friends really do want to read the fascinating article you wrote about beet farming. But when almost EVERY update is a link to your blog, your poetry reading, your 10k results or your art show, you sound like a bragger or a self-centered careerist.
3. The Friend-Padder.The average Facebook user has 120 friends on the site. Schmoozers and social butterflies -- you know, the ones who make lifelong pals on the subway -- might reasonably have 300 or 400. But 1,000 "friends?" Unless you're George Clooney or just won the lottery, no one has that many. That's just showing off.
4. The Town Crier."Michael Jackson is dead!!!" You heard it from me first! Me, and the 213,000 other people who all saw it on TMZ. These Matt Drudge wannabes are the reason many of us learn of breaking news not from TV or news sites but from online social networks. In their rush to trumpet the news, these people also spread rumors, half-truths and innuendo. No, Jeff Goldblum did not plunge to his death from a New Zealand cliff.
5. The TMIer."Brad is heading to Walgreens to buy something for these pesky hemorrhoids." Boundaries of privacy and decorum don't seem to exist for these too-much-information updaters, who unabashedly offer up details about their sex lives, marital troubles and bodily functions. Thanks for sharing.
6. The Bad Grammarian."So sad about Fara Fauset but Im so gladd its friday yippe". Yes, I know the punctuation rules are different in the digital world. And, no, no one likes a spelling-Nazi schoolmarm. But you sound like a moron.
7. The Sympathy-Baiter. "Barbara is feeling sad today." "Man, am I glad that's over." "Jim could really use some good news about now." Like anglers hunting for fish, these sad sacks cast out their hooks -- baited with vague tales of woe -- in the hopes of landing concerned responses. Genuine bad news is one thing, but these manipulative posts are just pleas for attention.
8. The Lurker.The Peeping Toms of Facebook, these voyeurs are too cautious, or maybe too lazy, to update their status or write on your wall. But once in a while, you'll be talking to them and they'll mention something you posted, so you know they're on your page, hiding in the shadows. It's just a little creepy.
9. The Crank. These curmudgeons, like the trolls who spew hate in blog comments, never met something they couldn't complain about. "Carl isn't really that impressed with idiots who don't realize how idiotic they are." [Actual status update.] Keep spreading the love.
10. The Paparazzo.Ever visit your Facebook page and discover that someone's posted a photo of you from last weekend's party -- a photo you didn't authorize and haven't even seen? You'd really rather not have to explain to your mom why you were leering like a drunken hyena and French-kissing a bottle of Jagermeister.
11. The Maddening Obscurist. "If not now then when?" "You'll see..." "Grist for the mill." "John is, small world." "Dave thought he was immune, but no. No, he is not." [Actual status updates, all.] Sorry, but you're not being mysterious -- just nonsensical.
12. The Chronic Inviter. "Support my cause. Sign my petition. Play Mafia Wars with me. Which 'Star Trek' character are you? Here are the 'Top 5 cars I have personally owned.' Here are '25 Things About Me.' Here's a drink. What drink are you? We're related! I took the 'What President Are You?' quiz and found out I'm Millard Fillmore! What president are you?"

church with christ as center

"To put it candidly, you will never have an authentic experience of the body of Christ unless your foundation is blindly and singularly Jesus Christ. Authentic church life is born when a group of people are intoxicated with a glorious unveiling of their Lord.The chief task of a Christian leader, therefore, is to present a Christ to God’s people that they have never known, dreamed, or imagined. A breathtaking Christ whom they can know intimately and love passionately. The calling of every Christian servant is to build the ekklesia upon an overmastering revelation of the Son of God. A revelation that burns in the fiber of their being and leaves God’s people breathless, overwhelmed, and awash in the glories of Jesus."

Frank Viola, From Eternity to Here

freedom from sin

John Piper in Why Jesus Came to Die. Reason 29; To Free Us From the Slavery of Sin:

Our sin ruins us in two ways. It makes us guilty before God, so that we are under his just condemnation; and it makes us ugly in our behavior, so that we disfigure the image of God we were meant to display. It damns us with guilt, and it enslaves us to lovelessness.

The blood of Jesus frees us from both miseries. It satisfies God’s righteousness so that our sins can be justly forgiven. And it defeats the power of sin to make us slaves to lovelessness.

While Jesus was a powerful example, and we are commanded to imitate him (John 13.34), he was more. He first rescued us from the guilt of sin and the wrath of God. Then He rescued us from the power of sin. That is we were first justified and then sanctified (Rev 1.5-6; Heb 13.12).

This is liberating. By His power we who were once slaves to lovelessness are now made slaves to righteousness and loveliness (Rom 6.18; Gal 5.22-23). Sin no longer has dominion over us (Rom 6.14). Instead we are under grace. We still 'work' but it is initiated and completed by grace (1 Cor 15.10).

Thanks be to God!

Technorati Tags: grace