bell's folly

I don't hate Rob Bell. He makes for an interesting conversation starter. But often, if I don't have someone to discuss what he said with, I'm left with, "he didn't really say anything." Worse, many times I'm left with, "if I don't read into what he's saying, on the surface a bit of it is incorrect." It's only when discussing him with someone who is redeemed and conversant with Scripture can I get to a good place with what he says ... and then I wonder, why would I use Bell as a springboard for that rather than the many other great teachers we have out there. In fact, I wonder just how many unredeemed and unknowledgeable of Scripture go further off-track and muddled in their thinking.

Here is Bell in his Resurrection video (show?) ...



Here's an early example of one of his problematic proclamations, while it sounds nice and is easily embraced by this weltgeist:

"I’m [Jesus] going to be killed
that’s where this is headed
because you don’t confront corrupt systems of power
without paying for it
sometimes with your own blood
and so he’s headed to his execution"

The liberal mind would love to reduce the majesty and power of God's work on the cross to exactly this. Let me confront the evil of "the man" and let me be the model for how you do the same. I have to say, Bell is a dangerous source for Christian instruction.

Here's the transcript/discussion guide.

legalists

Until bumping into the emergent world, I used to think that legalism was only a watch out for conservatives like me. Now I understand it is a trap for all, liberals and conservatives alike. From TheResurgence:

How to Become a Legalist:

• Make rules outside the Bible.
• Push yourself to try and keep your rules.
• Castigate yourself when you don't keep your rules.
• Become proud when you do keep your rules.
• Appoint yourself as judge over other people.
• Get angry with people who break your rules or have different rules.
• "Beat" the losers.

thief

One of the greatest songs I've every heard, Thief by Third Day.

Technorati Tags: music

only god

"Neither the language of medicine nor of law is adequate substitute for the language of [sin.] Contrary to the medical model, we are not entirely at the mercy of our maladies. The choice is to enter into the process of repentance. Contrary to the legal model, the essence of sin is not [primarily] the violation of laws but a wrecked relationship with God, one another, and the whole created order. "All sins are attempts to fill voids," wrote Simone Weil. Because we cannot stand the God-shaped hole inside of us, we try stuffing it full of all sort of things, but only God my fill [it]. ~ Barbara B. Taylor, Speaking of Sin: The Lost Language of Salvation as quoted by Tim Keller in The Reason for God.

sin is real

"It is not the absence of sin but the grieving over it which distinguishes the child of God from empty professors." —A. W. Pink (1886–1952)

HT:Bororean

I like this because it addresses two errors. The error to the right which promotes works over faith rather than as the fruit of faith. And the error on the left which sees residing sin and accepts and embraces it because to do otherwise conflicts with their mixed up idea of God and love.

sm lockridge time

SM Lockridge "Sunday's Coming" followed by "That's My King" ... this is the stuff ...





The Bible says my King is a seven-way king
He's the King of the Jews; that's a racial king
He's the King of Israel; that's a national King
He's the King of Righteousness
He's the King of the Ages
He's the King of Heaven
He's the King of Glory
He's the King of kings, and He's the Lord of lords. That's my King.
Well....I wonder, do you know Him?

David said, "The Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork."
My King is a sovereign King.
No means of measure can define His limitless love.
No far seeing telescope can bring into visibility the coastline of His shoreless supply.
No barrier can hinder Him from pouring out His blessings.
He's enduringly strong.
He's entirely sincere.
He's eternally steadfast.
He's immortally graceful.
He's imperially powerful.
He's impartially merciful.
Do you know Him?

He's the greatest phenomenon that has ever crossed the horizon of this world.
He's God's Son.
He's the sinner's Savior.
He's the centerpiece of civilization.
He stands in the solitude of Himself.
He's august and He's unique.
He's unparalleled.
He's unprecedented.
He is the loftiest idea in literature.
He's the highest personality in philosophy.
He is the supreme problem in higher criticism.
He's the fundamental doctrine of true theology.
He is the cardinal necessity for spiritual religion.
He's the miracle of the age.
He's -- yes He is -- He is the superlative of everything good that you choose to call Him.

He's the only one qualified to be an all sufficient Savior.
I wonder if you know Him today?
He supplies strength for the weak.
He's available for the tempted and the tried.
He sympathizes and He saves.
He strengthens and sustains.
He guards and He guides.
He heals the sick.
He cleansed the lepers.
He forgives sinners.
He discharges debtors.
He delivers the captives.
He defends the feeble.
He blesses the young.
He serves the unfortunate.
He regards the aged.
He rewards the diligent....and He beautifies the meek.
I wonder if you know Him?

Well, my King....He is the King!
He's the key to knowledge.
He's the wellspring of wisdom.
He's the doorway of deliverance.
He's the pathway of peace.
He's the roadway of righteousness.
He's the highway of holiness.
He's the gateway of glory.
Do you know Him?

Well, His office is manifold.
His promise is sure....and His light is matchless.
His goodness is limitless.
His mercy is everlasting.
His love never changes.
His word is enough.
His grace is sufficient.
His reign is righteous.
And His yoke is easy, and his burden is light.
I wish I could describe Him to you, but He's indescribable -- Yes He is!? He is God!
He's incomprehensible.
He's invincible.
He's irresistible.
Well, you can't get Him out of your mind.
You can't get Him off of your hand.
You can't out live Him, and you can't live without Him.

The Pharisees couldn't stand Him, but they found out they couldn't stop Him.
Pilate couldn't find any fault in Him.
The witnesses couldn't get their testimonies to agree.
Herod couldn't kill Him.
Death couldn't handle Him, and the grave couldn't hold Him.
Yea!!!, that's my King, that's my King.

Yes, and Thine is the Kingdom....and the Power....and the Glory....Forever....and ever, and ever, and ever -- How long is that? And ever, and ever.

And when you get through with all of the forevers, then. AMEN!
Good God Almighty! AMEN! AMEN!

christ's death

“Who delivered up Jesus to die? Not Judas, for money; not Pilate, for fear; not the Jews, for envy; — but the Father, for love!” - Octavius Winslow, quoted by John Stott in The Message of Romans (Downers Grove, Ill.; Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 255.

HT:FE

As Mike Wittmer astutely writes, "On this holiest of holy days, we thank God for paying the ultimate price—our ultimate price—to save us. This is the day that Jesus went to hell. As his bewildered cries bounced off his Father’s back, it was only the straining grip of the Holy Spirit which kept the Trinity from flying apart. We will never comprehend the agony and betrayal in that eternal moment, but we know enough to realize that we are the recipients of history’s most lopsided trade: God sacrificed himself for us."

This was done for our sin to God's Glory. Kevin DeYoung writes, "The cross demonstrates the love of God not because it speaks to our great worth, but because, in electing grace, it turns away God’s just wrath. ... Divine mercy without divine wrath is meaningless. We have been rescued from much, forgiven for everything, and saved unto infinitely more than we deserve. “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10)."

dawkins, liberals, and the atonement

Unlike christian liberals, Richard Dawkins, in part, gets it. He at least understands that there is a Scriptural claim of the atonement and penal substitution. He simply rejects it because the Holy Spirit hasn't made his heart alive to Truth. The christian liberal on the other hand, because like Dawkins they don't like the doctrine, they simply reject either this in the Bible or that the Bible is inerrant.



"That God, the all powerful creator of the universe couldn’t think of a better way to forgive humanity’s sins than to have himself put on earth, tortured and executed in atonement for the sins of humanity? What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?" ~ Richard Dawkins (transcript)

HT:SA

For today, let's refer to Melinda's excellent reminder ...

On the cross, Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses by satisfying the demands of it. By doing that He paid our certificates of debt we each earned.

The certificate of debt is a concept that lies behind Paul's comments about the certificate of debt in Colossians 2:13-14: "And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

In Roman times, this certificate was a list of crimes committed against the state that required "payment," much like an indictment in our legal system today. The Romans gave Jesus a certificate of debt when He was sentenced to die; it was nailed to the cross: "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews" (John 19:19). When the crimes were paid for, the certificate was canceled and was stamped with the word tetelestai, meaning "paid in full."

Paul says that Jesus "canceled out" (paid) our certificate of debt (v14).

Jesus' last words, His victory cry on the cross was, "It is finished!", literally in Greek was "tetelestai!" "He said, 'It is finished!' And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit." (John 19:30). "Paid in full." What was finished? His work of redemption paying for our certificates of debt against God.

saving power

“The saving power of faith resides . . . not in itself, but in the Almighty Savior on whom it rests.” ~ B.B. Warfield

HT:CB

forgiveness confusion

And after all that posting about the forgiveness I come across this nonsense and realize that the Church needs to step up and teach this properly. This is absolutely ridiculous, hypocritical, filled with error and hate disguised as love, etc... This is liberalism at its finest which is pretty low.

• How do we confess for others?
• How do we get to the point where we think judging is wrong?
• How do we confess for others when we hold that judging is wrong?
• How do we apologize for ...

And watch out - it contains the "f-bomb" (I think that's a funny way of saying that) and I apologize for Chris saying that.

:)

Technorati Tags: Emerging Church, forgiveness

faith v. christ

To go along with the preposition point, here's a quote from Horatius Bonar in Not Faith, But Christ ...

“Faith is not our saviour. It was not faith that was born at Bethlehem and died on Golgotha for us. It was not faith that loved us, and gave itself for us; that bore our sins in its own body on the tree; that died and rose again for our sins. Faith is one thing, the Saviour is another. Faith is one thing, and the cross is another. Let us not confound them, nor ascribe to a poor, imperfect act of man, that which belongs exclusively to the Son of the Living God.

Our security is this, that it matters not how poor or weak our faith maybe: if it touches the perfect One, all is well. God has asked and provided a perfect righteousness; He nowhere asks nor expects a perfect faith. So a feeble, very feeble faith, will connect us with the righteousness of the Son of God; the faith, perhaps, that can only cry, ‘Lord, I believe; help mine unbelief.’ “

HT: OFI

prepositions matter

Chris Brauns has a catchy post on the difference that a preposition can make and then points to this great quote:

“[Faith] is not a meritorious work, one facet of human righteousness, but rather an appropriating instrument, an empty hand outstretched to receive the free gift of God’s righteousness in Christ; that faith is God-given, and is itself the animating principle from which love and good works spontaneously spring; and that communion with God means, not an exotic rapture of mystical ecstasy but faith’s everyday commerce with the Savior.” ~ J.I. Packer, The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology

Technorati Tags: faith

more ANKofXianity

While only on the fourth post in his series on Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity, Jeremy Bouma is doing an excellent job exposing the fallenness of the liberal worldview. McLaren's paradigm is no longer (if it ever was) "christian".

I recommend reading the intro post here and then following the links he has to the rest.

Technorati Tags: Emerging Church

i love the law

Joe Thorn writes a simple and truthful short on "Do You Love the Law?"

1. In the law we have divine direction.
2. Through the law we uncover our sin.
3. By the law we are led to the gospel.

Technorati Tags: Scripture

winding roads

"Life is not a straight line leading from one blessing to the next and then finally to heaven. Life is a winding and troubled road. Switchback after switchback. And the point of biblical stories like Joseph and Job and Esther and Ruth is to help us feel in our bones (not just know in our heads) that God is for us in all these strange turns. God is not just showing up after the trouble and cleaning it up. He is plotting the course and managing the troubles with far-reaching purposes for our good and for the glory of Jesus Christ." ~ John Piper, A Sweet and Bitter Providence

HT:JT via RMS (Bob)

forgiveness is about reconciliation

"Forgiveness takes the central place in Christian proclamation as the means whereby [the relationship between God and humanity] is restored. It stands as the action of God in the face of the sinful behavior of man, and is based on Christ." ~ H. Vorlander

Technorati Tags: forgiveness

conditional forgiveness

I think forgiveness is conditional. Jay Adams, in From Forgiven to Forgiving: Learning to Forgive One Another God’s Way page 37 ...

What shall we say then? It is clear that forgiveness - promising another never to bring up his offense again to use it against him - is conditioned on the offenders willingness to confess it as sin and to seek forgiveness. You are not obligated to forgive an unrepentant sinner, but you are obligated to try to bring him to repentance. All the while you must entertain a genuine hope and willingness to forgive the other and a desire to be reconciled to him or her. Because this biblical teaching runs counter to much teaching in the modern church, it is important to understand it. Such forgiveness is modeled after God’s forgiveness which is unmistakably conditioned on repentance and faith.

Chris Brauns lists other great quotes on the topic here.

Technorati Tags: forgiveness

proof of god

Should we try to prove the existence of God? Yes. Can we without the Holy Spirit creating eyes to see and ears to hear? No.

But for those interested, here are TWO DOZEN (OR SO) THEISTIC ARGUMENTS by Alvin Plantinga. Interesting.

accepted

Webster's Dictionary: accepted - generally approved

I think that is the definition often (but not always) intended by those that would say, "the gospel is that man is accepted just as he is, a sinner standing in need of a saviour." When that statement is used to indicate that Jesus saw worth in those that are unworthy, I agree. When that statement is used to indicate that Jesus suffered and died to bring reconciliation to those that not only didn't seek His redemption but were His enemies, I agree. And so forth. But when that is used per the dictionary definition, i.e., we are approved, I do not agree. Sadly, it often starts with the ideas I can affirm but then drifts to the latter which is not acceptable and a rampant liberal worldview. The significance is the former recognizes the beauty and miracle of what Christ accomplished while the latter does not see the real need for a savior, especially a substutionary one.

While we were slaves to Sin, Christ Jesus extended grace, mercy and life to us. As J. Gresham Machen writes in Christianity & Liberalism:

“The atoning death of Christ, and that alone, has presented sinners as righteous in God’s sight; the Lord Jesus has paid the full penalty of their sins, and clothed them with His perfect righteousness before the judgment seat of God.

But Christ has done for Christians even far more than that. He has given to them not only a new and right relation to God, but a new life in God’s presence for evermore. He has saved them from the power as well as from the guilt of sin.

The New Testament does not end with the death of Christ; it does not end with the triumphant words of Jesus on the Cross, “It is finished.” The death was followed by the resurrection, and the resurrection like the death was for our sakes. Jesus rose from the dead into a new life of glory and power, and into that life He brings those for whom He died. The Christian, on the basis of Christ’s redeeming work, not only has died unto sin, but also lives unto God.”

HT:PC

is the canon infallible

I've been posting some quotes regarding infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. In that I received an excellent question from Dan Jones. I love how he puts it:

How when asked do you respond to those who basically agree with these passages but then state that for this claim to be 110% true then the canonizing process must also be "unbreakable, irrevocable, final, plenary, and inerrant," and then if that is the case...then scripture isn't exactly the final authority - canonization is. It's a problem I've not resolved, yet.

Good question. I don't think I've resolved it completely either but sadly, I'm not sure I've given it much thought. Phil Miller provides a simplistic response that I agree with (at least for now).

I would say a good analogy would be a scientific law like gravity - Newton wasn't the final authority on gravity, he testified to the truth of gravity.

This fits with Michael Patton's thinking in Why I Believe the Canon of Scripture is Theoretically Open ... And I Am Fine With It (it's worth reading the entire post):

[T]o say that the canon is “closed” needs to be understood more in an observational way rather than an authoritative pronouncement. The term “closed” might not be the best word since it implies a necessary finality concerning the contents of Scripture.

Of course Patton also is fine with the idea that the canon is fallible. James Swan also agrees writing in the Alpha & Omega Apologetics Blog:

The canon list is not revelation, it's an artifact of revelation. It is Scripture which Christians believe inspired, not a knowledge of the canon which is inspired. The church has discovered which books are canon, they haven't infallibly determined them to be canon. For a detailed explanation of this, track down a copy of Dr. White's book, Scripture Alone, chapter five.

Both Patton and Swan reference R.C. Sproul's position that the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books. Swan writes:

The statement itself originates from Sproul's mentor, John Gerstner. This statement is not an admission that there is an error in the canon. It is a statement simply designed to acknowledge the historical selection process the church used in discovering the canon. By God's providence, God's people have always identified His Word, and they didn't need to be infallible to do so. Remember that large set of books in your Bible before the Gospel of Matthew? The church had the Old Testament, and believers during the period in which the Old Testament was written also had God's inscripturated word, this despite a lack of magisterial infallibility.

Technorati Tags: Scripture