Sermon Applications 1/27/08

Here was the text for Sunday:

1 John 5:1-4 1 1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world-- our faith.

Here were the applications:

A. First, if you are a believer you have overcome the world. Your faith and trust is in the one who has overcome the world. There is a measure of confidence that we should have. John writes to encourage us. We are like troops behind enemy lines. We are huddled in our trenches, and from our perspective, the battle looks pretty grim. How can I resist sin and temptation? Is there any hope. But Christ is like that great general, our king—the battle has already been one. He has overcome the enemy. The ‘world’—all that stands in opposition to God is passing away, it is coming to an end, we wait for the dawn.

1 John 2:17 7 The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.

B. Second, if we are to overcome we must persevere in our faith. We are in the process of overcoming. We have been born of God—we are no longer ‘of the world’ but you are from God (1 John 4:4-5). There is a fundamental difference.

C. Third, the Christian life is lived through faith in Jesus Christ. One of the reasons, we struggle in our Christian walk is not because we are bad “doers” but because we are bad “believers”. The solution for daily overcoming the world and continuing to overcome, is continually placing our faith and trust in Jesus Christ. We continue to grasp these things, we continue to pray and confess our sin. This is not some sort of continual legalism. Think for a moment of Peter, when we walked on water. As long as he had his eyes on Jesus, he was overcoming the water. But when he took his eyes off Jesus and his faith faltered, he began to sink. Thankfully, when we falter in our faith and stumble, Jesus is there to grab us just like he did for Peter.

D. Fourth, it is not that mere activity of faith that overcomes the world, it is the one in who we have faith. We do not overcome the world by having faith in faith. It is not merely the act of ‘believing’ that overcomes the world. Lots of people in our day and age will talk about how their faith changed them. They will describe how faith helped them through a tough time. But as your probe a little you find out that the faith was not direct in Jesus. Many times, our culture lives with a sort of faith in faith. And this ‘faith in faith’—‘just believing’ appears to work for a time, we trick ourselves into thinking it works. But we have really been trapped by the world—duped, blinded. The faith that overcomes the world is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the one who has overcome the world. We must believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God if we are to overcome the world. He is the eternal son of God and when we believe in him we become children of God. Just as the eternal Son overcame the world, so the adopted children overcome the world because of what there big brother has done.

E. Fifth, how do I exercise a faith that overcomes?

1. We have already said, your faith must be directed at Christ.


2. We need to continue in our faith. We all struggle with doubts from time to time… we all feel along and stranded. Like the man came to Jesus to have his Son healed, we need in our struggles to say “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.”


3. Be honest with God in your prayers. He already knows your struggles. Jesus identifies with us in our struggles. When you face temptations, physical trials or difficulties, whatever they are—be honest with God. Even be “brutally honest”. If something frustrates you, if you are having trouble trusting, if you are angry—do not go to God in prayer pretending these thoughts are not in your heart. Open up to God in prayer and lay these things before Him. Bring them to Him in faith and ask Him to increase your faith.


4. When something in the world, a sin perhaps, tangles you down—the only way you will overcome it is through faith in Jesus. You cannot put a rule in place to change your heart. The Law will not help you overcome sin.

F. “But I have faith, and I do not feel like I am overcoming sin.” There are times where we think to ourselves, “I trust Jesus”—but just like Peter, we lose focus. We think ‘this world is so overwhelming, but I trust Jesus and I still do not seem to overcome sin’. First, there are some struggles in this life that we will never overcome, this does not mean I should surrender. The soldier in the trench does not give up just because he cannot see an end to the struggle. This is when you and I should turn to the objectivity of the cross. What I mean is the fact that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose again is clear proof that He has overcome. Think about it, study the Bible, pray about the work of Christ—train your heart to zero in on the clarity of the Cross. You may never feel like you have overcome your struggle—but Christ has overcome.

You will be able to find the sermon in its entirety here under Pastor's Corner.

The Council of Orange vs. ‘Mediate Soteriology’.

Post 3, in our Review of C. Gordon Olson's Getting the Gospel Right. To find a list of the entire series, see the Table of Contents.

The Issue:

In Getting the Gospel Right, pp 3 and 321-22, Olson tells us that a mediate view of grace is found in the Council of Orange. Yet the book is imprecise on defining this mediate view in relationship to his own view. It tells us "Research for this book has confirmed this mediate position as the biblical one" (p.3). We will bring this into question in this series of posts.

The Argument:

Mediate to what? After outlining the different stripes of Calvinism and Arminianism, Olson argues that a mediate theology can be found throughout history and has its roots in the council of Orange (529 AD). However, he leaves two things unsaid:

First, Arminianism is not Pelagianism. Armininism is a middle point between Augustine’s “determinism” (to use Olson’s label) and Pelgaian’s works based salvation. What Olson does not tell you is that many of the so-called “mediate views” that he identifies through history have much more in common doctrinally with Armininism although they may not have origin from the same historical stream.[1] Many of them deny unconditional election and irresistible grace. While Olson highlights their differences from Calvinism, and the views are certainly not Pelagian, the tenants of the ‘mediate view’ differ very little in essence from the basic of tenants of Arminianism. It will be our final contention, in the end there really is no serious hybrid of Arminianism and Calvinism as mediate roots old a much closer view to Armininism. It is a serious misrepresentation of historical positions to hold to Armininism with respect to conditional election, resistible grace, reject the bondage of the will (which some Arminians affirm) and tack on ‘eternal security’ and then maintain this is “middle of the road”. This is essentially what Olson does.

Second, Olson does not tell you where his soteriology and anthropology would differ from the Council of Orange. If you read Olson, one is left with the impression that his soteriology and anthropology are mediate and differ in no substantial position from that of Orange.

Olson muddles historical categories. The council of Orange was resolving the debate between Pelagianism and Augustinianism. Pelagianism denies the effects of the fall, original sin, the bondage of the will, predestination and the substitutionary atonement. Augustine affirms original sin, the bondage of the will to sin, comprehensive depravity, the substitutionary nature of Christ’s work and predestination. Semi-Pelagianism takes a middle road. The Council of Orange is Semi-Augustinian in that it resists the tendencies of semi-pelagianism but it does not mandate Augustinianism. It neither affirms nor reject predestination and irresistible grace. Orange is ‘Mediate’ between Semi-Pelagianism and Augustinianism, not ruling out the latter but clearly rejecting the former. Simply put, all who are Augustinians in soteriology can subscribe to Orange but not all who subscribe to Orange are full Augustinians.

Calvinism and Arminianism are essentially a debate between 3. and 4, although for some Arminians they clearly fall within #2 because of a denial of the bondage of the will to sin and the need for grace to free us before we can believe. Of course, this is a simplification, is admittedly somewhat anacrhonistic and is open to the charge of reductionism. But with respect to the issues of grace and soteriology, most historic forms of Arminianism are a far cry from semi-pelagianism. We must then ask, what does the mediate view fall between? Orange and Augustine? Furthermore, the five points of Arminianism with the subsequent Calvinistic response at the Synod of Dort, were not the form that the issues took in this day. It is true that Augustine held to total depravity, unconditional election and irresistible grace, this hardly makes him a Calvinist. Comparing a so-called 'mediate view' between Calvinism and Arminianism is not the same as a 'mediate view' of Pelagianism and Augustinianism.

The Council of Orange

There are some brands of Arminianism that could adhere to the essence of Orange’s soteriology and anthropology. Orange has a sort of tempered Augustinianism without ever denouncing full Augustinianism. Other stripes of Armininianism are more clearly semi-pelagian and cannot subscribe to the essence of Orange. Orange may not mention predestination but it is hardly as “mediate” as Olson would lead us to believe and it is hardly more analogous to the substance his view. Orange rejects the notion of free will and man’s independent work in belief that Olson wants to affirm.

Canon 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God he contradicts the prophet Isaih, or the Apostle…[2]

Canon 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says…

Canon 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith…belongs to us by nature not by the gift of grace…it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles…[3]

Canon 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contracts the Apostle…

Canon 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or may any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit…

Canon 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has not place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that some have the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God…

Canon 13. Concerning the restoration of the free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed [infirmatum] in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism…

Canon 23. Concerning he will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

Conclusion… The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened the free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God’s sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. (Creeds of the Churches, John Leith, pp.38-43)

This is not an attempt to argue that the Council of Orange is full blown Augustinianism, since it says nothing of irresistible grace and predestination. Also, the council of Orange affirms a view of baptism that is essentially rejected by Protestant theology. However, with respect to the bondage of the will to sin and the need of grace to free the will and bring faith, Orange has similarities to Calvinism and some forms of Arminianism.[4] Olson affirms “that fallen man continues to exercise his uncoerced will, not only in the ordinary decisions of life, but also the moral decisions relating to God.”[5] Olson argues that the freedom of the will was not destroyed in Adam and Eve, contrary to the explicit statements of the Council of Orange.[6] Olson concludes man “retained his free will…this [depravity] is not to be understood as inability to respond to God…”[7] Clearly, however, a cursory reading of the Council of Orange shows a rejection of what Olson argues is ‘mediate’ with respect to the will and the absolute necessity of enabling grace in order to believe.

Semi-Pelagianism vs. Semi-Augustinianism

What is Semi-Pelagianism? Philip Schaff distinguishes between Semi-Pelagianism and Semi-Augustinianism of the Council of Orange.

“It [Semi-Pelagianism] rejects the Pelagian doctrine of the moral soundness of man, but also rejects the entire corruption and bondage of the natural man,[8] and substitutes the idea of a diseased or crippled state of the voluntary power. It disowns the Pelagian conception of grace as a mere external auxiliary; but also, quite as decidedly, the Augustinian doctrines of the sovereignty, irresistableness, and limitation of grace; and affirms the necessity and the internal operation of grace with and through human agency, a general atonement through Christ, and a predestination to salvation condition by the foreknowledge of faith.”[9]

As we will have occasion to show this is precisely where Olson’s position finds itself. It clearly denies Augustinian predestination and irresistible grace. Olson rejects the entire corruption of man that extends to the will and favors a sort of crippling state where man retains free will along with affirming salvation conditioned on the foreknowledge of faith. Olson’s Mediate Soteriology is inconsistent with Orange.

What is semi-Augustinian? With respect to ‘Semi-Augustinian’ at the Council of Orange, Schaff defines it thus, the position where the “Augustinian doctrine of sin and grace was approved, without the doctrine of absolute or particularistic predestination.”[10] Schaff notes five proposition that makes the Council of Orange stand in opposition to Semi-Pelagianism.[11] This includes the need for prevenient grace and every good work proceeds not from us but God inspires in us faith and love to Him. It is important to note that the Council of Orange does not reject predestination yet it never affirms it. It does not reject irresistible grace but only goes so far as to affirm prevenient grace.

Which mediate view? Olson states, “Research for this book has confirmed this mediate position as the Biblical one.”[12] So is the Council of Orange right in its view of the bondage of the will and the need for prevenient grace or is Olson’s view with respect to the freedom of the will and the Spirit’s work in conviction (but a rejection of prevenient grace [13]) the correct ‘mediate view’?

Conclusion.

Olson’s mediate view is not Orange’s ‘Mediate View’. The two views are distinct. Olson says, “a balanced view of depravity does not preclude sinners from exercising repentant faith on their own. This may sound shocking to Calvinists…”[14] I would suggest that this sounds equally shocking to the Council of Orange and its ‘mediate view’. And against Olson, we will seek to show that inductive Bible study does not confirm his assertion. All mediate views are not equal just because we categorize them by the same name.

As we move into the 16th and 17th century, with respect to Calvinism and the developing Arminian views, the issue become more complex and even in many respects focus on different elements. Seeking to postulate a mediate view between these two options is not the same is not the same as finding a mediate view in Augustine’s era. This is simply bad historiography, unless one is going to argue that all Arminians are Pelagians. We will show that in some ways, the substance of Olson’s soteriology is not really mediate at all between Arminians and Calvinism.

Jaroslav Pelikan, in The Christian Tradition, vol 1, states, that at the Council of Orange “essential Augustinianism was vindicated” (p.327). He continues:

“In this adjudication of the controversy, the paradox of grace, which had lain at the center of Augustine’s theology, was not resolved; and it seems an oversimplification to assert that “this ‘Augustinianism’ is basically almost as close to Semi-Pelagian synergism as to the particularistic and predestinarian monergism of Augustine.” For here [at Orange], as in Augustine, grace was sovereign, necessary, and mediated—but none of these without the others. In keeping with Augustine, the effort to mitigate the necessity of grace by ascribing some initiative in salvation to the will of men was rejected. On the other hand, the opposite extreme, to which the anti-Pelagian Augustine had sometimes seemed willing to go, asserting the sovereignty of grace by ascribing damnation to the will of God, was also anathematized. In this sense it is true that Orange condemned some of Augustine’s theology, but this was a gentle rebuke compared with the condemnation not only of Pelagius but…’the remnants of the Pelagian heresy’” (328-29, emphasis added).

[1] GTGR, 320-333.

[2] Compare this to GTGR 124, where the chart shows that God does not act until repentant faith and chapter 3 which affirms free will.

[3] Olson affirms that human ability to believe in the gospel is not lost. GTGR, 31-38.

[4] See Roger Olson's Arminian Theology (Intervarsity, 2006) for a treatment of prevenient grace, the bondage of the will and total depravity in some Arminian schemes.

[5] GTGR, 34. Also p. 33 “total depravity does not imply inability…” To be clear a Calvinist can in a sense affirm “fallen man continues to exercise his uncoerced will, not only in the ordinary decisions of life, but also the moral decisions relating to God.” However, the moral decisions will only ever result in rejection of God, but nevertheless the free rejection of God. This is because the will as part of the heart is bound in captivity to sin. Will is not coerced to sin but will always do so freely and we might add boldly unless grace is operative in heart—The Council of Orange affirms this same necessity of operative grace, as do some Armininians. Both prevenient grace and irresistible grace affirm the bondage of the will and the priority of grace to free the will. The question is the nature of this grace and how will the will freely respond.

[6] GTGR, 33.

[7] GTGR, 40.

[8] Olson redefines total depravity so that it does not include the bondage of the will to sin.

[9] Schaff, History of the Christian Church III.858. Emphasis ours.

[10] Schaff, History, III.866.

[11] Schaff, History, III.868.

[12] GTGR, 3.

[13] Some of the Arminian schemes that require prevenient grace do so because in their system because they affirm the bondage of the will in sin. Thus the will is freed to a neutral point and then decides. However, Olson rejects the bondage of the will to sin (ch.3). He affirms the conviction of the Spirit (ch. 7) but decries prevenient grace because it is not inductive (p.81). All affirm the Spirit uses the outward preaching of the word of God and mediate means, the question is: is conviction an internal operation of the Spirit in our hearts? If our hearts don’t need to be changed it seems that at best this conviction is a force working internally and externally and does nothing to change the sinner internally. This ‘change’ of the sinner is precisely what the Council of Orange says we need first before we believe. The sinner is not precluded from exercising faith on his own (see following footnote and its quote). Conviction is an ‘enhancement’ not a change in the heart of the sinner (p.93). This is not the notion of prevenient grace of some Arminian schemes [we will discuss this later].

[14] GTGR, 93-94.

What is Hyper-Calvinism?

Post 2, in our Review of C. Gordon Olson's Getting the Gospel Right. To find a list of the entire series, see the Table of Contents.

Introduction

If you are going to write a book on Calvinism, it behooves one to get the terms correct in a manner that fits within the historical usage of the terms. No where is this more evident of Olson’s labeling of five-point Calvinism as ‘Extreme or Hyper-Calvinism’. This thesis is based on three basic misunderstandings: that Calvin and the later Calvinists disagreed with each other. We will rebut this at a future point (for starters see here and here). It is note worthy that Calvin affirmed the essential doctrine of T, U, I and P, from ‘Tulip’ although not according to the formula. Besides his commentaries, Institutes, and sermons, Calvin has works on the Bondage of the Will and the Eternal Predestination, arguing for unconditional election. Against the research of a few, the best Calvinist scholarship agrees that he most likely affirmed the ‘L’.

Second, that Calvinism and Reformed theology has only Calvin as its forefather. While Calvin gets the most ‘air-time’ in our modern day, numerous other reformers contemporary to Calvin were making the same view. For example, Bucer held to limited atonement and other doctrines of “Calvinism”. For the Reformed, we also have Heinrich Bullinger, Wolfgang Musculus and Peter Martyr Vermigli, to name a few. On the Lutheran side of the reformation, Luther held to the bondage of the will and unconditional election.

Third, there is a kind of hyper-Calvinism that has been thoroughly and consistently rejected in church history by five point Calvinists. Hyper-Calvinism affirms the five points and denies that in the preaching of the gospel one can call a sinner to repent and believe. This explicit denial makes all the difference. The normative five point Calvinists has always affirmed the necessity of gospel preaching and calling the sinner to repent. The Calvinism of Dordt, the Westminister Confession and all other five-point Calvinism affirms both the five points and the calling sinners to repent in preaching and evangelism. Thus, a five point Calvinist is not by definition a hyper-Calvinism or extreme Calvinism. Calling five-point Calvinism “hyper-Calvinism” is a best historical graphical error of major proportions, at worst an outright dishonesty.

Olson defines “Extreme or HyperCalvinism” in this way:

“Calvin’s successors extended the implications of Calvin’s views to become the five-points of the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Confession. The acronym TULIP stands for these points. T is for Total Depravity, which means that mankind is so depraved the sinner can do nothing to please God, including repentance or faith. Spiritual death means total inability to respond to God, so God must give faith to the sinner. U is for Unconditional Election or predestination.[1] L is for Limited Atonement, that Christ died only for the elect and not for the “non-elect.” (Some prefer the term, “particular redemption.”) I is for Irresistible Grace, which means that the elect are sovereignly given regeneration to enable them to believe. P is for Perseverance of the saints, which means that the truly elect prove their election by perseverance in faith and obedience to the end.”[2]

Calvin vs. the Calvinists?

Calvin’s followers were not more extreme. Even if Calvin did not hold to Limited Atonement, which is a spurious argument, it erroneous to argue that Calvin’s successors “extended the implications” into the five points. The basic structure can be found in Calvin. The successors of Calvin did not take his views to some sort of extreme. Contemporary scholarship on the 17^th century is thoroughly debunking and destroying the older Calvin vs. the Calvinist theory which was one time widespread but mostly unsubstantiated.[3] The thesis, particularly by some like Brian Armstrong and R.T. Kendall on soteriology and the atonement [4] or the neo-orthodoxs on the Word of God, is being thoroughly dismantled by serious investigation in primary sources.[5] Olson’s pitting of Calvin (moderate) vs. successors (extreme) is simply wrong.

It is true that Reformed Orthodoxy did explore the deeper implications of Reformation theology and probe deeper but they never moved beyond the basics of Calvinism. Richard Muller has masterfully demonstrated that it is thoroughly erroneous to pit latter Calvinist’s predestination as mere rationalism against Calvin’s more “biblical” model.[6] Serious scholars of seventh century Protestantism are quickly debunking the ill-informed oft argued ‘Calvin vs. the Calvinist’ theories showing that it has no basis in historical theology and any cursory reading of the primary sources. To perpetuate such theories is misinformed unless one is willing to substantiate them with serious documentation and enter the throws of rigorous scholarship on Reformed Orthodoxy.

For an introduction between Calvin and His successors see this online article originally published at Modern Reformation.

What is Hyper-Calvinism?

In an online article, Phil Johnson defines it this way:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

Tom Nettles, a Reformed Baptist and a church historian as answered the same question: Are Calvinists Hyper?

Some other resources:

A Critique of Hyper-Calvinism.

The Free offer is Reformed (i.e. in line with ‘5-point Calvinism’).

Check out this introduction to 5-Point Calvinists who believe in the Gospel offer:

The Will of God and the Gospel Offer Part 1

The Will of God and the Gospel Offer Part 2

The Will of God and the Gospel Offer Part 3

The Will of God and the Gospel Offer Part 4

The Will of God and the Gospel Offer Part 5

The Will of God and the Gospel Offer Part 6

John Kennedy’s Five Part Installment on the issue.

The Synod of Dort.

Dort’s historical context. One needs to understand the Confessions of early Reformed Theology, including the Westminster Confession go beyond just five points. The Synod of Dort focuses on the ‘five points’ out of a polemical need not because it encompasses the whole of Reformed theology. They Synod was responding to five specific believes held by the fledgling Arminian movement. Thus, there are five points not because they are the sum and substance of Reformed theology, as if they stand without other doctrines (such as the Trinity, the authority of Scripture, the deity and humanity of Christ, justification by faith alone, etc.) but because these were the doctrines that were threatened. It was not an attempt to focus on new things but a statement of old things in response to departure from it.

A Calvinistic Consensus. The Calvinism at the Synod of Dort was representative of the Reformed branches from all over Europe, in fact the Genevan Calvinists, the more direct heirs of John Calvin, got their invitation late. The final pronouncement of Dort did not cover new ground in Reformed theology but reaffirmed what was already held through the various Reformed churches (English, French, Dutch, German and the Swiss). Dort was not a radicalization of Calvinistic Reformed theology or following some abstract system erroneously attributed to Beza. Even more to the point, the doctrine was written at a level that was to be popular and edifying to the un-academic while clearly rejecting the error or the Arminians.

Calvinism in the words of Dort. We might be surprised at what the Synod of Dort says, particularly about gospel preaching, the call for unbelievers, the bondage of the will and the regeneration of the sinner. Our treatment will not be exhaustive but highlight a few things often missed in Dort’s ‘extreme Calvinism’. It will be clear that Dort does not fall into the historic definition of hyper-Calvinism, unless we redefine hyper-Calvinism as Olson has done.

Dort on Gospel Preaching.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 2. but in this the love of God was manifested, that He "sent his one and only Son into the world, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (1 John 4:9, John 3:16).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 3. And that men may be brought to believe, God mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful tiding to whom He will and at what time He pleases; by whose ministry men are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?" (Rom 10:14-15).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 4. The wrath of God abides upon those who believe not this gospel. But such as receive it and embrace Jesus the Savior by a true and living faith are by Him delivered from the wrath of God and from destruction, and have the gift of eternal life conferred upon them.

Dort affirms the necessity of preaching. Dort is quite clear that if a person will turn to the gospel and confess and repent they will be saved. Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. The person must “receive and embrace” Jesus Christ with a “true and living faith” in order to be delivered from God’s wrath. True hyper-calvinism denies the necessity of preaching the gospel and calling people to be saved.

Dort on the Atonement and Gospel Proclamation.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 5. The cause or guilt of this unbelief as well as of all other sins is no wise in God, but in man himself; whereas faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the free gift of God, as it is written: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). Likewise: "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him" (Phil 1:29)

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 3. The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 4. This death is of such infinite value and dignity because the person who submitted to it was not only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute Him a Savior for us; and, moreover, because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin.

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 5. Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.

Note how clearly Dort affirms that all sinners without distinction should be called to repent and believe. The preaching of the gospel is not limited to the elect but is to be promiscuously proclaimed. It is God’s good pleasure to send His gospel into all the world and call every man to repent. Dort vigorously upholds this.

Dort on the Call to Believe.

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 6. And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 7. But as many as truly believe, and are delivered and saved from sin and destruction through the death of Christ, are indebted for this benefit solely to the grace of God given them in Christ from everlasting, and not to any merit of their own.

People perish for their unbelief. Many people are called by the outward preaching of the gospel but do not repent. This is not a problem in the Christ or his sacrifice but rather the guilt of unbelief lies wholly in the sinner. When a person believes, however, they cannot claim their merit before God. While the sinner who remains in unbelief has only himself to blame, the reverse is not true for the sinner who repents.

Dort on the Sincerity of the Call.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 8. As many as are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called. For God has most earnestly and truly declared in His Word what is acceptable to Him, namely, that those who are called should come unto Him. He also seriously promises rest of soul and eternal life to all who come to Him and believe.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 9. It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted. The fault lies in themselves; some of whom when called, regardless of their danger, reject the Word of life; other, though they receive it, suffer it not to make a lasting impression on their heart; therefore, their joy, arising only from a temporary faith, soon vanishes, and they fall away; while others choke the seed of the Word by perplexing cares and the pleasures of this world, and produce no fruit. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt 13).

The call of God to the sinner through the preaching of the Word is not insincere or feigned. It is not fake. God declares that when a person hears the gospel they have the responsibility to repent. This is not a false responsibility. The promise is if someone believes they will be saved. When someone hears God’s Word and they refuse to believe the fault lies in the heart of the sinner not in God or the call.

Dort on the Culpability of Unbelief.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 15. God is under no obligation to confer this grace upon any; for how can He be indebted to one who had no previous gifts to bestow as a foundation for such recompense? Nay, how can He be indebted to one who has nothing of his own but sin and falsehood? He, therefore, who becomes the subject of this grace owes eternal gratitude to God, and gives Him thanks forever. Whoever is not made partaker thereof is either altogether regardless of these spiritual gifts and satisfied with his own condition, or is in no apprehension of danger, and vainly boasts the possession of that which he has not. Further, with respect to those who outwardly profess their faith and amend their lives, we are bound, after the example of the apostle, to judge and speak of them in the most favorable manner; for the secret recesses of the heart are unknown to us. And as to others who have not yet been called, it is our duty to pray for them to God, who calls the things that are not as if they were. But we are in no wise to conduct ourselves towards them with haughtiness, as if we had made ourselves to differ.

Notice that we are to pray for the unbeliever who has not yet been called to believe the gospel. We are also supposed to be humble not prideful that we are saved.

Dort on the Will and Regeneration.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 16. But as man by the fall did not cease to be a creature endowed with understanding and will, nor did sin which pervaded the whole race of mankind deprive him of the human nature, but brought upon him depravity and spiritual death; so also this grace of regeneration does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks, nor take away their will and it properties, or do violence thereto; but is spiritually quickens, heals, corrects, and at the same time sweetly and powerfully bends it, that where carnal rebellion and resistance formerly prevailed, a ready and sincere spiritual obedience begins to reign; in which the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consist. Wherefore, unless the admirable Author of every good work so deal with us, man can have no hope of being able to rise from his fall by his own free will, by which, in a state of innocence, he plunged himself into ruin.

THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 17. As the almighty operation of God whereby He brings forth and supports this our natural life does not exclude but require the use of means by which God, of His infinite mercy and goodness, has chosen to exert His influence, so also the aforementioned supernatural operation of God by which we are regenerated in no wise excludes or subverts the use of the gospel, which the most wise God has ordained to be the seed of regeneration and food of the soul. Wherefore, as the apostles and the teachers who succeeded them piously instructed the people concerning this grace of God, to His glory and to the abasement of all pride, and in the meantime, however, neglected not to keep them, by the holy admonitions of the gospel, under the influence of the Word, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical discipline; so even now it should be far from those who give or receive instruction in the Church to presume to tempt God by separating what He of His good pleasure has most intimately joined together. For grace is conferred by means of admonitions; and the more readily we perform our duty, the more clearly this favor of God, working in us, usually manifest itself, and the more directly His work is advanced; to whom alone all the glory, both for the means and for their saving fruit and efficacy, is forever due. Amen.

Total depravity does not mean that our humanity is eradicated or that we do not retain the image of God. Dort even says, “But as man by the fall did not cease to be a creature endowed with understanding and will.” It is not that we do not have a will, rather the will acts according to our heart and our heart is sinful. The will is enslaved to sin. Furthermore, Dort is quite clear that the will is not coerced in irresistible grace, “so also this grace of regeneration does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks, nor take away their will and it properties, or do violence thereto; but is spiritually quickens, heals, corrects, and at the same time sweetly and powerfully bends it, that where carnal rebellion and resistance formerly prevailed, a ready and sincere spiritual obedience begins to reign.” This is often misunderstood by non-Calvinists, particularly when they fail to listen to what the opposing view actually holds and maintains. Such argumentation becomes the construction of ‘straw men’ and victory declared when the ‘straw man’ is burned down.

Dort is clear that God uses means: “does not exclude but require the use of means by which God, of His infinite mercy and goodness, has chosen to exert His influence, so also the aforementioned supernatural operation of God by which we are regenerated in no wise excludes or subverts the use of the gospel.” Notice that God uses mediate means to carry out his will. Most importantly God uses the preaching of the gospel to produce an effect in some of the hearers. In fact, the preacher is supposed to admonition his listeners. In other words, he is to plead with them to repent and believe. Dort is so convinced, and this is so essential to their Calvinism, that they say “the more readily we perform our duty, the more clearly this favor of God, working in us, usually manifest itself, and the more directly His work is advanced.” In short, when we are zealous for the work and spread of the gospel, God is pleased to fulfill his eternal plan.

FIFTH HEAD: ARTICLE 14. And as it has pleased God, by the preaching of the gospel, to begin this work of grace in us, so He preserves, continues, and perfects it by the hearing and reading of His Word, by meditation thereon, and by the exhortations, threatenings, and promises thereof, and by the use of the sacraments.

The preaching of the gospel is absolutely necessary for God’s grace to be at work. God uses the Word and the ordinances to build up and strengthen his people. He uses His Word to convert sinners.

A Fair Reading of History.

Taking Dort at its Word. It does not take reading far in the Synod of Dort, to see that the framers use it to encourage holy living and godly life. Even if one disagrees with the overall theology, one cannot help but notice the piety expressed through the document. These were no abstract doctrines but were attached vitally to faith and life of the believer. They were not to lead to pride but humility and prostration before God.

Dory clearly affirms the necessity of gospel preaching, what we would call evangelism. This is the outward call of the gospel, whereby all are dutiful commanded by God’s Word to repent. This call and command is not unsincere, just like God’s command “Be holy as I am holy” and “Be perfect as your father in heaven” are sincere commands but only come to fruition in the work of Christ on our behalf.

It is egregiously false to say, as Olson does, "Extreme Calvinism, in effect, denies that faith is the required condition for salvation. If "Christ purchased faith for the elect," then faith cannot be required for salvation. Indeed, they hold that faith is a consequence of regeneration, not a condition [no arguement there]. Thus, there would be no point in telling the unregerate to believe, since they cannot do so. Since by irresistible grace God regenerates the elect, faith becomes an afterthought, a mere extraneous appendage. This is confirmed by the omission of any mention of faith in the five points of Calvinist theology, the TULIP." [7] Dort and other Calvinist documents place a high value on faith as the instrumental cause of salvation not the meritorious cause. Dort does indeed 'mention faith', in fact as we have shown it is more than a mere mention. The actual structure of the five points was in response to the outline of the Armininians--but no one would argue they did not value faith. In fact, the importance of faith for salvation was never a contention between the two parties.

Five Point Calvinism is not “Hyper-Calvinism.” Clearly the Synod of Dort, and we could show the Westminster Confession of Faith and other historic Reformed confessions, was not ‘Hyper-Calvinism’. Spurgeon was a five point Calvinist, clearly affirming all the points including limited atonement, and he vehemently attacked hyper-Calvinism and passionately called sinners to repent. Men like Andrew Fuller and William Carey were five point Calvinists and they never rejected it yet they preached the gospel. Fuller wrote The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptance which argues for the necessity of gospel preaching, evangelism and calling sinners to repent. The activity of these men and countless other Calvinists along with their works, and even the clear expressions of the necessity of preaching go a long way to rebut the straw men construct by Olson. We will address these arguments in detail later but he argues that Calvinism does not lead to missions work (ch. 25). He also says (ch. 26) Calvinism negates the need for prayer, persuasive preaching and apologetics. Bluntly, Calvinism does not reject the use of means. According to Olson it leads to legalism and self-righteous pride. Ironically, simply reading Dort, not to mention voluminous other works by Calvinists, shows us they cut down pride and legalism, they raise to all heights the necessity of prayer, preaching and the need for the outward call of the gospel. The preacher is, according to Dort, to admonish diligently not lethargically, he is to proclaim the gospel promiscuously to the entire world.

Conclusion

Olson’s erroneous historiography. It is both sloppy and ultimately dishonest for Olson to call five point Calvinism “hyper-Calvinism”. The mislabeling, while we hope unintentional, is unworthy of one who would seek to instruct us on Calvinism and why we should reject it. Clearly five point Calvinist affirms the preaching of the gospel the call of sinners to repent. This is not inconsistent with five-point Calvinism in the least, as many subsequent Calvinists have argued. We shall have occasion to expand on why this is not inconsistent. Suffice it to say that five-point Calvinism is neither ‘hyper-Calvinism’ nor is it a more extreme form of what Calvin held.

Five Point Calvinists thrash ‘Hyper Calvinists.’ There is such a thing a hyper-Calvinist but it is not one who affirms the ‘five points’. A hyper-Calvinist is not one who is passionate about Calvinism. A hyper-Calvinist is not one who holds to Dort or other Reformed Confesions (Baptist, Presbyterianian or Congregational). The hyper-Calvinist goes beyond. The hyper-Calvinism is one who denies the necessity of preaching the gospel and calling the unsaved to repent. This is not historic Calvinism as found in the Reformers, the numerous confessions and catechisms, and countless works. Often times men like Andrew Fuller and Charles Spurgeon [both 5-point Calvinists], or in today R.C. Sproul, D. James Kennedy, James White or John MacArthur will openly and sometimes vehemently reject a true ‘hyper-Calvinism’ that denies preaching and the sincere call to the unregenerate to repent while at the same time these men affirm the ‘five points of Calvinism.’ This call in preaching is sincere because the Calvinist knows that God uses the preaching of the Word in conjunction with the internal operation of the Spirit to bring conviction and regeneration. Calvinists have been zealous missionaries and evangelists and they openly rebut true hyper-Calvinism. We will deal with the issue of Calvinist missionaries as misrepresented by Olson when we deal with chapter twenty-five of GTGR.

A Call for Honest Representation. If one is going to critique a position faithfully, one must understand its tenants, understand how an adherent articulates them and must in his critique faithfully represent the opinions of the opposing view. Olson has not been faithful to his Calvinistic brothers in the Lord in representing their position; it is a false witness against them. This is a grave error. Again, we cannot stress the necessity of accuracy enough here: five point Calvinism is neither historical hyper-Calvinism nor is it in historical investigation an extreme form of Calvin’s theology. It may look extreme to one who repudiates unconditional election, but the five points of Calvinism are nevertheless a summation (but not exhaustive treatment) of normative Calvinism.

---

[1] ‘Predestination’ is inaccurate. The Arminian believes in predestination the question is the basis of the predestination.

[2] GTGR, 2-3.

[3] See for example: Pau Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists. Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1982 [reprinted 2001]; Richard Muller Post Reformational Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520-1725 Volumes 1-4 (Grand Rapids, Mich. Baker, 2003); Idem, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1986; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988); idem, “Calvin and the Calvinists: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities Between the Reformation and Orthodoxy, Part 1” in Calvin Theological Journal, 30, no. 2 (November 1995), 345-375; idem, “Calvin and the Calvinists: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities Between the Reformation and Orthodoxy, Part 2” in Calvin Theological Journal, 31, no. 1 (April 1996), 125-160;

[4] Brian Armstrong Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in the Seventeenth Century France (Madison: The University of Wisconsin, 1969) and. R.T. Kendall Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford: The University Press, 1979).

[5] See the introductory article “Did Calvin’s Successors Distort His Doctrine of Predestination.”

[6] Muller, Christ and the Decree.

[7] GTGR, 214, emphasis original.

C. Gordon Olson's Mediate Soteriology

Post 1. C. Gordon Olson’s Mediate Soteriology To find a list of the entire series, see the Table of Contents.

Gordon Olson’s Getting the Gospel Right.

“The decline of churches in Europe, the battleground of the Reformation, raises real questions about the soundness of the form of Christianity which developed from the Reformation. It was the radical Reformation which sought to break free from the overhanging legacy of medieval scholasticism and thus took the lead in world evangelicalism.”[1] So begins the preface of a book that claims to be a balanced view of salvation and purports to take a middle road.

The book claims to show through inductive Bible study show that Calvinism (and Arminianism) are not Biblical options. In fact, “it is astonishing that this mediate position [the one taken in the book] resolves supposed contradictions and paradoxes, which have plagued our theologies over the ages.”[2] A well known Christian, Tim LaHaye, writes in the introduction states, “What I find interesting is that in spite of its incredible distribution, no scholar to date has attempted to refute it or anything in it. As another who was impressed by the book said, ‘The reason no one has attempted to refute it is that they cannot.’ I would agree.” Quite the bold assertions. Ironically, anyone remotely familiar with Calvinism on even an introductory level would realize that voluminous numbers of theological texts and exegetical expositions have spent countless pages refuting the same arguments and textual misappropriations written in this book long before this book was published. Today, we will deal primarily with Olson’s introduction.

A Review of Olson’s Methods.

In a coming series of posts, I intend to offer introduction to Calvinism as something that inductively arises from the Bible. We will respond to the arguments in Olson's book and show its systematic mishandling of the Biblical texts, its misunderstanding of the Calvinistic system of doctrine and its abuse of church history. We will have occasions to address ludicrous assertions like: “Thus, there would be [for the Calvinist] no point in telling the unregenerate to believe, since they cannot do so…faith becomes an afterthought, a mere extraneous appendage. This is confirmed by the omission of any mention of faith in the five points of Calvinistic theology, the TULIP.”[3] We will address this in due turn, but a simple reading of the Synod of Dort should refute this. Yet again we are told, “This [unconditional election and irresistible grace] leaves the sincerity of the general call to salvation in a totally incoherent position.”[4] We are told that the Reformers because of their theology did nothing to enhance modern missions and that the second generation of the Reformers “rationalized away Christian responsibility.”[5] We will address these issues.

Olson misrepresents Calvinist Doctrine. While Olson affirms, “The Spirit’s conviction of the sinner through the human instrumentality of ministry of the word of God best explains the Scripture data,”[6] he denies the Arminian scheme of prevenient grace as non-textual.[7] Yet this is essentially a notion of the use of the instrumentality of the Word is found in Reformed and Arminian soteriologies in discussions of irresistible or prevenient grace, respectively. We never hear, for example, that the Reformed hold equal strong to the efficacy of the preach word. In fact, every good “extreme-Calvinist (as Olson mislabels the 5 point Calvinist) affirms the instrumentality of the preached Word.[8]

Calvinists Affirm the Holy Spirit. We are told that Calvinists focus on the objective realm of the decrees and struggle in the subjective realm “how can one be included in the elect, and how can one know if one is among the elect?”[9] One would think that even a cursory reading of Calvin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards or countless other Calvinists (not to mention the Creeds and Catechisms) on the role of the Holy Spirit should belay this fear. Was not Calvin himself called the theologian of the Holy Spirit?[10] We are told that in the Bible there is no notion whatsoever of God’s decree and that God ordains all things in the sense of God’s activity determining the outcome by decree before it happens. There is not an “exhaustively efficacious implementation of God’s eternal plan, but quite the opposite [the Gr. term boule] brings out men’s ability to frustrate God’s plan for themselves.” [11]

Is the view truly ‘Mediate’? While Olson generally holds an Arminian view of foreknowledge, with statements like this, he takes neither a mediate view between Arminianism and Calvinism nor is his view the ‘semi-Augustiniansim of the council of Orange as Olson advocates.[12] Ironically, Olson’s emphasis on conviction as means by which people come to faith as ‘heavy human involvement’ prior to the Spirit’s work runs against Canons 6 and 7 of the Council of Oragnge, not to mention the historical Arminian view of depravity and prevenient grace.[13] Mediate? Hardly. When we are told things like “preaching their Calvinism along with the necessity of exercising repentant faith will prove counterproductive” and that one cannot preach Calvinism to sinners[14], we have to seriously question: does the author really understand Calvinism? Our contention will be that the author does not listen to or grasp how from the text of Scripture itself Calvinism handles itself and the alleged problems--even the trumped up "problems". Our author often makes the Calvinist hold statements and beliefs that his “extreme Calvinists” have often rejected without inconsistency to their ‘system’.

The next major problem in the book is the so called “inductive method.” Using an inductive method is certainly good and right--one can find, contrary to Olson's arguments, Calvinist who have used just such methods. But as we will have occasion to show, the author’s methods of so called "induction," often become obtuse and major on minutia. He builds theology based on word definitions then lifting the definition into the context that amounts to little more than theological hucksterism. It is like smoke and mirrors, so overwhelming the reader with definition then using the hazy image to say, “see the text does not say what some think it says, most assuredly the Calvinist is long.” While syntax and grammar is mentioned, it more often is used to obscure the text then expound meaning. The book overloads and bombards the reader with its in ‘inductive approach’ that is a mere light show. We will have occasion to show that the arguments are rather audaciously deductive and the so-called inductivism has one intent: to convince us that Calvinism can not in any way be true. Such bold claims by this reviewer will need to be sustained since the author overwhelms us with a plethora of texts, not surprisingly there are some texts that are strangely absent from his treatment, which we will in turn address in this series of post. We simply ask patience of the reader as we will substatiate the claims in due time.

Errors in historiography. In the introduction, Olson would have us fall prey to the basic “Calvin versus the Calvinists” with respect the issues of determinism and predestination. We are told. “It is widely recognized that Calvin’s successor in Geneva, Theodor Beza, developed a more extreme form of Calvin’s doctrine by adding the notion of limited atonement.”[15] Again later we are told that “Beza reverted Calvinism to a more scholastic mode with his doctrine of limited atonement…” or that Beza and others “developed Calvinism into a more scholastic type of rigid predestinarianism.”[16] This position that the second generation of Reformers departed from basic tenants to Calvinism has be eviscerated by the serious scholarship of contemporary Calvin and Reformation scholars, as we will have occasion to show. Olson’s assertions simply have no basis in fact, in fact represent a misapprehension of basic history of the reformation. While this view was not uncommon in the past by those unfavorable to Reformed theology, it has been show by serious historical documentation in the original sources that it cannot be maintained. It is easy to black ball the history of a view that one finds offensive, yet such revisionist history is not worthy of Christians who always attempt to speak the truth in love.

Errors in definition. Olson continues with this fallacy by separating the definition of a “moderate Calvinist” and an “extreme or hyper-Calvinist.” We are told that the moderate Calvinist is the one who follows the essence of Calvin’s theology.[17] However, Calvin is labeled as a four-point Calvinist. When we discuss Olson’s treatment of the atonement, we will show that Olson misuses Calvin on the atonement. In light of the best modern research and a treatment of the original sources it is difficult, if not impossible, to seriously sustain the Calvin was an Amyraldian (i.e. 4-points). While we will turn our attention to this matter in more detail when we review Olson’s treatement of the atonement, finding a few points where Calvin speaks of Christ’s work for the world does not mean he upheld universal atonement. As Murray writes, after examining specifically Calvin’s treatment of 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 2:4-6, “since Calvin is explicit at these points on the distinction between individuals distributively considered and individuals without distinction of race or class, we are not only justified but required to reckon with that distinction in numerous other passages where, in connection with the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, he uses universal terms. We must bear in mind that Calvin’s jealousy for the proclamation of the gospel of reconciliation to all without exception is not in the least incompatible with his exclusion of the reprobate from the scope of expiation wrought by Christ.” [18] More grievously however, is the mislabeling of a five point Calvinist as a “hyper-Calvinist”. Certainly there is such a thing as a five point Calvinist, and the five points arose at the Synod of Dort in response to Remonstrant Arminianism, however, this is not ‘hyper-Calvinism.’

What does Dort really say? The Synod of Dort affirms the necessity of the preaching and the proclamation of the gospel and calling of all men to repent as they hear this gospel message.

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 5. Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 6. And, whereas many who are called by the gospel[when it is preached] do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.

Dort is not Hyper-Calvinism. The historical definition of ‘hyper-Calvinist’ have not been those who hold to the five points, as for example, articulated at Dort. But rather those who have held to the five points of Calvinism and reject the necessity of the preaching of the gospel. Numerous five point Calvinist have ardently rejected hyper-Calvinism. This mislabeling of historical terms confuses the issues. However, it is not surprising since Olson clearly sees it as fallacious to hold to five point Calvinism (and moderate Calvinism, e.g. any kind of determinism) and preach the gospel and call people through the Word to repent.[19] For Olson, then, it seems that all five point Calvinism would fall under what has been historical known as hyper-Calvinism. However, five-point Calvinism, understood on its own terms has always historical rejected and resisted the views of the few that were truly ‘hyper-Calvinists.’ It is wrong to make such a gross historical mislabeling of the five-point Calvinist position. While Olson may not agree with the position of Calvinism, he has the responsibility to label things correctly and avoid such a pejorative mislabeling that is historically inaccurate. Olson may find five point Calvinism as more ‘extreme’ then the ‘four-point variety’ but to fail to distinguish five point Calvinism from hyper-Calvinism inexcusable for someone who is trying to handle the facts honestly and convince us that he understands the nature of Calvinism of every stripe.

Olson’s Positive Affirmations.

In the rest of the introduction, Olson is correct to remind us ultimately what Bible says and teaches is that which is authoritative. One can wholeheartedly concur with his sober reminder that our doctrines must be derived from the Bible. He affirms the necessity to consider the context of the passage, the meaning of words, and grammar and syntax. [20] While we agree with the method outlined, we will show that of occasion he ignores context, obscures word meanings and twists syntax. His affirmation of the analogy of Scripture along with the total inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture is refreshing in a context when even evangelicals are hesitant to affirm the doctrines in attempts to gain academic respectability. We wholeheartedly concur that “we must always interpret our experience by the Bible!”[21]

Conclusion.

We are more than willing to ‘bear with Olson’ [p.8] as he rehearses mounds of evidence, linguistic, grammatical, syntactical, exegetical and historical yet this means a thorough handling of the arguments also requires some of the same tedious labors. However, reviewing the book will take substantial effort in our series of posts.

At the end of the day our argument will be that Olson does not get Calvinism right, he fails to understand it on its own terms and pays little or no attention to how it handles the text. More importantly, he does not handle the Word of God accurately. Calvinism arises from nowhere but serious inductive Bible study. He obscures the fact of countless five point Calvinists including Jonathan Edwards, Andrew Fuller and William Carey who were passionate evangelists, gospel preachers and missionaries. We will also demonstrate consistent mishandlings and misapplications of the text. The book is so eager to wield a brazen sword against Calvinism that it cannot see the truth in the text’s right in front of us. The presupposition is that Calvinism is untrue and Calvinists cannot consistently evangelize. This presupposition colors the treatment of Olson. The book does indeed hold “a few texts [and a few concepts] so near the eyes that they hide the rest of the Bible.”[22] In the end, Olson does not get the gospel right with respect to the sovereignty and glory of God as he exalts the glory and free will of man over the priority of God’s activity in redemption.

[1] C. Gordon Olson, Getting the Gospel Right: A Balanced View of Salvation Truth, [GTGR] ix. As with many things, Olson leaves out key facts, for example, here he fails to mention that some quarters of the radical Reformation either sought to overthrow civil authority and erect a new kingdom based on their eschatology, as in the disaster at Munster. Olson paints pejoritives with such with such sweeping brushstrokes when he says "break free from the overhanging legacy of medieval scholasticism," it is difficult to know where to begin. For example, statements like "and thus took the lead in world evangelicalism" fails to acknowledge the role of say Calvin and others in planting Protestant churches in France, or Particular Baptists like Andrew Fuller and William Carey.

[2] GTGR, 8. This is sweeping to suggest that for 500+ years Christians have been unaware of the difficulties of their theologies (whether Calvinist or Arminian) and only now will the record be set straight. Regardless of one's view of soteriology, both Calvinist and Arminian theologians and Biblical scholars have worked hard to resolve the "contradictions and paradoxes" in order to be faithful to Scripture.

[3] GTGR, 214. Emphasis original.

[4] GTGR, 317. Emphasis original.

[5] GTGR, 341.

[6] GTGR, 94.

[7] GTGR, 83.

[8] For starters see: Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC) 88-90. Synod of Dort: Fifth Head, Article 14; Heidelberg Catechism Q. 65; Q.84; Second Helvetic Confession, chapter 1 is clear that internal illumination (e.g. irresistible grace) does not eliminate the need for preaching; chapter 14; also chapter 6 ‘means not despised’.

[9] GTGR, 84.

[10] B.B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Vol V.: Calvin and Calvinism, p. 21.

[11] GTGR, 20. Emphasis original. He is refering to Luke 7:30.

[12] GTGR, 321-22.

[13] GTGR, 83-94; 124.

[14] GTGR, 358.

[15] GTGR, 2.

[16] GTGR, 332.

[17] GTGR, 2.

[18] John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray vol 4: Studies in Theology (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1982) 313.

[19] GTGR, 349-51; 357-59.

[20] GTGR, 6

[21] GTGR, 7.

[22] A phrase that Olson refers to a number of times, including GTGR, 37.

Mediate Soteriology Table of Contents

I am going to start a series of posts reviewing C. Gordon Olson's book entitled Getting the Gospel Right.

This post is going to serve as the table of contents. I intend to painstakingly walk through his exegetical arguments, his theological and historical arguments and his basic logical fallacies. Due to the anticipated length of this series, I will no doubt not make all the posts sucessive--hence the table of contents.

I intend that this series will end up being quite long (easily 25+ posts) due to the nature of the argument and Tim LaHaye's bogus assertion in the preface: "The reason no one has attempted to regute it is that they cannot." At times we will slow down to carefully examine the exegesis, we may end up spending four or five posts on a chapter. I would argue that the arguments Olson makes are standard Arminian arguments that have long been refuted by Calvinists, just because someone has redressed them and put them in a new format does not mean that the arguments have not long been refuted.

The Series is as Follows:

Post 1: C. Gordon Olson's Mediate Soteriology --A brief overview and start of chapter 1.

Post 2: What is Hyper-Calvinism? --Olson falsely calls 5-Point Calvinism "Hyper-Calvinism".

Post 3: The Council of Orange vs. "Mediate Soteriology" --Olson wrongly asserts The Council of Orange is a mediate view equivalent to his mediate view.

Post 4: Chapter 2--Does the Bible teach that God has self-limited His sovereignty? --Olson claims that God limits His sovereignty so that human beings can have autonomy.

Post 5: God's Kingship-- This continues to review chapter two and Olson's claim that God's kingship does not entail sovereignty over every aspect under His reign.

Post 6: The Counsel and the Will of God-- It continues chapter two and deals with Olson's contention that there is no decree of God that encompases all things.

Post 7: Acts 2:23 and Ephesians 1:11-- Analysizes Olson's exegesis of these two verses and wraps up with some concluding comments on chapter two.

(This series of reviews has not been finished as I originally planned.)

Sermon Applications

Here was the sermon text for 1/20/08:

1 John 4:16-21 16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. 19 We love, because He first loved us. 20 If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.

Here were the applications:

A. We should think about the judgment of God. This thinking should stir us to contemplate the reality of it and even bring a measure of fear. Think of it this way: if you do not ‘fear’ the coming storm—you do not prepare for it. When you do not prepare for it—it quickly destroys you house. But when you see the storm coming and you know the judgment it will bring, you prepare. You board the windows and sure up the foundation. Then you retire to your house unafraid.

1. Sometimes we ignore the judgment. This is not what it means for us to be unafraid and have confidence. The idea of judgment is dismissed in many churches but it is a practical doctrine. It should sharpen our spiritual senses.
   
   
2. If we do not have God’s love in us, we should rightfully fear the judgment.
   
   
3. Martyn Lloyd-Jones say it this way:
   
   

   "The first is that the natural man—all of us by nature—should fear the Day of Judgment. Or let me put it like this: I say that every one of us should have known at some time or another a fear of that day. I deduce that because ‘there is no fear in love,’ and ‘perfect love casteth out fear’; but until perfect love comes, there is fear. Indeed, it should be there, and I say should because I am ready to accept the fact that all do not fear. [1]"

4. Do I know where I stand before God? What has removed my fear? Is my fear removed because I’m foolish or because I trust Christ? –I use foolish as a Biblical category speaking of the all sinners Paul says:
   Romans 3:18 18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES." (Qtd. Ps. 36:1)

5. We live in a culture that fears fear and so we ignore it, instead of healing it with the gospel.

6. Some of us live without fear but for the wrong reasons—not because we trust Christ but because we reject the notion of judgment as stupid. The Day of the Lord will lay this kind of stupidity bear. You will regret the day you make a mockery of the LORD and His power to judge. I say this not as a personal threat from me to you but as Michael the archangel said to Satan “May the LORD rebuke you.” (Jude 1:9)

7. If you have never placed your faith and trust in Christ, you do have something to fear. But you have heard today the good news, that is what ‘gospel’ means. The good news is the Jesus Christ died to take the punishment for sin and pay for it—to exhaust that punishment. Trust in Jesus Christ. Confess that He is Lord and Savior and ask to be forgiven—then you have no punishment to fear.

B. As a Christian do I have a confidence before God?

1. Some of us still live as Christian with a sense of fear and doubt.


2. Turn and trust wholly in the completed work of Christ. You do not have to go any further than the cross of Christ to know that you are loved. God is love and He has manifested that love most perfectly to you by sacrificing Jesus on the Cross for our sins. Jesus was not some divine whipping boy—but the love of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was worked out perfectly on the Cross.
   
   
3. The Cross was a Day of Judgment. The Son of God stood in your place and in my place and bore the judgment of God as a propitiation. He who knew know sin became sin for us. “Cursed is anyone who is hung on a tree.”
   
   
4. Dear Christian, you will not be curse and struck from the site of God. You will not be forsaken but cradled in His loving arms. Have a confidence in your God and what He has done.

C. It is easy to be plagued by fear. In your daily life, as you face struggles, trials and fears, know that God’s love has the ability to cast out such fear—if we would just turn to Him.

1. You and I should be free from fear.
   


2. There are two aspects of the work of Christ which should cause us not to fear; both aspects come from being united to Christ—our abiding in Him:
   a. Our justification: it is a legal term. We are declared righteous. It is a court room scene, just like the last judgment. But we do not have to wait for the verdict: we have it know: NOT GUILTY! Christ paid for our sins. –This removes fear because we know our position before God.
   b. Our sanctification: our being holy or set apart. That God works in us to make us more like Him. This removes fear because we see God’s love at work in us. The love that has perfected us “positionally” is still working in us. This is the area where “as He is, so also are we in this world.”
   c. Martyn Lloyd-Jones:
   

   If I am not living the Christian life, and love is not perfected in me, I will have a constant sense of condemnation and of fearfulness. I will spend thewhole of my life in this world in condemnation…Live a life of love; let love be perfected in you. Love the brethren, and as you do so you will say to yourself, ‘In spite of what I am, I find that as He is so am I in this world.” You will find yourself loving someone who is hateful, and you will draw the correct deduction and will say, ‘It must be that Christ is in me.’. You will come to the Day of Judgment without fear and trembling.[2]

*Some of my thoughts in this sermon have been influenced by Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ two sermons “That Great Day” and “Free from Fear.”[3] I have cited him where I quote him.

[1] Life in Christ, 539.
[2] Life in Christ, 547.
[3] Martyn Lloyd-Jones Life in Christ: Studies in First John, (Crossway, 2002) 527-547.

John Flavel and Our Fountain of Life.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I am woking through Volume 1 of John Flavel's six volumes. Next month, for Timmy Brister's Puritan Reading Challenge, I'm going to read Flavels The Mystery of Providence.

It is amazing to read Flavel and see how beautifully he preaches and applies to the heart the doctrines of grace. For example, in sermon 3 in the series "Christ the Fountain of Life: A Display of Christ in His Mediatorial Glory {42 sermons encompassing all of volume 1}--Flavel lays out the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son. While not a full exegetical treatment, the verses that he treats not only strengthened my belief that this 'covenant' is a Biblical (and theological) concept as the Father clearly promises a people to the Son. The people promised to the Son are guarenteed that Christ will secure them, but Flavel, like so many Puritans, warms the heart. You can almost sense you affections changing as you allow God to work through this sermon.

The "Doctrine" of the sermon is this: "That the business of man's salvation was transacted upon covenant terms, betwixt the Father and the Son, from all eternity"

The text is: Isaiah 53:12

Isaiah 53:12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Flavel distinguishes clearly between the covenant of redemption (pretemporal between the Father and the Son) and the covenant of grace (post-fall--between God and believers). This covenant of redemption is mutually between the Father and the Son. He goes on to outline this promise between God the Father and God the Son.

After careful treatment of the topic, Flavel makes some of the following applications [uses] to his hearers:

1. "the abudanty security that God hath given the elect for their slavation, and that not only in respect of the covenant of grace made with them, but also this covenant of redemption made with Christ for them; which indeed is the foundation of the covenant of grace. God's single promise is security enough to our faith, his covenant of grace adds, ex abudanti, farther security; but both these viewed as the effects and fruits of this covenant of redemption, make all fast and sure."
2. "that God the Father and God the Son, do mutually rely and trust one another in the business of our redemption." [--this is beautiful as we meditate on the Trinity, His work for us, and the nature of penal substitution, often wrongly caricatured are running contrary to the Trinitarian love of God]
3. "the validity and unquestionable succes of Christ's intercession in heaven for believers."
4. "the consistency of grace with full satisfaction to the justice of God."
5. "the antiquity of the love of God to believers."
6. "How reasonable it is that believers should embrace the hardest terms of obedience unto Christ, who complied with such hard terms for their salvation: they were hard and difficult terms indeed, on which Christ recieved your from the Father's hand: it was as you heard, to pour out his soul unto death, or not to enjoy a soul of you." [--here in Flavel, the indicative of grace (what Christ has done for us) leads to the imperitive (the Christian's ethical response).] --here Flavel even constructs what a suppossed conversation between the Father and Son could have looked like to illustrate things for the listener.
7. "How great are we all concerned to make it sure to ourselves, that we are of this number which the Father and the Son agreed for before the world was; that we were comprehended in Christ's engagement and compact with the Father?" --He says we can know this (1) if we are believers indeed and (2) if we saving know Christ; (3) if we are not of the world; (4) If we keep Christ's word. You'll find no moralism here.

In Sermon XI, Flavel begins to go into the High-Priesthood of Christ.

The Doctrine is "That the sacrifice of Christ, our High-Priest, is most excellent in itself, and most neccessary for us." The text is: Hebrews 9:23

Hebrews 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Here is what the sacrifice supposes and implies:

1. "Man's revolt and fall from God"
2. "His priesthood supposes the unalterable purpose of God to take vengeance for sin; he will not let it pass."
3. "The priesthood of Christ pre-supposeth the utter impotancy of men to appease God, and recover his favour by any thing he could do or suffer. Surely God would not come down to assume a body to die, and be offered up for us, if at any cheaper rate it could have been accomplished; there was no other way to recover man and satisfy God."
4. "Christ's priesthood implies the necessity of his being God-man"
5. "...implies the extremity of his sufferings."
6. "it implies the gracious design of God to reconcile us at a dear rate to himself in that he called and confirmed Christ in his priesthoo by an oath, and thereby laid out a sacrifice, of infinite value, for the world.

Then Flavel opens the necessity of Christ's priesthood:

1. "God stood upon full satisfaction and would not remit one sin without it." We know this (a) through the nature of sin; (b) "The veracity of God requires it." [--the law pronounced the curse of death Gen. 2:17; Gal. 3:9]; (c) "The wisdom of God, by which he governs the rational world, admits not of a dispensation or relaxation of the threatenings without satisfaction..."
2. Man can render no satisfaction of his own for the wrong done by his sin. (a) not by doing; (b) not by suffering.

Between point 1 and 2, Flavel takes the time to handle this common objection: "Let none here object, that reconciliation upon this only score of satisfaction, is derogatory to the riches of grace; or that we allow not God what we do men, viz. to foregive an injury freely without satisfaction." --This objection is all too common today, who ever said the Puritans weren't practical?

He then makes these corollaries or "practical deductions".

1. "the incomparable excellency of the reformed Christian religion above all other religios, known to, or professed in the world." He unpacks this with a full page of explanation.
2. "Hence be informed of the necessity of faith, in order to a state and sense of peace with God:for to what purpose is the blood of Christ our sacrifice shed, unless it be actually and personally applied and appropriated by faith?" He argues "the death of Christ is the meritorious cause of remission, but faith is the instrumental applying cause; and as Christ's blood is necessary in its pplace, so is our faith in its place also. For the actual remision of sin, and peace of conscience, there must be a co-operation of all the causes of remission and paece. As there is grace and love of God for an efficient and impulsive cause, and the death of Christ our sacrifice, the meritorious cause; so of necessity there must be faith, the instrumental cause...the death of Christ, the offers and tenders of Christ, never saved one soul in themselves, without believing application. But, wo [sic] is me! how [sic] do I see sinners, eitehr not at all touched with the sense of sin, and so being whole, need not the physician; or if any be stung and wounded with guilt, how do they lick themselves whole with their own duties and reformations!...And I am assured, till God shew you the face of sin, in the glass of the law, make the scorpions and fiery serpents, that lurk in the law, and in your own consciences, to come hissing about you, and smitting you with their deadly stings, till you have had some sick nights, and sorrowful days for sin, you will neve go up and down seeking an interest in the blood of his sacrifice with tears. But, reader, if ever this by thy condition, then wilt thou know the worth of Christ; then wilt thou have a value for the blood of sprinking." --Found this imagery wonderous and the distinction between meritorious cause and instrumental cause crucial and important, particularly given the recent incident that I blog about here. Flavel believes in the monergism of God's grace but this monergism is not of the twisted variety of modern theology (Barth and others) that excludes the need for man to respond by faith.
3. "Is Christ your High-priest, and is his priesthood so indispensably necessary to our salvation? Then freely acknowledge your utter impotency to reconcile yourselves to God by any thing you can do, or suffer; and let Christ have the whole glory of your recovery ascribed to him.
4. "see your necessity of this priest, and his most excellent sacrifice; and accordingly make us of it...Your actual sins have need of the priest, and his sacrifice, to procuse remission for them."
   
   

One of the great things about reading these sermons by Flavel is watching him break down complex doctrine (another example is the natures of Christ in sermon V) and explainining them clearly and simply with copious references from Scripture. To paraphrase Spurgeon (I think), if you prick Flavel, he bleeds the Bible. Then after Flavel examines it, he makes applications to the heart. What he calls applications most listeners today would still consider "doctrines".

As a pastor, reading these sermons is helping me evaluate how I apply Scripture to my listeners. Do I use the world of God as an arrow and aim to the depths of the heart, or am I content with the kind of surfacy moralism and "10 steps"? Am still learning in these matters, but hopefully the Flavel and other Puritans will shape me and temper my ministry as steal is hammered out. One thing is for sure, even more than the benefits for ministry, these sermons continue to be a benefit to my soul and its health. Soli Deo Gloria.

Stay Tuned for more blogging about "Christ: The Fountain of Life."

Don't forget about Timmy Brister's Puritan reading challenge:

Young Life & Gospel Proclamation--p4

This is the fourth and final post I am going to make on the YL statement of non-negotiables. You can read the series here:

Part 1: The NT values statements of beliefs.

Part 2: The YL did a good job of sticking to the basics of the gospel.

Part 3: The Gospel demands that the sinner respond by repentant faith and receive salvation.

FOURTH, GOSPEL PROCLAMATION WAS NOT LIMITED TO THE FOUR SPIRITUAL LAWS APPROACH.

I am really surprised at how the YL document has been caricatured. So many times the gospel presentation style was labeled as “four spiritual laws”. What is bizarre is that no where in the paper is this approach specifically advocated and you would think for all the creativity and youth ministry genius that is out there—they would recognize one can faithfully share the gospel under the guidelines of the YL document without being pigeon holed into “Four spiritual laws.” This leads me to believe that what most people are griping over is not the methodology in the document, the “restrictiveness”, or that some people left/were fired, or that YL outlined its focus. It seems that a number of people may really just be using the circumstances (even the outcomes were unfortunate) to take their gripe at the theology.

As one commenter pointed out: these things really aren't restrictive unless you disagree with one of the six things.

The Gospel used to mean something along these lines:

“If we analyze salvation in its most basic sense, we will say that we are saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, this does not imply knowledge of our miserable condition by nature or of the remedy that we need to apply. For in order to put our trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, we must acknowledge that by the sin of Adam, as well as by our own iniquities, we are altogether lost. We ought to have already discovered this for ourselves. We will never understand that our sins condemn us in God’s sight, unless we know that we need to be put right with him. In other words, we will not be aware of the righteousness of God if we simply say, “We are saved by grace and by faith.’ For God cannot once deny himself, since he embodies sovereign justice; he is all purity and perfection and, therefore, he detests what is evil. Yet we are totally corrupt and there is only wickedness in us; it follows, therefore, that God must hate us. However, if he hates us, woe unto us, for we are damned. This is why we need to be justified before we can please God. This means we must be cleansed from our sins and transgressions; otherwise, we could never appreciate God’s mercy (as I have said). If we acknowledge that we are sinners, we will realize that God hates sin, and yet though he hates it he has nevertheless provided a way to save us—by forgiving our sins, and by cleansing and purging us from them through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, who gives us a spiritual cleansing. God washes us clean in order that he might receive us, so that sharing in his love, we may be assured of salvation.” Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, p.179.

Clearly Calvin had read Campus Crusade's tract "Four Spiritual Laws"

Will the real kingdom of God please stand? It is often caricatured today that this notion is “modern evangelicalism” or that it neglects Jesus’ kingdom language or rejects salvation history. This is just silly as a simple reading of church history will show. Rather, most have long recognized that Jesus embodies the kingdom. It is not as if everyone until N.T. Wright (and now McLaren) had missed the message of the kingdom and ignored the sermon on the Mount. Rather, unlike some, there was also a recognition that the kingdom of God climaxes in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is “eschatology”. But within eschatology, given the fall of Adam, there is the need now for redemption, e.g. soteriology. The ‘second Adam’ functions both as the eschatological man and as the redeemer and given humanity’s sinfulness the two need to run together if anyone is ever to enjoy the age to come and peace with God.

This is hardly individualistic, one-dimensional, or simply ‘the four spiritual laws’. Even the redemptive historical, however, brings appeals to the individual. At times this seems almost unbeknownst to post-modern man, the obvious zenith of theological thinking. Michael Horton says it well:

“All of this eschatological, apocalyptic talk, far from being antithetical to the question of individual salvation, provokes it. It is no wonder, then, that the goal of Jesus’ work and witness is “so that you may be saved” (John 5:34)…By recapitulating the narrative of redemption (historia salutis), Paul also brought the question of salvation to the point of the individuals (ordo salutis) to whom he was preaching in the synagogue, proclaiming the forgiveness for sins that could not be forgiven under the law ([Acts] 13:38-39)…Throughout Acts are abundant examples of individuals responding in faith and being saved even as they are incorporated visibly into Christ’s body through baptism. In both the preaching and the responses, the redemptive-historical horizon and personal salvation, communal identity and individual faith—all are woven into a single bold of fabric.” (Covenant and Salvation, 59-60).

Furthermore, the caricatures of the YL document continued with the claims that this kind of proclamation is reading everything through the lens of Paul (and Augustine) [find complaint here]. As if to talk about sin, atonement and the likes is strickly Pauline and even more to the point not really faithful to the holistic message of the kingdom. Here Ridderbos serves as a stern counter-weight to us:

"This viewpoint [historia salutis] is of particular importance to vindicate the unity between Paul’s kerygma and Christ’s teaching of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is a well-known fact that all sorts of contrasts have been said to exist here. But however different the modality in Paul’s ministry may be as compared with Jesus Christ’s, it can be rightly said that Paul does nothing but explain the eschatological reality which in Christ’s teachings is called the Kingdom…It is in these facts [death and resurrection] that he [Paul] is to preach and interpret as the culminating point of the Kingdom of God which has appeared in Christ, as the deciding acts in the divine, eschatological drama. The overture was announced by Christ Himself, and the part of the evangelists consists in the reciting of the historic course of God’s mighty deeds in the reversal times…But the unity of what is called Jesus and Paul is the unity of the great acts of God in the fullness of the times.” --Herman Ridderbos, When the Time Had Fully Come, pp.48-49.

As Ridderbos reminds us in the context, the reason the Gospels and the Epistles look so different is that Paul’s ministry is the next phase of redemptive history.

“It contains the exuberant response of the Holy Spirit, who begins to explain—after the work is finished, the angels have returned and Christ is taken from the earth. That is why Paul’s teaching is different and more complicated and more theological than the Synoptic Gospels. It is as if the Spirit struggles within him to put into words the sublime spectacle of the rising sun of salvation on behalf of the coming Church.”

While coyly described as ‘getting back to Jesus’, the contemporary attitude is at points nothing more than a “back to Jesus, flee from Paul” mentality. Some have taken the red-letter approach to Christianity too far. Given the current state of evangelical theology, it is hardly as if people have only been reading the apostle Paul as we are told; if they are it is the Paul of their own making.

So what are we "missioning"? It seems that with all the talk of being missional, some cannot handle the harshness of sin. We should be clear there are a lot of people who use the term and speak of sin, guilt, estrangement, lostness, etc. Yet there are some, hopefully a relative few, who use the term missional and want to proclaim and ‘incarnate’ something that is along the lines of social ethics. So we identify with the down and out and the good news, which is holistic because other gospel presentations have “never” preached to the whole person [a straw-man if ever there was one]; but we never mention sin because that would be a very mean and angry way to “identify”. I am not decry the relational aspects of ministry but we have a serious problem when my view of how I "identify" with some one keeps me from saying, "Hey buddy, we are all terrible sinners under the wrath of God who need to recieve the forgiveness of sin." Or worse, when we think we can just tell someone "Love Jesus" or "Jesus loves you" with placing the context of that love against a human heart that hates God and rebels. After all, we love God because He first loved us. And God demonstrated this love in that while we were yet sinners Christ Jesus died for us, on behalf of our sins.

Here’s what we should be asking: what ever happened to the reality of sin? The heritage of the church is to balance Law and Gospel. Law reveals sin and Gospel proclaims we can be free. While YL is right to say we don’t manipulate, its not like we pretend sin isn’t there or it isn't really that much of an issue. When I was a camp counselor we used to joke that as you tell kids about the reality of sin “You don’t hold the kids hand over the fire and say ‘want to feel what hell is like’”—of course, that was just before evangelicals stopped believing in hell.

Should we explain the differences between God and us? Not only what theologians call the “ontological ones” (e.g. those related to our beings) but also the moral and ethical ones? Why are we so afraid tell teens something is really wrong and the problem is us? It doesn’t take a philosophy major to figure out there are problems in this world. Doesn’t Christianity explain what the problems are: at the root is sin.

We need to realize that in all our efforts to identify with teens and build relationships, we do not ignore the realities of the world. The Christian worldview says the problem, evidenced most plainly and supremely by death—goes back to Genesis 3 and sin. What are we afraid of? I think its summed up in one word: accountability. We do not like being accountable and so we do not want to hold others accountable. But the reality is that we are accountable to God. The LORD Jesus commands that we repent and in the end He will not tolerate continuing rebellion. Yet even more, he is ever gracious with those who do not deserve salvation even has he entreats and sovereignly draws them to Himself. Now there is good news.

The issue of the use of the "Law" in preaching the gospel is hardly a Calvinistic 'issue'. It is not as if only Calvinists have held to it (see Tony Jones' mistatement). You can find it in Luther's views, Wesleyian views, and even in the Pre-Reformation (medieval and early church). Dare I say: we can find it in Paul... (Romans 7:7).

In fact, it used to be a standard belief of evangelical Christianity. Consider for a moment what 1 Cor. 15:1-4 should tell us about how we present the gospel:

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you- unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

What we really need to point out: if this is really "of first importance" the death of Christ "for our sins" and then his burial and resurrection--why are we lax on sharing it? How can we in good conscience say "death for sin and resurrection" is of first importance and then not see the mention of sin as essential for a gospel presentation? This is of first importance. We cannot arrive at something more basic to the gospel--more basic to the kingdom of God then the death and resurrection of Christ. The modern and post-modern fancy is to look elsewhere for "first importance" and quip that the "modern" church is too cross centered. The caricature is, of course, that penal substitution relegates the resurrection to obscurity--yet this forgets the polemical context of many defenses of penal substitution.

Of first importance is that this death for Christ is "on behalf of our sins"--Christ takes our place and bears our sins. This means that the very fact that we have sin is "of first importance" to the gospel. WHY DID CHRIST DIE? The post-modern, in some circles, may have trouble answering the question, but Paul certainly does not.

Perhaps, it is true that teens are aware of their sins. I think we give to much credit to the heart of man in identifying the problem. I think often time there is a sense of something is wrong: my life is broken, I'm a mess, etc. etc. BUT WHAT HAS CAUSED THAT? I think we fail to realize that, as the Catechism says, our chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. This wonderful enjoyment of the glory of God is destroyed by the rebellion of humanity. The relationship of communion and fellowship is destroyed. We are both guilty (legal) and corrupt (moral, ethical). Having ministered to teens and children as a Youth Pastor, Camp Counselor and now as a Pastor, we assume too quickly because the soul/heart is troubled, the soul knows there is sin. Perhaps in some cases where the person has heard the "Law", but often times they know there is something wrong and do not know what it really is. If we do not know what the root of the problem is we will not see the solution and Christ will only be a half-hearted solution at best.

I remember being at a Youth retreat and hearing a charismatic speaker, who have the teens rolling on the floor in laughter. He gripped their attention with humor and delight. He talked of their pain and weakness--and then he invited them to repent. Here was my question based on what I'd heard: repent of what and on the basis of what? There was no mention of sin or repentance based upon the Cross of Christ it was empty. With all the emphasis on being missionally and communicating cross culturally--why do we assume that they really know what sin is? If people (especially teens) have caricatures of what Christianity is about (i.e. hypocritical, legalism, etc. instead of love--why do we assume they really understand anymore of a caricature of what sin is? For some God is nothing more than a heavenly finger-pointer...and that is the extend of their view of sin.

Paul says:

1 Timothy 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

Apparently for some, we do not need to mention "sinners" for the sinner to believe that Christ is the Savior. They may believe wholeheartedly with Paul's statement here, but they are perfectly content to say 'someone may profess faith in Christ without realizing they are sinners and need a Savior; therefore, I can invite them to trust Christ without mentioning the reality of sin.' Our question is this: shouldn't the message (i.e. what the gospel is) determine the method (i.e. what we say)?

Where is the real creativity? The YL document hardly confines one to the “Four Spiritual Laws.” It does make clear that we lay of the reality of sin in gospel proclamation. The document states, “We understand that there may be Young Life staff members and volunteers who would prefer to proclaim the Gospel in another way. But because of the issue of how we proclaim the Good New of Jesus Christ to kids is at the heart of what we do and because we are called to be stewards of this high and holy responsibility, we will maintain our position as described in this paper.”

Well, there it is. The gauntlet has been thrown down. And the bottom line is that people do not like being told what to do. It stifles us; it restricts us—do we not have freedom in Christ? The really question is which Christ? The freedom and creativity some may be pining for is not really freedom in methodology but in theology. For now, we will exclude discussion of how the message drives the method—e.g. 1 Cor. 2:1-5. Let us suggest that it is not the method of the non-negogiables that has become the barb but the message: namely, the fact that we all are by nature children of wrath before salvation (Eph. 2:1-3).

There is nothing in the YL document that means the gospel must presented on “individualist terms” apart from salvation history. The grand scope of salvation history is creation-fall-redemption. There are numerous ways to present this that are still faithful to YL’s boundaries. You can even teach countless OT passages and narratives and present Jesus as the hero and so call the person to repent--and this is the one area where YL is perhaps limiting: "every talk will center on and spring from a Gospel account of an even in the life of Jesus" (p.2) and other texts such as "parables or selections from the Epistles or the Old Testament, etc., used only as secondary references" (p.5). However, given that most people apply the Old Testament not through Christ but through moralism--'Dare to be a Daniel'--can you really blame them?

Maybe some of the critics would not be so upset about describing to teens God's holiness and hatred of sin if YL had gone through the Old Testament a little more with the leaders and used it to point to Jesus. A little reflection of the self-maledictory covenant oaths that God’s makes in the Old Testament goes a long way to remove personal scorn for the curse of the cross and enlighten us to the Trinitarian outworking of God’s love--although I think I'd break that down little for the junior highers in the room.

But this hardly makes it a "four spiritual laws approach" or a reading of soteriology "reductionistic to Pauline epistles." Ironically, given some of the critique, you would think they said that we can only explain Jesus' death from the Pauline epistles using abstract words and conepts like propitiation and justification or by reading a section of systematic theology, or Luther's works.

Despite this, the main point should be that you can still bring out and point to the reality of sin in countless ways without appearing like your reading systematic theology—like for example as Paul does at Athens with a presentation that gives the scope of redemptive history in brevity without missing the reality of sin and the call to repent. You cannot however faithfully share the gospel with all its redemptive historical implications and outworkings while you fail to mention sin and call people to repent and respond by faith. To paraphrase Michael Horton: Don’t we have the ability to ‘recapitulate the narrative of redemption’ and bring to forefront ‘the question of salvation to the point of the individuals to whom we are preaching’?

It is lamentable that a number of these creative youth specialists cannot think of anyway of faithfully presenting the realities of sin (in accord with the YL document) in ways other than talks that go: Point 1-we’ve sinned; Point 2-God hates sin; Point 3-Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for you life. So they have to gripe about how YL presents a ‘one-dimensional’ approach to the gospel. Or could it be that the real issue is that we do not see the need (and obligation) to (without manipulation) make clear the reality of sin in a presentation of the gospel? I think that would surprise Isaiah, the prophets, Jesus and Paul—not to mention “our real heroes”—Calvin and Luther.” I mean if it wasn’t for these latter guys the “modern church” would not be so stuck on that “sin thing” and have made the gospel about “sin management”--or at least that's the word on the street in some circles. I would argue the real creativity some are looking for is with respect to the gospel. After all, who wants an offensive cross that might actual result because of our need to be redeemed from the curse of sin?

One last thought: I did not get into the accusations of politics and institutionalism with respect to the issues and the ‘firings’. A whole lot of people that weighed in have no real means of, nor business attempting, making pronouncement, judgments and prescriptions of the events. But what we should be asking is can a ministry that seeks to proclaim the gospel actually take steps when someone is out of step with what they’ve outlined the gospel to be about? It seems to me that a bunch of people were saying “how unfair”. I mean that is “theological hairsplitting”--and their is in our day no more grevious error, or so we are told--I'm sure glad Paul felt that what about Galatia. Let me illustrate my thought this way: if you managed a hospital and you continually used “treatment A” proven to cure the most wretched illness and you had a fellow who maybe liked “treatment A” even occasionally prescribed “treatment A” but he was really passionately mandated and passionately proclaimed “treatment B” which really never identified, cured or addressed the deepest root causes of the disease what would you do? Maybe a better way to describe it would be what if the doctor prescribed “treatment A” but then told the patient they were not obligated to fulfill the prescription because that would put the responsibility upon the person and not the power of the remedy.

Or, lest we put all the blame on Young Life, if you were working for the hospital and they said, "This is the way that we believe we can best treat the disease; we will not waste our energy using treatment B" but you were convinced of treatment B, what would you say? Or if your hospital specialized on treating cancer and someone in the organization decided they were going to specialized on treating arthritis, while they may appreciate the cancer research and treatment--whay would you do.

While it may be unfortunate that some left or were asked to leave YL because of this issue and because they could not agree over the 'non-negotiables,' it seems the blogsphere made too much of this--as if the entire YL was breaking up and the whole organization was is chaos. Which is worse: the actions of a few to 'agree to disagree' and part company? Or the the actions of the many who circled like vultures ready to tear of the flesh of everyone in the organization? Granted, numerous reports were fairly even handed before interjecting opinion, yet some were not.

Some applications:

1. Those of us not in YL but committed to what J.I. Packer calls the “old gospel” where God saves man from the wretchedness of his sin, should pray for YL. Not just that they’d continue to be strong in their convictions but that they would continue to be gentle and loving both towards staff, volunteers and their teens.

2. We should also learn a thing or two about the issues related to gospel proclamation. We should take serious the message that we proclaim. Theological hair-splitting is the modern ‘boogie-man’ to be avoided at all costs we are told. While it is true some can be unduly divisive, we never the less have a responsibility to be sure we are proclaiming the right message.

3. We should cut past all the rhetoric from every side and think clear of the significance of what is going on. We should take stock of where most evangelicals and ‘post-evangelicals’ really are.

4. We should be warned:

2 Timothy 4:1-5 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: ² preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. ³ For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, ⁴ and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. ⁵ But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

5. The words of Reinhold Neibuhr apply as much today as they did about old liberalism. There are some who offer nothing more than: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross" (The Kingdom of God in America, 1937). We really should take stock of our own life and ministry in these matters.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Young Life & Gospel Proclamation--p3

I want to continue to deal with some of the theological issues that have been raised with the Young Life statement on "non-negotiables" for gospel presentations. Along with the sources I quoted in my part 1, here is another good review of the situation with a helpful evaluation. My main goal is to deal with the theological issues that this debacle has raised. It is no doubt that in the future if ministries seek to put such statements in place, they will be accused on institutionalizing things, or restricting the 'freedom of the gospel' to bounded sets.

It is more than ironic that if C.S. Lewis championed for a "mere Christianity," there used to be a sort of "mere evangelicalism." Whether you were Calvinist or Arminian, Presbyterian or Baptist, there was this central core that you agreed upon as central to the Christian faith--even a set of 'fundamentals' if you will. I think one could argue that the issues that were raised were hardly narrowing and restrictive beyond "mere evangelicalism."

YL has explicitly spelled out those things that were largely assumed by the previous generation of evangelicals. I'm not in YL and so I'm not going to speculate if these issues were raised in the a document because of a love for the gospel (and the kids they are sharing it with) or because of institutionalizing and power controls. It seems to me that far to many, who really have no solid way of knowing have accused it as being the later.

I'm going to attempt to deal with the theology. You find my thoughts so far in Part 1 and Part 2.

THIRD, THE GOSPEL DEMANDS THE WE RESPOND THROUGH FAITH AND REPENTANCE. It is simple wrong to say that we already have salvation or that the need to respond makes salvation something that we achieve.

The need for faith. For all the talk that so many have about creativity, it seems to me what some are fawning for is not creativity in presentation such as Paul did in Athens but creativity in doctrine. We have lost the foolishness of the cross and the laughingstock of the bodily resurrection. Our creativity is no longer designed to make the message barbs that prick our soul and open it to the mercies of God through the power of the Spirit. Instead, we want to dull the sword and tickle the ear.

Christianity Today says that Campbell and Smith contend that the phrase "We believe that only in responding in faith and repentance can Jesus' removal of sin and the imparting of life begin" (from YL) actually "amounts to "insidious 'works righteousness' that is alien to the sovereign love and grace of God in the Christ at work through the Holy Spirit."

The article does note that McSwain believes that repentance is a gift from God, AMEN. It is impossible from the article to know if McSawin would argree or disagree with Campbell and Smith's statement. It is also impossible to know what Campbell and Smith believe as a whole. We need to be careful here because I know I certainly would not want some aspects of my theology represented by soundbites in an article. But so far as Campbell and Smith state it, their statement is problematic. Rick Lawerence summarizes, "In short, the document’s detractors believe it’s wrong for Young Life to assert that God’s grace is “not effective until the teen repents.”

Even in Reformed theology, from Calvin on down, the gift of faith and repentance from the Spirit in no way removes from the sinner the obligation to believe and repent. Reformed theology and the Bible certainly teach the sovereignty of the Spirit of God, however, in the external call of preaching the fully press upon man his obligation to believe and repent to receive the grace of Christ.

In the Bible, so things Jesus said, like:

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 6:29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins."

...All are works righteousness- why? Because he demands that we repent and believe? Puh-lease... Or how about Paul, I mean he was certainly no friend of works righteousness:

Romans 3:23-25 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. [an accurate rendering of the idea in Greek] This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Romans 4:3-5 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

In the bizarrest twist of modern theology, (and certainly no friend to lots of streams of historic Protestant theology)--now we don't even have to respond to the gospel through faith and repentance. Suddenly, if it is an obligation and command to us--it is 'work's righteousness'?

It seems God is so sovereign in bringing salvation that we don't need to do anything. This seems to me to be an unbiblical (and unReformed) notion of human responsibility. Are we really to contend that the most rebellious of persons who are continuing in unbelief and spurning Christ already have salvation? The offer—yes; the thing itself--no. We need to be careful that we do not go the route of some neo-orthodoxy (and others) and argue for an eternal justification. Even with the Biblical/Reformed doctrine of election, there is still the movement from wrath to grace as the sinner believes and repents. This is, of course, brought about by the sovereign operation of the Spirit. Yet the call--you must believe and repent--comes to all. It is really the hyper-Calvinist who denies this (Tony Jones makes no small confusion of categories when he calls this awareness of sin followed by 'necessity of repentance' the "hyper-Reformed" view).

The BIBLICAL, and I might add Reformed and historic evangelical concept, does decry that faith is some sort of lever that we pull-- like a divine slot machine waiting for us to activate it. Faith and repentance are gifts of God through His efficacious grace brought by the effectual inward call of the Spirit. Yet the preacher still outwardly calls people to repent. The people must respond. Salvation comes through faith not 'on account of faith. Paul is very specific using dia + the genitive form of faith not dia + the accusative form of faith. Calvin himself speaks of faith as a vessel whereby we receive all the good graces of God. Yet it is not the vessel that quenches our thirst. Here the reformed notion of faith being a passive trust in God instead of an active 'earning,' if you will, helps us--but it never for a moment decries this notion that we need to respond to the gospel.

American Christianity, at least since the second great awakening, has had a problem with the pietistic and revivalist spirit that makes salvation a product of human response. No doubt. But YL avoids this sort of meritorious view of faith:

We affirm that it is God's grace that saves us through what He accomplished on the cross. Faith is a gift from God and a response to God's activity in our lives. Our response of repentance is only evidence of our change of heart, not the reason for our salvation. Yet the Scriptures speak of repentance as inseparable from our appropriation of the Gospel message. (p.6)

This really strikes the balance. God must change our heart and we respond in repentant faith. Yet we do not have the gift of salvation (and all its benefits) apart from a faith and trust in the Lord Jesus. Why are some so upset?

Reformed Christianity has always emphasized the sovereign grace of the gospel. However, it has not decried the idea that human beings must respond through receiving salvation by faith. On this latter count, it shares this heritage with all evangelical Protestants of all stripes, even those who place less emphasis (or no emphasis) on the sovereign efficaciously of grace. We are not lost children who already belong to God. Rather, Reformed and Biblical theology reminds us that we are under the wrath of God. Calvin's conception of union with Christ is not merely contractual and legal (although it doesn't decry the legal) but it in no way takes about the need to respond and receive God's grace.

The YL document states under #5 "We maintain that the Gospel demands a response; that the sacrifice of Jesus, although sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, is only efficient for those who confess Jesus as Lord and respond in faith, appropriating Jesus' death and resurrection for themselves." The wording may sound close to being a transaction but it is hardly arguing faith merits grace. The question should be for the detractors: DOES CHRIST'S BLOOD EFFECT REDEMPTION FOR THOSE WHO REJECT HIM? For those who would decry: what of Peter and Paul?

Acts 2:37-38 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 16:30-31 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" ³¹ And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Romans 10:9-10 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Romans 10:13-14 13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

Even a school child knows these most basic verses and this basic doctrine. We could of course list numerous other verses that teach the same point.

It seems to me that Smith confuses the categories more than a little. For example, in the Christian Century Article he is quoted as saying, "We repent because God has loved us and saved us--not the other way around...Our repentance and faith per se add nothing to our salvation; they are mere responses accepting an already established, divinely accomplished fact of redemption." A traditional evangelical or Reformed person could easily hold to this would concur with this statement on faith and repentance 'adding nothing'. It seems at best Smith has caricatured YL and historic evangelicalism. However, there is no redemption--no actually forgiveness of sins upon the individual--where redemption is not applied and there is no application apart from the work of the Spirit who efficaciously brings repentant faith upon all who have been chosen by the Father and redeemed by the Son.

Smith apparently means God has provided everything for your salvation but thinks YL is saying "God's work remains ineffective until humans contribute their own last part of the transaction by 'making a decision' and having faith" (Qtd. Christian Century). Certainly repentance is because of God’s grace displayed on the Cross. Certainly the Cross of Christ is effective, accomplishing redemption and sovereignly bring faith. The Spirit applies the work of Christ and brings belief. If that is what Smith means, AMEN. YET, for those who do not believe the blood of Christ is not effective upon them. There is no salvation of sins. They are not saved and do not have forgiveness of sin. According to the article, Smith rejects the notion of “repent and then you will be saved” because it reverses the order, claiming to find precedence in Calvin and Augustine. Salvation comes through faith which is a far cry from saying it comes on account of faith—as some ‘evangelicals’ would claim. The latter is truly 'meritorious' the former, also being Biblical, is not.

Ok, I'm not a big fan of the language of "decide for Christ" either. It does come of out of wimpy second great awakening revivalism. To some degree it smacks of Finneyism or the "God decided for you; Satan against you; you cast the deciding vote." God's accomplished grace is efficacious. Nevertheless, salvation is received through faith. Even given the Reformed Doctrine of the sovereignty of God in election (understood radically different by Barth), it is not as if faith welcomes what we already have. The fact the God has accomplished salvation brings, at the proper time according to the plan of God, true faith in the heart of the believer. NO FAITH = NO SALVATION. Faith is, of course the gift of the Holy Spirit, a gift which if we take the doctrine of election seriously does not come to all men indiscriminately. Or at least that's what the grace of God used to mean.

Our activity does not complete the work of God, our activity of faith is the direct result of His work in us. NEVERTHELESS, the preacher still cries and pleads: repent. AND if the sinner does not repent--they are not saved! Sure we add nothing to our salvation... but Smith statements and the accounts of what he is getting at boarder are not the heritage of Reformation or Confessional Christianity. This is more than a minor misreading of Calvin (and Augustine [here]). We should neither twist history to our fits of fancy nor read them through the colored lenses of Barth and Torrance. Pop-culture evangelicalism has so watered down faith into meritorious responses to complete the work of God; but don't dismiss this bad rendering from the Reformed and Biblical concept of the necessity of faith and repentance in response to the gospel.

This really was the area of contention for a lot of people. Tony Jones even pulled out Calvin, here, trying to argue that Calvin did not believe we first see our sin and then we repent and believe. I happened to respond here and here, [but in that context I probably came off looking like I troll blogs looking for arenas to defend my patron saint Calvin. I do not and he is not (although I do appreciate him and Reformed doctrine)--I don't get jollies running around saying "Calvin said"--although misrepresentation of the truth does concern me]. Calvin did believe in the necessity of repentant faith and that repentant faith comes as we see our sin and grasp Christ our Savior. All of this, for Calvin, came to the sinner because of the efficacious operation of the Spirit.

So for example Calvin tells us right off the bat in book 3:

"First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all the he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us...all that he possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him. It is true that we obtain this by faith. Yet since we see that not all indiscriminately embrace the communion with Christ which is offered in the gospel, reason teaches us to climb higher and to examine in the secret energy of the Spirit. [3.1.1]"

"But faith is the principal work of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the terms commonly employed to express his power and working are, in large measure, referred to it because by faith alone he leads us into the light of the gospel..." [3.1.4]

It is all too easy to read Calvin through the refracted lense of Barth and Torrance. This does no justifce to Calvin. Time and time again, contemporary scholarship is showing the Calvin and the heirs to Calvin (Post-Reformational Reformed theology, the Puritans, etc.) are most faithfully in line with the heritage against neo-orthodoxy of Barth and the further refraction of Torrance. We cannot leave the Trinity accomplishing something apart from the Spirit's application to the individual. This application is marked, particularly in Calvin's thought--but we hasten to add "Biblically", by those who are given the gift of faith. But faith is not the acknowledgement of what we already have. While this appears more "gracious" to some, it really makes a mockery out of the accomplishment and application of redemption as accomplished in unity by the Trinity.

The sovereign work of the Spirit brings faith. Without faith there is no salvation for Calvin and without the efficacious sovereign activity of the Spirit there is no faith. Yet the preacher uses the Word to plead with the listener knowing that the Spirit may work as He sees fit. We will not expound on Calvin more here, not because it wouldn't be beneficial--it would. And I think we could show further that the cursory comments about Calvin (and Augustine) have very little basis in the large scheme of soteriology for these men. This discussion, however, would take us to far afield. Our contention continues to be: it seems that some are complaining to because they want to be creative with their doctrine not their presentation.

Conclusion:

Here’s a quote that is rather pertinent:

“How carefully, therefore, we must heed the words of Paul here which tell us that if we do not look to Jesus Christ, we cannot know what faith really is. Without him, we cannot know remission of sins, how to approach God, how to put our trust in him, or to call upon him. Neither will we know what it is to have peace of conscience, or the hope of eternal life. All this is beyond our reach until we are introduced to Jesus Christ and until we have looked to him and cast ourselves upon him. This kind of faith brings grace: when we recognize that we are wretched creatures, and abominable in God’s sight, seeking the remedy in the Lord Jesus Christ. We must accept that he offered himself for us in order to redeem us fromthe curse under which we lived, and that he has washed us in his blood. By his obedience, he has cancelled all our transgressions so that we can be assured that God accepts and receives us as his children.” (Emphasis Added)

Any guesses on who wrote this? A radical fundamentalist? A rampant evangelical? A "hyper-Reformed" radical? A soteriology ninny who is over influenced by the four-spiritual laws? Perhaps someone who embraces the “sin-management” approach to the gospel? Or someone driven by a “works-righteousness” notion of responding to the gospel?

Part 4: DID THE YOUNG LIFE DOCUMENT NARROW PROCLAMATION TO THE FOUR SPIRITUAL LAWS?

Young Life & Gospel Proclamation--p2

What I am really hoping to do in this series is deal with the theological issues that the Young Life document raised. I have no knowledge of nor do I desire to blog about the inner workings of YL and other parachurch organizations. I do think there document raised some pretty important theological issues: namely do we have to talk about sin to present the gospel? Does Christ's death really have to be presented as sacrificial if we are going to ask someone to become a disciple of Jesus and confess that He is Savior and Lord?

I hope to get down through all the cloaked suspicions and accusations, moving beyond the petty irratibility that exploded on some places in the blog sphere. In short, I do hope this is a series of VOYAGES into theology and its practical out working. There is a lot of practical items that are stirred to the surface with this document. We should not pretend that American Christianity and evangelical/post-evangelicalism is a sea of tranquility when it comes to agreement over what it is we actually proclaim in the gospel.

A Young Life staffer pointed out here that "At the end of the day, this is a bigger deal online than in real life for 99.98% of Young Life. " I have no desire to contribute to all the hype--I really have no place in it. I do however maintain, the theological issues of our methodology in gospel proclamation that upset some are important issues both in our day and in the history of the church.

Part 1 began here. Where I argued: "FIRST, THE NEW TESTAMENT VALUES STATEMENTS OF BELIEF, ALTHOUGH BELIEF IS NOT REDUCED TO A STATEMENT." Now we will continue:

SECOND, YOUNG LIFE DID A GOOD JOB OF STICKING TO THE BASICS OF THE GOSPEL AND GOSPEL PROCLAMATION.

One of the fired staffers said, according to the Christianity Today article, that "the sin talks "we've of breaking God's law and someone needs to pay" can sound more Unitarian than Trinitarian by drawing a sharp contrast between the holy God and the incarnated Son who "actually became sin." Before we move on, is not the "actually became sin" (2 Cor. 5:21 et al), the very notion that 'someone needs to pay'? Is not the sin the imputed guilt of sin? Unless you are going to say that Jesus violated his character and metaphysically became sin or ethically did sin... you can't have your cake and eat it to. Whine about the sin talk but then don't talk about how the incarnated Son "became sin"--every good gospel talk about a holy God says this very thing; if it doesn't say it then it isn't good on the gospel.

This is a real irony given that the YL document says.

“Also we should not make a distinction between God’s nature and the nature of Jesus Christ, as if God is wholly content to condemn sinful humankind while Jesus is wholly loving and forgiving. We affirm that in Trinitarian unity, God’s love and justice are manifest in all three Persons without distinction between God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit” (p.3).

Could it be that there is nothing more than a hatred of any form of penal substitutionary atonement? The Young Life document is hardly harsh about the justice of God and negligent on the love of God. It hits the balance that most people gripe is not found in those “forensic [read evil] presentations of salvation.” And yet the theological gripes continue.

Now objections like these have long been handled, at least since the rise of the Socinians, by those who hold to penal subtitutionary atonement. For a recent book that tackles the Biblical doctrine and the objections in a clear and foreright manner, I would recommend Pierced or Our Transgressions. Yet no matter how clearly one refutes the objections, there will always be detracters and nay-sayers who would rather hear themselves balk at the doctrine then listen to the Biblical responses. Such is life.

Let's take a look at some of what else Young Life (YL) actually said. They summarized their view under six major headings:

1. "We proclaim the Person of Jesus in every message." On page two of the document they flesh this out based upon the commitment of Youth Life founder Jim Rayburn. Yet they are quick to point out that Jesus is the center of salvation history. The focus on how the OT points to Jesus. Their basic point is that all their talks need to point to Jesus as the center of God’s redemption. While they do not mention it, this of course, in no way minimizes the Trinity or the work of the Holy Spirit since the Spirit is sent to point people to Christ. He does not glorify Himself but the Son. “Our message is Jesus—the historical, wonderful, supreme revelation of God and the Savior of the world (John 1:14-18; John 12:32). Salvation history has both its origination and its culmination in Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:15)”—this is hardly reductionistic to the “Four Spiritual Laws approach” as YL document has been has been caricatured [here, here et al].

2. We proclaim the reality of sin and its consequences—that apart from divine grace, we are estranged from God by our disobedience and incapable of a right relationship with God. The document emphasizes that a talk must communicate the reality of sin. Despite the statements of some (here [although most of this series is good]), they are not seeing sin as only law transgression since they are quite clear it is “estrangement, alienation, lostness, and purposelessness” (they specifically and rightly mark these as relational words) while also maintaining words like “guilty, rebellious, separated, and condemned.” The point is to make sure that one is clear on why Jesus is our Savior. There is really no point in challenging someone to be a disciple of Christ and submit to Christ’s Lordship if we do not also explain the absolute necessity for Christ (both his person and his work). They also do not see the solution strictly in legal terms “Our world and our lives are broken because of sin. We are incapable of repairing the damage and brokenness on our own, of accomplishing our redemption and reconciliation [clearly a relational word] (Romans 5:6). Despite the complaint of Tony Jones (he partial retracts here), the document is clear to cast dispersion on manipulative tactics that plague children with or leave them stewing in guilt (p.4). “We are not hopeless because of the love of God in Jesus Christ, but we are helpless to make things right with God on our own. Understanding His presence and His pursuit “while we were yet sinners” leads us to repentance, turning to life on our own apart from God to life in a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.” Even more clearly “We should never presume that it is our job to make kids feel convicted or allow kids to “wallow” in their sin as if wallowing will bring more conviction. That is manipulation.” Amen. But it would see that some would cast dispersion on the necessity of discussing sin when sharing the gospel. The document warns never to end with sin or leave kids waiting to hear the good news but clearly understanding sin is the context for understanding how good the gospel really is—this has roots in Calvin and the Reformation, not to mention other figures. Charges of ‘one dimensional’ in their approach, over emphasis on forensic categories, a ‘formulaic and draconian’ approach, and a ‘gospel of sin management’ are simply wrong. The document is quite clear that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. It does present God’s grace as effective but also balances the Biblical responsibility of humanity to repent and receive the grace of God.


3. We proclaim the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as the ultimate proof of God’s love and the only solution to the problem of sin. This is where the document places priority on the atonement. This too is not simply caricatured in forensic language as some have claimed. There is emphasis of God’s love, reconciliation, new relationship, redemption, propitiation, conquering evil, and substitution (bullets p. 5). Again there are warnings against “gratuitous portrayal of violence” when we describe the cross of Christ. YL emphasizes that Jesus was in control even on the Cross and emphasize verbal proclamation rather than video portrayal.


4. We proclaim the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here the resurrection is not merely tacked on as an after thought. It is a joyful announcement that gives us hope. “Kids no longer need to feel boxed in by their sin or their position in life.”


5. We proclaim the risen Christ’s offer of salvation by inviting our middle school, high school and college friends to confess Jesus as Lord and Savior and respond in faith. Christ may have accomplished salvation but it is effective only in those who believe in the LORD Jesus. “We maintain that the Gospel demands a response; that the sacrifice of Jesus, although sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, is only efficient for those who confess Jesus as Lord and respond in faith, appropriating Jesus’ death and resurrection for themselves.” Here, I would agree with Ben Dubow (p.5), that we could have used more discussion on the Holy Spirit, although on page 4 they are quite clear that the Holy Spirit ‘convicts, motivates, and enables’ response to God’s love. . Nevertheless, the necessity of responding to the gospel by faith is historic (and despite Jones’ complaints, can be found in John Calvin). Jeff McSwain is reported as claiming ‘the separation model essentially communicates to kids that Jesus’ work on salvation is incomplete until they accomplish a heartfelt work of repentance. Instead, the truth is that Jesus has already won our salvation, whether or not we receive it through repentance.’ YL maintains that one must respond to the person of Jesus Christ and receive the forgiveness of sins—is this not the message of the kingdom of God, particularly in the book of Acts? Invitations are not manipulative and if balanced with a clear understanding of the work of the Spirit, they are not “works righteousness” (see our next post). The YL document does avoid a crass sort of ‘God only loves those who love him back’ but it also clearly lays out human responsibility to respond to the gospel in faith and repentance. There is no salvation where there is no response—a least that’s what orthodox churches used to believe.

6. We proclaim God’s call to discipleship by encouraging all who respond to grow in their faith. This balances out the document and points it away from the ‘decisions only’ approach in many youth ministries, churches and para-churches. If done right, this leaves the gospel presentations from being flat or ‘one-dimensional’ or “salvation from sins only” approach. They acknowledge the corporate dimensions of discipleship, a healthy counter to the stark individualism that plagues much of evangelicalism. A lot of people who have come out of the evangelicalism of the late twentieth century could be refreshed here: sometimes we are quicker to count "decisions for Christ" then we are to try to make disciples of Christ.

The document wraps up stating that “Young Life’s style is relational and incarnational.” You get no images of heavy handed pulpiteers who breath down fire on youth from this document. Young life is willing to an extend change the methodology and engage adolescents so long as the message does not change. This strikes me as a healthy balance between “becoming all things to all people” (1 Cor. 9:23) and not losing the foolishness of the cross of Christ (1 Cor. 1:18ff). In today’s climate most ministers and ministries, particularly to teens, are good at doing one but not the other. Examples can be found on both sides.

Jeff McSwain, was quoted as stating: “Isn’t Young Life modeled after Jesus Christ as particularly illustrated in his relationships with the down and out? Don’t we believe that the fierce love of God is a better catalyst then condemnation?” YL clearly does try to model relationships. They are quite clear that God’s love is fierce so fierce that Christ’s dies for sinners. This redemption is applied through the work of the Spirit who enables belief and applies this redemption to us as we belief. It seems that some would intimate that being incarnational and relational precludes making clear the reality of sin and our need for the gospel. How do we honor the Savior when He himself commands that all repent (Acts 17:30)?

PART 3: IS FAITH A REQUIRED RESPONSE TO THE GOSPEL FOR US TO HAVE SALVATION?

Young Life & Gospel Proclamation--p1

Ok, so I'm a little late getting to the party on this one, but I thought I'd engage this one a little bit.

Young Life created quite the stir last week with its non-negotiables of gospel proclamation. I first heard about it from Justin Taylor here and Denny Burk here. Christianity Today reported on it here and Christian Century here.


You must read the original document here. I think it is a good read...but we'll get to my opinions later. They had a follow up article/post here. Apparently the non-negotiables were triggered by a paper YL area director Jeff McSwain wrote entitled "Jesus is the Gospel". This document is currently unavailable. Update 1/25/08: This document is now available here. Apparently he wrote in the paper, "I can go into the realm of the most lost, furtherest-out kids, knowing something that is true about them before they do...They are are lost children of God; people can't be lost unless they have a home." Qtd here.

Not enough is said here to delve into it--but at best this statement seems to lead the boat of theological evangelicalism headed for some theological jagged rocks, no friend to the bow that's for sure. As John Murray pointed out years ago, "God is no where called the Father of all men. Hence, the concept of universal fatherhood, if used at all, must be employed with great caution and it is particularly necessary not to confuse this rare use of Father with the frequent use of the same term as it is applied to the redeemed." (Collected Writings, vol. 2, p. 224-25).

If McSwain means "lost children of God" in a creative sense, i.e. we were God's image and we still bear a semblance of the image (e.g. Acts 17:28), fine... but the quote seems to apply it in a redemptive sense that all redemptively belong to God even if lost. This is quite at odds, theologically, with what the non-negotiables state about us truly being "estranged from God" which is what Article III of Young Life's doctrinal statement says. It is impossible to know where McSwain is at theologically by piecing together snippets from the internet--many of which are either inaccurate or just too brief.

Here were some other posts on the YOUNG LIFE theological throw down (of course the issue deal with more than just theology):

Tony Jones part 1: Something is Wrong at Young Life, part 2: More on What's Wrong at Young Life and part 3: Closing the Loop on Young Life.

There was a eleven part series over at St. Paul's blog by Ben Dubow...starting here. And another even handed evaluation here.

Rick Lawerence and Mark Van Steenwyk. Everybody and their uncle had a view. Josh Reich, a friend/acquaintance I used to play soccer with, who is an emerging/missional pastor, commented on it here. I scanned a couple of other blogs and just watched some people in posts or in comment threads or both just bru-ha-haa about it.

I do however, want to evaluate some of the discussion that has gone on and comment particularly on what I see as the theology contained in the "non-negotiables."

FIRST, THE NEW TESTAMENT VALUES STATEMENTS OF BELIEF, ALTHOUGH BELIEF IS NOT REDUCED TO A STATEMENT.

Interestingly, Tony Jones says "You see, this is the problem with absolutist statements of doctrine, as some of us have argued." The very nature of creeds in the early church was to define what acceptable doctrine was and what was not. This whole approach advocated by Jones and others seems out of step, to put it nicely, with the early church, not to mention the New Testament church. There are in the gospels and in the rest of the new testament some clear statements of belief that we must hold to, of course this is in tandem with trust the person of Christ--you've go to know and confess who He is. So it just seems bizarre to say this is "absolutist," I mean it is a good thing that Jesus didn't have mean things like absolute statements on doctrine things like:

John 8:24 24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." (Where "I am" is a clear reference to deity).

Matthew 16:15-17 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Of course the NT church held to this mean nasty absolutism:

1 John 2:22 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

2 John 1:7 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Don't forget some of the statements in the NT that seem creedal like Romans 1:3-4; Phil 2:7-11; and 1 Tim. 3:16.

Another verse we'll pick up on later is 1 Cor. 15:3-4:

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you- unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

In the only context, the issue is does one need to believe in the resurrection? The answer is YES! This is one doctrine that you need to believe and you need to believe that Jesus Christ really and truly was raised from the dead on the third day. This is, for all intents and purposes, absolutist. You can't really follow "the way of Jesus," whatever that mangled phrase now means, unless you embrace His person and His work. There is a word for this attitude: orthodoxy. It may be out of vogue--but it is the life blood of thriving Christianity. How can one really trust a person if we have no conception of who He is? This has always been guarded by creeds and confessions. A non-confessing church is a non-church.

If YL life as an organization that seeks to minister the gospel must declare what that gospel is. This necessitates a doctrinal statement, which their "non-negotiables" references. The statement may be the bear minimums when you compare it to say the Westminster Confession of Faith. But there is nothing illegitimate about saying this is "how" we are going to proclaim the gospel based upon what the gospel actually is. This seems to me to be what the "non-negotiables" does. YL should be commended for taking such a position on things particularly in a context when historical and confessional evangelicalism is poo-pooed for a whole host of reasons.

A unity in a gospel-centered organization that does not spell out the basics of the gospel is really no unity at all.

Next Post: YOUNG LIFE DID A GOOD JOB STICKING TO THE BASICS.

HERE IT IS!!!!!

Star Trek fans like me have been anxiously awaiting the new teaser trailer set to be released at the opening of J.J. Abrams' film Cloverfield. The movie opend today, and here is the legit trailer that Trekmovie.com is posting on their website in this post. Here's the teaser trailer:

Here is a picture of the saucer section of the new/old Enterprise.

Trekmovie.com is saying the following:

As for the look of the ship at first glance it seems much larger than what we are used to and perhaps that is the point. From what can be seen of the design it clearly retains the general shape of the TOS Enterprise, but we see far more TMP style detailing and the proportions seem different…especially the engine nacelles which are ginormous. The design seems to fall somewhere in the middle between ‘exact copy’ and ‘radical redesign,’ possibly closer to the original than most might have expected....

I think this conclusion is right on with respect to Star Trek:

Bottom line is that the teaser trailer delivers exactly what it had to do. It sends the message that we today are linked to Gene Roddenberry’s future with the USS Enterprise and her crew. It shows that Star Trek is not a fantasy, not from a galaxy far far away…it is real and it is us. The trailer also creates a new sense of majesty and epic style for the franchise that has not been seen since the time of Star Trek The Motion Picture. The message here to the general film audience is, like this ship depicted, Trek is big…really big…and JJ Abrams is constructing it right now.

I may wish they had gone foward from the Next Generation/ post-Voyager era. But I'm nevertheless excited about the New Movie. I tend to be a purist when it comes to my Trek, but not a radical purist. I'm eagerly anticipating J.J. Abrams' reincarnation of the Trek Legacy and even the original series characters in their early years. It'll be fun. And if the quality of the work in any way resembles Abrams' other stuff, which there is no reason to think that it wouldn't, fans and non-fans alike should not be disappointed. Add to this that that writers of the script are Trek geeks fans who will both respect the canon and let the new Trek stand on its own two feet and it seems to me to a combination that is nothing but win-win all the way around. Add to this the fact that raving endorsement from a guy like Nimoy who was directly involved with some of the best Trek movies and it all sounds great.

Now, we just have to wait to Christmas of 2008.

Signs of the Times

16 Signs that my generation is the best generation of Christians that has ever existed:

(to speak nothing of our intellectual enlightenment and overall superior Christian maturity...)

1. We get beyond those silly "liberalism" and "fundamentalist" divides, by identifying with every major concern of theological liberalism and rejecting those silly "fundamentalist" principles as essential for our Christianity.

2. We are in a better position to recognize that the virgin birth might be a myth and might not be essential to the Christian faith...we can still have faith without it. Just because they couldn't do without it in the past (here, here, and here) must mean their faith wasn't as strong.

3. We contextualize everything, unless of course we are talking about John Calvin's involvement in the trial, condemnation and execution of Servetus.

4. No one in history has ever thought Judas really was a good guy, and we all need to mix a little heresy with our belief, so it must be a good idea for us to adopt.

5. We understand how inherently evil all Christians (crusades, inquisitions and all) have been and understand that sinful unregenerate non-Christians are basically good.

6. We have come to see how evil Constantine really was, I mean it's not like Constatine pronounced religious liberty and brought rights and equal laws to women in the empire. After all, the problems in the church today are not sin in human hearts but "establishment," "organization" and "institutionalism"--which Constantine started.

7. We know that eastern notions of mystic communion with the divine are really good because I have a spark of the divine in me but any claim to know truth--well that's "gnosticism".

8. We are the first generation to see how "pagan" preaching is... and we understand better than anybody that the Spirit is marked by freedom and spontaneity.The informal house church without authorized preachers has never been tried.

9. We don't need creeds and confessions because they are to restrictive and the draw evil boundaries even though the church has been using them for 2,000 years.

10. For us orthodoxy is always evolving, so it's obvious who is now getting it right and who must be wrong less advanced. Because of our evolving status, we can always critize past views as "unorthodox." Of crucial importance, we always remember the community always defines orthodoxy, unless of course the community says I'm unorthodox...then the community is too narrow.

11. We realize that commitment to Scripture, its unerring truthfulness and the authority of Bible is really a "modernist" problem, to which no one prior to the "inerrancy debates" succumbed.

12. We are open to all forms of diversity and tolerate every tradition...unless of course your tradition disagrees with us.

13. Everything is negotioable and non-absolutist except of course any statement that maybe not everything is negotiable--that is our absolute.

14. We decry elitism and Pharisaicalism...it helps us look down on others, especially the elite Pharisees.

15. We are the first generation to understand that everything must change and the church should reinvent itself away from everything that has gone on before it...

16. We are the first people to rediscover since the time of Jesus that the kingdom of God is about social ethics and not eternal salvation from our sins.

Sermon Applications

This week's sermon was from 1 John 4:12-15.

1 John 4:12-15 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

Here are the applications I made:

A. The fact that God abides in believers should cause us to be evangelistic. In this passage Christ is proclaimed the Savior of the world. He only abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God. Those who make such a true profession and in repentance ask to receive the forgiveness of sins, are brought into union with God. We suddenly have this wonderful relationship.

1. If this is really true: how can we not share it.
2. If we truly love others we should seek to share this truth and invite others to believe.
3. Who is one person that you can share the gospel with? This week pray for opportunities to share the gospel and then look for them during the week.
4. Just as John testified that the Father has sent the Son, so also if Christ truly abides in us: we are to testify to unbelievers.

B. We do not deserve communion with God. We don’t deserve to abide with Him. No one has seen God and God was under no obligation to us to make Himself known. He did not have to reveal Himself to Adam in the garden. Certainly, after the sin of man, God did not have to take such great steps to save us. God is under no obligation to love us.

1. So often we think God has to love us. We look to God and cry “you have to love because of who I am” or perhaps “you are so great, you need to love me or you are not God.”
2. While God was not obligated to love us He freely did.
3. God’s love is effective. It works in us. As we love others it is being perfected in us.
4. Some of you need to spend sometime considering God’s love towards you. You have lost sight of the majesty of God. You have become prideful and puffed up. Sure, perhaps you trust God to be saved…but in your trust you have arisen to make yourself greater in your heart than you really are. You have forgotten the child-like trust.
   

C. If God is satisfied to make a way to abide in us and then He actually does come to abide in us, how much more should we find all joy and delight in Him. God who is unseen actually abides in us, should we not find pleasure in dwelling in God, knowing Him in free grace and fellowship?

D. We are to see the activity and the relationship of the Trinity in accomplishing redemption. Behold your GOD! How can you and I not bend our knee and humble our hearts ascribing to Father, Son and Holy Spirit all worship. It is the Triune God—the three persons—that plan, secure and solidify your and my ‘abiding with God’. If you have truly experienced God’s grace, you cannot be removed from your abode.

E. Take full advantage of how God has delighted to fellowship with us and be known by us.

F. Some of you are discouraged. You have lost sight of God’s great abiding in your heart. You have not “felt” like God is near. In fact, in your life he seems very distant. Perhaps, you have struggled with a sin. Perhaps tragedy has come up and you wonder where God really is. Your salvation in the gospel is not based upon feelings. Take comfort in the gospel: God abides in us. Look again to the truth of God’s love displayed on the cross of Christ.

Romans 8:32 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?
Romans 8:38-39 8 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

God truly abides in the believer. You in reverse abide in Him. Your life is so preciously hidden in that mysterious fellowship that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have with each other. We too, as a creature, do presently enjoy fellowship with God. Certainly, we do not become gods. We do not enjoy this fellowship to the extent that an infinite being can enjoy it with Himself: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But delight yourself in knowing God and the fellowship you and I have with Him.

G. Some of you have become overconfident in who you are. You have presumed upon your relationship with God. You have forgotten how far greater God is to you. This has left you prideful and puffed up. In turn, you have not been loving to those around you. Perhaps you have been harsh, or quick-tempered. Perhaps you have seen a need but passed it by “why should I stoop to help”? “If we love one another God abides in us.” Our fellowship we have with God is marked out in our daily practice. IF YOU HAVE TRULY COME TO EXPERIENCE THE GOSPEL, YOUR LIFE IS TO BE MARKED BY LOVE. God abides in the believer but the believer gives evidence in a life of love.

H. This week in your prayer life: consider the importance of confession. God does not just want you to rattle of empty statements of belief. Nevertheless, many of us don’t really care what we believe. For most of us, it is enough to say “I love Jesus”. At his column “The Wages of Spin” at “reformation21.org” Carl Trueman said this past week about an experience he had with a group of evangelicals:

At one point, somebody asked the question: what is it that binds this evangelical group together? The response from a famous evangelical theologian who was present was `We all love Jesus, don’t we?’ Several impertinent responses came into my head, from `We do, it’s just a pity we can’t agree on who he was or what he did.’ to `But surely the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and even the Unitarians do that, don’t they?’

That is how most of us treat Christ: “we love Him” but we do really worry about confessing who He is. The gospel is so great and glorious, Jesus Christ has so effectively redeemed us that we are called to take confession seriously. John’s letter warns us: a claim to ‘love Jesus’ to ‘know Him’ means nothing if we don’t (a) confess the truth and (b) love other believers.

(1) Regularly confess your sins this week; take stock of your life; (2) Evaluate what you believe. Consider the great truths of the Bible: the Trinity; the incarnation; Jesus’ death a substitution for the penalty of sin; justification by faith alone. Learn the truth. But confess it. Ask the Holy Spirit who seals your heart, to bring you into a more passionate belief in these things so that you might in turn love others.

Do you and I really believe God’s love has perfected us? That he has completely made us His in the gospel. I belong to God and He to me. If we truly believe it—let us love.
Often times we are so terrible at loving others because we so poorly believe the gospel.

Quotes from the Blogsphere

This something new I'd thought I try: Qutoes from the Blogsphere.

Over at the Shepherd Scrapebook:

And this is simply because many are not convinced the emergent ideology is as crisp and relevant as pushed in the media. In fact in many ways―some may wish to cover their eyes now―the emergent distinctives may less resemble fresh baked postmodernism and more appear like moldy modernism!

.....Or to put it another way: If Rob Bell is relevant, J. Gresham Machen is relevant.

He reviews the book "Why Were Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be." The Machen allusion strikes me because of how much many of the Emergent concerns have been seen with the dawn of liberalism in Machen's day.

A while back Scott Ott had told me that George Barna had jumped the shark with his book Revolution. Just in personal conversation he had relayed how Barna started dealing less and less with the actual statistics and seemed to massage the data into the realm of prescription. So, I've been following several reviews of Barna's new co-authored book Pagan Christianity?.

Bob Hyatt, who is in the emerging stream of things says this:

But for all my critique of consumeristic church as unhealthy and all my emphasis on and hope in organic expressions of Church, even my cajones aren't sufficiently large to enough to do what Viola and Barna are doing here.
Tell everyone else they have no right to do church they way they want to.

And again:

[Quoting Barna and Viola:] John Newton rightly said, 'Let not him who worships under a steeple condemn him who worships under a chimney." With that in mind, what biblical, spiritual, or historical authority does any Christian have to gather under a steeple in the first place?"
[Bob picks up:]Yeah, go ahead and read that last paragraph again. It ends the chapter on such a bizarre and self-contradictory note that my eyes actually bugged out of my head when I first read it.
So, let me get this straight. John Newton urges us to be tolerant of those who worship in less-traditional or less well-appointed places- to see their worship as true and valid also. And Viola says "With that in mind, what biblical, spiritual, or historical authority does any Christian have to gather under a steeple in the first place?"???
Here, again, is the big, huge, glaring problem in this whole endeavor. The de-legitimation of any but the author's idea of what constitutes "New Testament" Christianity, namely the house church, to which he refers numerous times in this chapter alone.

Joe Thorn has been reviewing the book too.

Carl Trueman's new article for Reformation 21.org is up. It's a great read. He tells about an ATS conference he was at and how they broke into groups Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, evangelical, etc. He speaks of being uncomfortable in the evangelical group where many would deny at least one of the following doctrines "simple stuff like the Trinity, the Chalcedonian definition, justification by faith, penal substitution, bodily resurrection, final judgement etc." He goes on:

Only among the old style liberals, I suspected, would I feel more disenfranchised than I did – and at least liberals have a basic integrity: you get what you pay for, so to speak. At one point, somebody asked the question: what is it that binds this evangelical group together? The response from a famous evangelical theologian who was present was `We all love Jesus, don’t we?’ Several impertinent responses came into my head, from `We do, it’s just a pity we can’t agree on who he was or what he did.’ to `But surely the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and even the Unitarians do that, don’t they?’ But I kept a wise silence. A fool, after all, is known by his much speaking – which biblical proverb was being proved in spades by said leading evangelical theologian.

Finally, not a quote but here is a good book list for reading on Evangelism over at Pure Church.

Bible Reading 2

Robery Murray M'Cheyne suggests these advantages to reading the Bible in a year.

THE ADVANTAGES.
(1.) The whole Bible will be read through in an orderly manner in the courseof a year. – The Old Testament once, the New Testament and Psalms twice.I fear many of you never read the whole Bible; and yet it is all equally Divine, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect.” If we pass over some parts of Scripture, we shall be incomplete Christians.

(2.) Time will not be wasted in choosing what portions to read. Often believers are at a loss to determine towards which part of the mountains of spices they should bend their steps. Here the question will be solved at once in a very simple manner.

(3.) Parents will have a regular subject upon which to examine their children andservants. – It is much to be desired that family worship were made more instructive than it generally is. The mere reading of the chapter is often too like water spilt on the ground. Let it be read by every member of the family before-hand, and then the meaning and application drawn out by simple question and answer. The calendar will be helpful in this. Friends, also, when they meet, will have a subject for profitable conversation in the portions read that day. The meaning of difficult passages may be inquired from the more judicious and ripe Christians, and the fragrance of simpler Scriptures spread abroad.

(4.) The pastor will know in what part of the pasture the flock are feeding. – He will thus be enabled to speak more suitably to them on the Sabbath; and both pastor and elders will be able to drop a word of light and comfort in visiting from house to house, which will be more readily responded to.

(5.) The sweet bond of Christian love and unity will be strengthened. – We shall be often led to think of those dear brothers and sisters in the Lord, here and elsewhere, who agree to join with us in reading those portions. We shall oftener be led to agree on earth, touching something we shall ask of God. We shall pray over the same promises, mourn over the same confessions, praise God in the same songs, and be nourished by the same words of eternal life.

Bible Reading

Robery Murray M'Cheyne is probably most famous for his through the Bible in a year plan. Or PDF. He gives us some dangers with respect to Bible reading.

DANGERS.
(1.) Formality. – We are such weak creatures that any regularly returning duty is apt to degenerate into a lifeless form. The tendency of reading the Word by a fixed rule may, in some minds, be to create this skeleton religion. This is to be the peculiar sin of the last days – “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” Guard against this. Let the calendar perish rather than this rust eat up your souls.

(2.) Self-righteousness. – Some, when they have devoted their set time to reading of the Word, and accomplished their prescribed portion, may be tempted to look at themselves with self-complacency. Many, I am persuaded, are living without any Divine work on their soul – unpardoned and unsanctified, and ready to perish – who spend their appointed times in secret and family devotion. This is going to hell with a lie in their right hand.

(3.) Careless reading. – Few tremble at the Word of God. Few, in reading it, hear the voice of Jehovah, which is full of majesty. Some, by having so large a portion, may be tempted to weary of it, as Israel did of the daily manna, saying – “Our soul loatheth this light bread;” and to read it in a slight and careless manner. This would be fearfully provoking to God. Take heed lest that word be true of you – “Ye said, also, Behold what a weariness is it! and ye have snuffed at it, saith the Lord of Hosts.”

(4.) A yoke to heavy to bear. Some may engage in reading with alacrity for a time, and afterwards feel it a burden, grievous to be borne. They may find conscience dragging them through the appointed task without any relish of the heavenly food. If this be the case with any, throw aside the fetter, and feed at liberty in the sweet garden of God. My desire is not to cast a snare upon you, but to be a helper of your joy.

All of us who reading the Bible, particularly those of use who try to read the Bible in a year are probably familiar through first hand experience with these dangers. Nevertheless we should be diligent in reading the Bible. I would recommend reading the Bible in a year.

Sermon Applications

This year, I’ve encouraged my congregation to start studying a catechism. Last Sunday (Jan 6), our morning sermon worked through Deut. 6:1-15 and my applications were to encourage us to work through the Baptist Catechism. Here were some thoughts from an insert we put in the bulletin:

Why Study a Catechism?

· It gives you an overview of the basic teachings most important in Scripture.

· They are tremendously practical in instructing us in the basics of the Christian walk.

· They are simple for those young in the faith.

· They serve as a means of laying a solid foundation for long term Bible study.

· They have a proven track record in church history for making committed disciples.

· Used rightly, they foster a deeper devotion to God and His Word.

Here were the applications that I made in the applications:

A. We want you to consider this year using a simple study tool called a catechism. Catechism is a word that comes from the Greek meaning ‘to instruct’.

1. What is a catechism? They are simple tools that teach by organizing basic truth in a series of questions and answer with supporting Scripture references.

2. Some of you come from Catholic backgrounds and know of the Catholic Catechism. Catechisms of various kinds have been used since the early church. During the reformation, one of the reasons that some many strong Christians were raised up was not just because of good preaching but because they catechized.

3. How do you use them? You simple take a question, you read the question and you read the answer. You look up the verses and you allow it to guide you to deeper study. Many people even memorize the questions.

4. Are they practical? Yes, this is basic teachings of the word of God.

a. Heidelberg Catechism:

Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?

Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.

b. WSC

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.

c. They go through the basics of the person of God, sin, Jesus and His Work and then Christian living: the 10 Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer.

B. I am going to assume there are five groups of people hear today and all of you need to study a catechism.

1. Some of you are new Christians. Some of you are very young in your faith. Maybe you have been saved only recently. Some of you have never grown beyond the basic teachings of Scripture. The words of Hebrews apply to you:

Hebrews 5:12 ¹² For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.

You need a basic tool to guide you. We need a grid to learn to study with. A child needs to learn basic letter and how to sound out letters so they can read. Then as they learn the basics they soon learn to go deeper. A catechism is perfect for you. They are like the cliff notes, they only work if they get you into the book itself—but they break it down and give you a starting grid. You lay a foundation and build on it.

2. Some of you are parents or grandparents of children or young teenagers. You are wondering what you can do. A number of you do not do any devotions or worship as a family. You have no clue where to begin teaching your children. Some of you perhaps even homeschool but have not idea what to do to study the Bible. FATHERS: You have a responsibility, a calling, to lead your family in these things. Your children are not going to become solid Christians by osmosis. They will follow your gently leading, guiding and instruction. YOU ARE THE HEAD OF YOUR HOME. Studying the catechism with your children is perfect for you.

3. Some of you are growing in your faith and you are excited about your relationship with God. But ‘doctrine’ is still a little intimidating. You want a vibrant relationship but you aren’t sure what to study and how to learn more about what God’s Word says. The catechism is the perfect place to start.

4. Some of you are older and very mature in your faith. You know God’s Word and you know the depths of God’s Word. Perhaps, however, the basics are not fresh in your mind. You have such knowledge to pass on to the next generation. You should be taking a younger person under your wing and mentoring them. You should be ‘targeting’ men, women, and young people and seeking to pass on the faith. BUT YOU HAVE NOT CLUE HOW. May I suggest a catechism. Study it for yourself and study it with them.

5. Some of you are struggling. Maybe you are wrestling with God. You are discouraged and your Christian life does not seem fresh. Your Bible sits on the shelf all week. Some are perhaps just lethargic, you are weary or lazy in your spiritual walk but it doesn’t seem to bother you. You are like a teenager in bed in the morning—you enjoy the comfort of the bed and don’t want to be wrested from the bed into the light of morning. You are struggling and perhaps you don’t know it or it doesn’t bother you. May I suggest there is nothing more relevant than hiding God’s Word in your heart. Begin to methodically study God’s Word and ask God to become real to you. A catechism would be an ideal place to start.

C. This year, along with reading through the Bible in a year—I’m going to challenge you to study ‘The Baptist Catechism’ through in one year. If you do 2-3 questions a week, read them, look up the verses, meditate upon them, you can finish in one year. It is a way that you can teach through repetition, ‘diligently teaching’.

1. If you’d like a copy see me.

2. I’ve also started a website:

http://www.thefamilycatechism.com/

a. Log on and click on “Getting Started”.

b. You can sign up for e-mail reminders. If you are internet savvy, you can have it sent to an RSS reader. You can get a calendar to work through it on a regular pace.

c. It will be a place to find encouragement, suggestions and resources.

d. I’ll be soon putting up suggestions for Bible reading and family readings. I also am going to use the blog features to suggest recommended reading for beginners and for more advanced levels.

e. We are going to put regular reminders in the bulletins. If you need a copy of the calendar see me or Amy and we’ll print it for you.

f. You have no excuse.

3. I’ve started this because I’ve being to doing a catechism sporadically with my girls. We have a version written specifically for little children. I want to regularly commit to doing this and I want to invite you to do the same.

D. Let this year be the year that you take your spiritual walk seriously. Let it be the year that you train up your children and your family. Let it be the year that you consider mentoring someone who is younger in the faith. MAY WE DILIGENTLY TEACH.

I’d encourage you to foster your devotion to the LORD Jesus through the study of a basic catechism.

Why Pastors should use the Catechism

Here are some more quotes from Church History as to why many evangelical Protestant pastors believed in the value of Catechisms:

Henry More:

Concerning preaching that which is most remarkable is this, that whereas there are three chief kinds thereof, namely catechizing, expounding a chapter and preaching usually so called—whereof the first is the best...the last is thevery idol of some men, and the others rejected as things of little worth. But assuredly they [the two rejected] are of most virtue for the effectual planting the gospel in the minds of men; and of the two, catechizing is the better because it enforceth the catechized to take notice what is taught him.”

John Owen:

“Amongst all my endeavors after the ordinance of public preaching the Word, there is not, I conceive, any more needful (as will grant that know the estate of this place, how taught of late days, how full of grossly ignorant persons) than catechizing.”

Matthew Henry:

“Catechizing does to the preaching of the word the same good office that John the Baptist did to our Saviour; it prepares the way, and makes its paths straight, and yet like him does but say the same things.”

Martin Luther:

“I have been impelled to cast this catechism or Christian doctrine into this simple form by the lamentable deficiency in the means of instruction which I have witnessed lately in my visitation. God help us! What deplorable things I have seen! Thecommon people wholly without knowledge of doctrine.

William G.T. Shedd:

“In the whole range of topics in pastoral theology there is not one that has stronger claims upon the attention of clergymen than the doctrinal instruction of the rising generation...We feel deeply that there is not a subject of greater interest than the catechizing of the younger generation.”

What amazes me is that these guys lived in a day and age that we tend to look back on as a highpoint in Christian history. I know there is a tendency to romanticize the past apart from the realities of what was going on, particularly at the level of the pew. Yet, I am sure that most of these men in their ministries developed disciples who far surpassed the level of discipleship and doctrinal knowledge than we have in our pew today. Yet this men were crying out that it was a travesty. The simple solution of these men was nothing less than a basic catechism.

What I find as crucial is that there are innumberable theological tomes one could read, many of them for our spiritual benefit. And yet, where did these wise pastors begin? They did not prescribe a long reading list, although I am sure they in no way decried reading. These men started with the catechism. Might we not do the same and for our benefit and God's glory?

Good Puritan Reading

Here is a great challenge from Timmy Brister. Take up and read the Puritans. Here is a good schedule.

Timmy suggests three ways to read the Puritans:

1. Get a copy of The Valley of Vision and meditate on the prayers as part of your daily devotions...

2. Commit to reading one Puritan Paperback a month. You can do this by blocking out 30 minutes each day (~10 pages) after personal Bible reading as supplementary to your spiritual growth. To make it easy for you, I have created a sample monthly reading list below.
January: The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes (128 pp)

February: The Mystery of Providence by John Flavel (221 pp)

March: The Godly Man’s Picture by Thomas Watson (252 pp)

April: Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices by Thomas Brooks (253 pp)

May: Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ by John Bunyan (225 pp)

June: The Mortification of Sin by John Owen (130 pp)

July: A Lifting Up for the Downcast by William Bridge (287 pp)

August: The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment by Jeremiah Burroughs (228 pp)

September: The True Bounds of Christian Freedom by Samuel Bolton (224 pp)

October: The Christian’s Great Interest by William Guthrie (207 pp)

November: The Reformed Pastor by Richard Baxter (256 pp)

December: A Sure Guide to Heaven by Joseph Alleine (148 pp)

There are several other great Puritan paperbacks, but I chose these because I wanted to have a different author each month (Owen, Bunyan, Watson, and Brooks have multiple paperbacks). I have front-loaded the reading schedule with some of the more readable Puritans and tried to balance out the topics throughout the year. Outside the Scripture, there is perhaps nothing better for your own soul than to invest in your personal sanctification by developing a reading plan of Puritan paperbacks!

(Other books include: Thomas Watson, All Things for Good, The Doctrine of Repentance, The Lord’s Supper, The Great Gain of Godliness; John Owen, The Holy Spirit, The Glory of Christ, Communion with God, Apostasy from the Gospel, Temptation: Resisted and Repulsed, The Spirit and the Church; Thomas Brooks, Heaven on Earth, The Secret Key to Heaven; Richard Sibbes, Glorious Freedom; William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying; John Bunyan, All Loves Excelling, Prayer, The Jerusalem Sinner Saved, The Acceptable Sacrifice; Ralph Venning, The Sinfulness of Sin, Learning in Christ’s School; Robert Traill, Justification Vindicated; and Samuel Rutherford, Letters of Samuel Rutherford.)

3. Read about the lives and stories of the Puritans.

He provides a list of books to read.

Here is more on the challenge.

A number of these books were on my reading list this year. Right now I am working through Flavel's Sermons on Christ: "The Fountain of Life." This Puritan reading challenge is great. {I think I might end up reading some of these out of order since they already were on my "to read list" and I have them--my wife will appreciate me not ordering new books until I'm ready to read them =) }

But I'd wholeheartedly recommend this challenge.

The Value of Catechisms

Charles Spurgeon:

“In matters of doctrine you will find orthodox congregations frequently changed to heterodoxy in the course of thirty or forty years, and that is because, too often there has been no catechizing of the children in the essential doctrines of the Gospel. For my part, I am more and more persuaded that the study of a good catechism is of infinite value to our children…”

“I am persuaded that the use of a good Catechism in all our families will be a great safeguard against the increasing errors of the times…”

Martin Luther:

“As for myself, let me say that I am a doctor and a preacher. I am as learned and experienced as those who are so presumptuous and confident [as to despise the catechism]. Yet I do as a child who is learning the Catechism...I daily read and study the Catechism, and still I am not able to master it as thoroughly as I wish, I must remain a child and a pupil of the Catechism, and this I do very willingly.”

Archibald Alexander:

“It appears therefore that this mode of instruction is fully recognized in the sacred Scriptures. Indeed, if not other method of inculcating divine truth were resorted to, than delivering elaborate and continued discourses from the pulpit, very little information would be gained by the young and ignorant. Preaching supposes and requires some preparatory knowledge in the hearers...Elementary principles must be acquired in some other way…”

The Family Catechism Website

Here is the website I'm starting for the study of the catechism.

Not all the links are working yet, but stop by and check it out.

Pride Comes Before a Fall

Here is something that is a bit too eerie. According to this British newspaper article check out Bhetto's last words:

"Long live Bhutto," Benazir Bhutto shouted, waving to the crowd surging around
her car. They were her last words before three gunshots rang out and she slumped
back on to her seat.
"She did not say anything more," said Safdar Abbassi, her chief political adviser, who was sitting behind her. In the first eyewitness account from inside the car, DrAbbassi told The Sunday Telegraph: "All of a sudden there was the sound of firing. I heard the sound of a bullet."

(see also this story) Does anyone find that just a bit eerie?

As Dan Phillips point out over at TeamPyro, she was instantly
standing before God our judge:

"Long live Bhutto" — bang! — dead.And then? Then Benazir
Bhutto found herself facing her Judge (Hebrews 9:27). Was she prepared?At the moment, I'm less concerned about her than about you and me. The only difference between Bhutto and us is a tick, a moment, a flash. We all stand before the Judge just as surely as she. We don't know the time on the summons, but we do know that we won't miss our court appearance date by so much as a second.

I'm not saying that Bhutto was killed because of what she specifically said that instant. Certainly, many people have touted their own brillance and supremacy and not been killed that instant and some even never face any significant down fall in this life. But the Lord does oppose the proud. Of course, Bhutto was not more prideful than any of us which is why we so desparetly need our hearts changed by the gospel.

Dear Lord, help me not to be prideful today.

Here's some relevant Scripture:

James 4:6 6 But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, "GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE."

Proverbs 15:25 25 The LORD will tear down the house of the proud, But He will establish the boundary of the widow.

Proverbs 16:5 5 Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD; Assuredly, he will not be unpunished.

Proverbs 16:18 18 Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before stumbling.

Proverbs 29:23 23 A man's pride will bring him low, But a humble spirit will obtain honor.

Psalm 138:6 For though the LORD is exalted, Yet He regards the lowly, But the haughty He knows from afar.

Isaiah 2:11 11 The proud look of man will be abased And the loftiness of man will be humbled, And the LORD alone will be exalted in that day.

1 Samuel 2:1-10 1 Samuel 2:1 Then Hannah prayed and said, "My heart exults in the LORD; My horn is exalted in the LORD, My mouth speaks boldly against my enemies, Because I rejoice in Your salvation. 2 "There is no one holy like the LORD, Indeed, there is no one besides You, Nor is there any rock like our God. 3 "Boast no more so very proudly, Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth; For the LORD is a God of knowledge, And with Him actions are weighed. 4 "The bows of the mighty are shattered, But the feeble gird on strength. 5 "Those who were full hire themselves out for bread, But those who were hungry cease to hunger. Even the barren gives birth to seven, But she who has many children languishes. 6 "The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up. 7 "The LORD makes poor and rich; He brings low, He also exalts. 8 "He raises the poor from the dust, He lifts the needy from the ash heap To make them sit with nobles, And inherit a seat of honor; For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, And He set the world on them. 9 "He keeps the feet of His godly ones, But the wicked ones are silenced in darkness; For not by might shall a man prevail. 10 "Those who contend with the LORD will be shattered; Against them He will thunder in the heavens, The LORD will judge the ends of the earth; And He will give strength to His king, And will exalt the horn of His anointed."

Daniel 4:28-37 28 "All this happened to Nebuchadnezzar the king. 29 "Twelve months later he was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon. 30 "The king reflected and said, 'Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built as a royal residence by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?' 31 "While the word was in the king's mouth, a voice came from heaven, saying, 'King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is declared: sovereignty has been removed from you, 32 and you will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place will be with the beasts of the field. You will be given grass to eat like cattle, and seven periods of time will pass over you until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes.' 33 "Immediately the word concerning Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled; and he was driven away from mankind and began eating grass like cattle, and his body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair had grown like eagles' feathers and his nails like birds' claws. 34 "But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever; For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom endures from generation to generation. 35 "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?' 36 "At that time my reason returned to me. And my majesty and splendor were restored to me for the glory of my kingdom, and my counselors and my nobles began seeking me out; so I was reestablished in my sovereignty, and surpassing greatness was added to me. 37 "Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt and honor the King of heaven, for all His works are true and His ways just, and He is able to humble those who walk in pride."

What can Bring Revival?

Do you and I really believe in the power of the Word of God?

Most of evangelical Christians would say yes, but there activity in ministry tells another story. We are driven by all kinds of fads and fancy techniques rather than the Word of God. We are constantly trying to find new ways to “spruce up” the Word of God and make it more “relevant”. Now, there is nothing wrong with trying to communicate the Word of God and show that it is relevant, meaning that we show how and why our lives should be governed by the Word of God. But the real reason our lives should be governed by the Word of God is because of what it is: it is the Word of God. It bears the authority of the one who speaks it, just as when the President or a king speaks, their words have weight, authority and even power—in human terms of course.

The real reason most people don’t really believe the Word of God is powerful and effective is because most people don’t believe that God is powerful and effective. We say that we do, of course,--well at least if we are card carrying evangelical Christians in the traditional definition of ‘evangelical’. Somewhere along the way we’ve forgotten the power and might of our God. In other words, it is a gospel issue. Most of us in practice do not really believe the Word of God has the power to change a heart. We are constantly seeking new techniques and methods. I mean teens today can’t handle the Bible so lets make it relevant—so we’ll make a Bible-zine. It has to have all the graphic and buzz of Cosmopolitan and if you throw in Song of Solomon, just as much sex too.

We often wonder why there isn’t a real deep soul penetrating sin reforming, soul-transforming revival going on today like say in the Great Awakening. Now I know the Spirit of God blows where he wills (John 3:8). But why does it seem that most people today when the look for revival and the reformation of the heart it becomes a thing that we think we can conjure up.

Here is a radical proposal: what if we just made the Word of God plain. Sure we’ll illustrate it and try to communicate it clearly in the vernacular so that we’ll have ‘street-cred’ (of course, without removing the offense of the cross), but what if we just go the Word of God out there. I know we live in a media saturated culture, where the audience is expert at tuning things out. But what if rather than shouting like a commercial “hear me, this is God’s Word”, what if the Bible was like a still small voice and we just “whispered” it—no light shows, no fancy powerpoint, no ipod thingies—we just read and preached the Word of God. What if people had to consciously turn down the noise around them to hear God’s Word—if quite times really became quite. What if our church services read more of God’s Word and even did responsive readings and then the sermon focuses on explaining the text—no gimmics, just like a truly fine steak doesn’t need any steak sauce. I’m just saying what if?

Consider what the word of God did when Josiah just heard it read to him. It broke is heart. He repented like never before. He humbled Himself under God’s Word. And imagine this: the guilt that the Law brought did a good thing: it lead to repentance. Imagine that, someone reading Deuteronomy and reading about the wrath of God against sin and all the curses that it brings and then the high and mighty king welling up in tears. We live in a self-obsessed narcissistic culture. Imagine how the Word of God might bring us to our knees. Imagine if we actually said “Ouch, that hearts” and our hearts were broken. All the problems of this age will no be solved unless someone say with authority: the problem is you. The only one who can say that is God. Even when the preacher says it, he simply republishes the message. He says “The Lord says…” and then to his people “the problem is me and you”. You need to hear all of God’s Word. You need to see both Law (which exposes our guilt) and gospel (the good news). The greater we see the gravity of sin the sweater the ringing of the glad tidings in our ears.

Josiah was cut to the quick because he heard God’s Word very simply and yet very clearly. We want to see the fruit of repentance as Josiah’s day saw—and yet we don’t like the God-ordained means of getting that fruit: the Word of God. “Oh how passé” or “How blaa”. We secretly marvel and wonder how can that ever compete with ipods and Xboxes. And thus we exhibit our true beliefs “hath God really said” and “who is this God that I should heed his words”.

Really the only thing that will bring revival is the unadulterated Word of God. We tend to look at our generation with despair. We pine for the good old days of “evangelical” faith. But then we go about “seeking it” in all the wrong ways. We put more hope and trust in human ingenuity than in the Spirit and the Word. We tend to look for things other than the ministry of God’s Word to accomplish this goal. We put our hope in fancy technique, new media, television, better books, new movement, power personas and personalities. We fail to turn to the one thing that can be effective: God’s Word. We tend to look for new material to teach. We are told: young people today don’t have the attention spans—so we make “Bible-zines” and flashy shows. We chop of the Word of God so small and we sprinkling in so meagerly that we wonder why our people continue to get more and more malnourished. THEY ARE STARVING.

I once heard a story about the early days of radio in Africa. The missionaries were looking for good programs to play. Things that worked in the states—the programs and the preachers. Until they could find such things, they just began playing the Word of God over the air. Someone would read—that was it just read straight through passage after passage. The results were devastating upon the hardened hearts of the listeners. A man walked for miles just to tell the missionaries the impact it had on people: that they were hearing the Word of Life.

We live in a day and age where we are so concerned on the medium that we let it distract us from the message. We have more opportunities than any time in history to have the Word of God in print and in our homes—and we spend less time reading it. The Baal and Asherah’s of our day will not be cut down without the Word of God. But we tend to take the Baal or the Asherah, tack the Word of God to it on a post-it note and say “here you go—its in a method you can understand; this will keep your attention”.

In Josiah’s day, he tore down the Baal and Asherah because he heard the Word of God. He heard it and was humbled by it. Imagine what the Word of God can do. It was plainly read to Jeremiah. He touched His heart and he humbled his heart before God. He went on to heed and obey that Word.

My mentor in pastoral ministry, ever December on the last Sunday of the month right before the new year would preach a message on “reading through the Bible in a year.” He constantly challenged the people to commit to reading the whole Bible in a year. He has been making that charge for 25+ years. Some people have followed the charge every year. Some even as young as seven have taken up that charge. Imagine that: no fancy devotional book, no fancy study guide or lesson plan—just reading the Bible. That is not to denigrate serious study and intensely pouring over a particular passage—but rather to say depth means nothing with out breadth as well.

If you aren’t yet—I’d invite you to read through your Bible in a year. Thankfully, as a young man, I heard the mentor of my mentor make the same charge and at age 12 I read through the whole Bible for the first time. I took over a year and a half, but I got through it. I’d invite you to make a plan this year to read through your Bible in a year. Here are some applications that I made on December 30^th at my church, it is the second year I’ve given such a charge:

A. READ THROUGH THE WHOLE BIBLE IN ONE YEAR. Reading three chapters a day and five on Sunday will do it. Or use the insert in the bulletin. You can even subscribe online to daily reminders. You can have the portion of daily reading e-mailed right to your computer, cell phone, or blackberry. You can download the Bible for your ipod. You really have not excuse not to hear and listen to God’s Word.

1. Why through the Bible is one year: You need to hear all of God’s Word. You need to see both Law (which exposes our guilt) and gospel (the good news). The greater we see the gravity of sin the sweater the ringing of the glad tidings in our ears.

2. The early books lay the foundation for the later books. Ex.: Deuteronomy in Samuel, Kings, Chronicles and the prophets. Genesis with Esau and Jacob for books like Obadiah. The Old Testament for the New Testament.

3. All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable (2 Tim. 3:16). There is a problem with “red letter” Bibles—sometimes they give you the impression that the red letters are God’s words because Jesus spoke them and the rest is secondary. Tony Campolo even has a movement seeking to be “red letter Christians” unfortunately his marginalization of certain things Jesus says is really driven by a liberal and political agenda. (reading)

4. You cannot engage in effective study unless you are reading the whole thing. It would be like a major saying “I have master calculus” while he neglected studying algebra and geometry.

5. Unless we plan to read the whole thing, we will undoubtedly zero in on the parts that we like the most.

B How old should I be to start?

1. As soon as you can read, you should be reading the Bible systematically.

2. I started at about 12, although for some years in the middle I neglected it.

C. To Parents:

1. Plan with your children regular Bible reading to cover all of Scripture.

2. Instruct your children in the importance. Mentor them, check on them like you would there homework but in a fashion that will help them enjoy the Bible.

3. Model Bible reading for your children.

4. Instruct your children in the Bible. Teach them more about the Bible then they get in Sunday School.

5. Make a plan and then work the plan through the year.

We all want to see the revivals as in the days of Josiah. We wish that Christians in the West would return to their heritage and start obeying God’s Word. We wish that non-Christians would once more flock to God’s Word and repentant to God based on the Lord Jesus Christ. And yet, do we want to go through the hard work, like a simple laborer in the field and sow the Word of God—plan and simple scattering it? Or would we rather sit in business offices, like corporate officers making our sales pitches and marketing our product. Production lines churning our more and more product with less and less quality. More bells and whistles; less substance.

What will get it done? Do we really believe the Bible is God’s Word?

2 Kings 22:10-13 ¹⁰ Moreover, Shaphan the scribe told the king saying, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read it in the presence of the king. ¹¹ When the king heard the words of the book of the law, he tore his clothes. ¹² Then the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Achbor the son of Micaiah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king's servant saying, ¹³ "Go, inquire of the LORD for me and the people and all Judah concerning the words of this book that has been found, for great is the wrath of the LORD that burns against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us."

2 Kings 22:18-20 ¹⁸ "But to the king of Judah who sent you to inquire of the LORD thus shall you say to him, 'Thus says the LORD God of Israel, "Regarding the words which you have heard, ¹⁹ because your heart was tender and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants that they should become a desolation and a curse, and you have torn your clothes and wept before Me, I truly have heard you," declares the LORD. ²⁰ "Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be gathered to your grave in peace, and your eyes will not see all the evil which I will bring on this place."'" So they brought back word to the king.