The 100th Post

Nothing deep today, but we wanted to take a moment and celebrate the milestone of reaching 100 posts! So in honor of our 100th post, I offer this simple plea.

REPLAY THE GAME!

Story

Protected: Bible Debate Vol. 1

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Motivational Posters for the Emerging Free-for-all

Wow.  Many thanks to http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/posters.htm for making these Emergent motivational posters!  Usually I’m not for stereotyping movements but after some of my experiences with Emergent types, I’m fairly confident that these posters hit the nail right on the head.  Here are some of my favorites! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus preached the wrath of God

There are some (or in my experience most) within the Emergent church that choose to reject the image of a violent God. This manifests itself in a multitude of ways such as opposing penal substitutionary atonement or claiming that Jesus never preached wrath or was violent in any way, that Jesus solely preached selfless love. I’m honestly unsure how Christians justify this line of thinking considering that the Old Testament exists and more pointedly the fact that Jesus in the New Testament aligns himself with the God of the Old Testament by claiming that he is that God (John 4:7-10, John 10:31-33).

This past week at Westminster Presbyterian Church in Lancaster, PA. Dr. Michael Rogers preached a sermon in an ongoing series about death entitled The Strange Disappearance of Hell. At one point in the sermon he outlines a handful of Scripture where Jesus preaches the wrath of God. While listening to the list it reminded me of what seems to be the majority view within the Emergent church. Dr. Rogers states that the hardest spokesmen on the subject of eternal hell was not Paul, Solomon or Isaiah, but Jesus Christ. I think this ought to get our attention.

Here’s some Scripture in the New Testament where Jesus preached the wrath of God:

• But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:22)
• If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. (Matthew 5:29)
• I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 8:11-12)
• And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)
• Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. (Matthew 13:40)
• And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (Matthew 25:46)

It was noted in the sermon that there are more just in the gospel of Matthew not to mention the rest of the gospels and the entirety of the New Testament. Scripture, Old Testament and New Testament, is literally embedded with the doctrine of hell.

If the Bible contains nothing about hell as some people seem to imagine or want to expunge it or want to erase it then God will never be proved to be a just God. And Christ is no deliverer because there’s nothing for him to deliver from. – Dr. Michael Rogers

A postmodern may claim that since culture shaped Scripture there certainly is no literal “fire” in hell. Dr. Rogers wonders if people who hold to that believe the image is any less horrible than the reality. Point taken. God is love, good, holy and sacred. Hell is the opposite and separation from these things. That said, fire would more than likely be the very least of our worries if we were to find ourselves in what the Bible calls hell.

NOTE: The movie Drag Me To Hell really has nothing to do with this post, but the key art is awesome and has something to do with hell therefore it was only appropriate that I throw it in, right?

Shai Linne

This weekend Westminster Presbyterian Church (our church here in Lancaster) hosted what was a most unusual event for our congregation.  In the middle of our 18th Century Puritan meeting-house style sanctuary, we hosted a hip hop concert.  It was the kind of cultural clash that I know the Lord loves to see happen.  A church of predominately white middle/upper class folks opening up their sanctuary to a hip hop artist from Philadelphia is the kind of cultural line crossing that should be happening in the Church today and its the kind of event that stretches congregations to the point of discomfort, and that’s good for everybody when such stretching is Biblically based.

I personally was most moved by the event.  For those who may be unfamiliar with Shai Linne, his style of hip hop (which he calls “lyrical theology”) is jam-packed with Reformed goodies.  He can define and defend a doctrine of the Reformed faith in a four-minute song better than some preachers can do it in an hour.  How many hip hop artists do you know are out there penning songs about limited atonement or total depravity?  How many do you know are outlining the covenant of grace in their songs?  How many hip hop songs have you heard that resemble a chapter of John Owen’s, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”?  Shai does all this and more.  His songs aren’t just lessons in theology, they come across as love songs for the Church.  Yes, its his passion for the bride of Christ that made Shai Linne’s performance so stirring.  He spoke of Christ’s bride being multi cultural.  He spoke of the preaching of the Word of God as the true means in which the Church engages culture.  He shared his passion for the purity of Christ’s bride and the dangers of a Church who bends and shapes itself to culture pointing out that, “those who hate God’s Truth won’t hate it any less just because you set it to hip hop beats or have a rock band presenting it.”

For me though, the most moving thing about the event were the testimonies shared after the concert by those in our church who went in skeptical of the event.  After Shai’s concert pastor Troy Debruin invited Shai out to share his testimony and then opened up the floor for any questions.  At one point Shai asked if anyone was there who was skeptical of the event.  He asked if they would share their thoughts on the concert having now experienced it.  Several shared their experiences and all of them were positive, but the one who stirred me the most was the congregant who said, “Westminster is very deliberate about making our sanctuary into a reverent place of worship.  I was most concerned about a lack of reverence in this concert.  However, after seeing it, I have to say this was one of the most moving events I’ve ever attended here.”  I couldn’t agree more.  I’ve been to hundreds of concerts in my lifetime of all sorts.  I’ve never seen a concert, even at Westminster, which had that level of both theological substance and reverence.  Shai wouldn’t agree with what I’m about to say as he’s made himself clear that his music is not intended to supplement preaching, but going to that concert in my mind equated to listening to an hour long sermon set to beats and bass lines.  It was truly an amazing event.

Check out Shai Linne’s music or read his blog, “Lyrical Theology“

Steve Nichols: Gheens Lectures at Southern Seminary

Steve Nichols: Gheens Lectures at Southern Seminary

I went to one of my favorite blogs, Between Two Worlds, to see what was new and Dr. Stephen J. Nichols was starring back at me! It’s good to see him getting recognition. We’re very blessed to have him as part of our local church congregation at Westminster Presbyterian Church and also as part of God’s Church. Tear it up, Nichols!

Posted using ShareThis

“A Case for Amillennialism”

I have to say, its rare that I recommend a book to someone and they actually do the work of finding and reading it.  So when the writer of “The Dysfunctional Parrot” actually informed me that he ordered “A Case for Amillennialism” by Kim Riddlebarger, I was quite pleased.  We have had some friendly discussion around eschatology in the past so I thought he would benefit from reading the book.  It turns out another commenter on his blog thought the same thing and ended up recommending the book as well.  Here we are a month or so later, and Dysfunctional Parrot has posted a great review of the book.  Does he end up pitching a tent around the Amillennial camp fire?  No not really.  What he does do is give an incredibly fair review of a book that defends a theological position that some in Fundamentalism would have you believe is a bunch of liberal ”over spititualized” hooey.  

‘Cause you know, no one has spread liberalism like St Augustine…

Happy Reformation Day

From Luther’s trial at the Diet of Worms:

“However, since I am a man and not God, I cannot provide my writings with any other defense than that which my Lord Jesus Christ provided for His teaching. When He had been interrogated concerning His teaching before Annas and had received a buffet from a servant, He said: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil.” If the Lord Himself, who knew that He could not err, did not refuse to listen to witness against His teaching, even from a worthless slave, how much more ought I, scum that I am, capable of naught but error, to seek and to wait for any who may wish to bear witness against my teaching.

And so, through the mercy of God, I ask Your Imperial Majesty, and Your Illustrious Lordships, or anyone of any degree, to defeat them by the writings of the Prophets or by the Gospels; for I shall be most ready, if I be better instructed, to recant any error, and I shall be the first in casting my writings into the fire. . . .”

Thereupon the Orator of the Empire, in a tone of upbraiding, said that his [Luther's] answer was not to the point, and that there should be no calling into question of matters on which condemnations and decisions had before been passed by Councils. He was being asked for a plain reply, without subtlety or sophistry, to this question: Was he prepared to recant, or no?

Luther then replied: “Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.

On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me.”

Walking through Heidelberg part 48

Lord’s Day 24

Q & A 62

Q. Why can’t the good we do
   make us right with God,
   or at least help make us right with him?

A. Because the righteousness
   which can pass God’s scrutiny
      must be entirely perfect
      and must in every way measure up to the divine law.^1
   Even the very best we do in this life
      is imperfect
      and stained with sin.^2

   ^1 Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:10 (Deut. 27:26)
   ^2 Isa. 64:6

Q & A 63

Q. How can you say that the good we do
   doesn’t earn anything
   when God promises to reward it
   in this life and the next?^1

A. This reward is not earned;
   it is a gift of grace.^2

   ^1 Matt. 5:12; Heb. 11:6
   ^2 Luke 17:10; 2 Tim. 4:7-8

Q & A 64

Q. But doesn’t this teaching
   make people indifferent and wicked?
   A. No.
   It is impossible
      for those grafted into Christ by true faith
   not to produce fruits of gratitude.^1

   ^1 Luke 6:43-45; John 15:5

The Scriptures say a lot about “good works” and how they aren’t really all that good.  The reason for this is because sin has so destroyed and stained mankind that any attempt at doing good is like someone killing your spouse and then turning around and giving you a puppy.  The offense that we’ve done to God through sin is so great that our attempts at doing good is pitiful at best.  They carry no merit with a perfect God who demands perfection.  Fortunately for the believer, we are covered in the righteousness of Christ.  Because of Christ’s righteousness we are now capable of bearing fruits that are pleasing to God.  They don’t add to our salvation since salvation is already achieved at the cross, but they bear testimony to the redeeming work of Christ in our lives.  Its because of this, good works become a necessary part of the Christian walk.  The confession rightly says, “It is impossible for those grafted into Christ by true faith not to produce fruits…”

Subscribing to Christian labels

In my trek to a reformed theology I’ve seen many Christians caught up on the subject of labels. For those who were raised with a reformed theology it doesn’t seem to be an issue. In my experience, it’s with those that come from a non-denominational camp that have the biggest bone to pick.

It’s not that hard to figure out either; for non-denominational people obscurity is in their very name (or label). If they took one class on Church history they’re bound to leave with a few foreign labels tied around their necks (e.g. reformed, Calvinist, Arminian, protestant, etc.). But they’d deny them all solely in favor of the Christian label. To me, this is contradictory; they’ve shed all labels to defend one they’ve deemed acceptable. What makes that particular one acceptable and all others unacceptable?

I actually embrace labels. But there was a short period in my youth where I didn’t even want to associate myself with the label of Christianity (gasp). It’s true. My entire reasoning rested upon the zealous antics of one Jerry Falwell. Even though in retrospect the late Mr. Falwell was a brother in Christ some of his more popularized opinions had me cringing (ahem, Teletubbies). Why would I, being a Christian, ever want to be associated with other asshole-Christians like Falwell? Not that Falwell was inherently an asshole-Christian, but at the time that was my thinking.

Now that I’ve grown up a little it’s easy for me to see I can’t escape asshole-ism in any large social group; it’s true with political parties, neighbors and even friends. Well, there’s that and the question of why I would abandon the Christian name to guys like Falwell instead of trying my best to reclaim it for Christ and restore some integrity to it. I find it’s more appropriate to use labels beyond the name of Christianity to separate myself from Falwell’s fundamental ways so as to not get caught in the same mold.

Even though my problem with labels wasn’t exactly the same as the one I’m talking about here I can relate to disassociating from an idea.

“… and ’tis always a defect in language, in such cases, to be obliged to make use of a description, instead of a name.”

What Jonathan Edwards is saying here is that it’s an abuse of the English language to not allow labels to encapsulate description. I believe he is showing labels in the appropriate light – that they merely describe and nothing more. They’re not something to live and die by as some do, but rather something to assist the majority in understanding what one believes. I for one take it as a courtesy to be able to understand where someone is coming from upon the declaration of Pentecostal, Baptist or reformed-charismatic. I’d find it annoying and a waste of time to sit through another Christian’s long explanation of their beliefs every time I wanted to get to know them better just as I’d find it annoying and a waste of time to explain all the attributes of the #6 combo meal when ordering instead of simply being able to say “I’ll have a #6, please”.

For those who don’t subscribe to labels it really isn’t helping other people much because the opposition will label them accordingly anyway. In a sense, one who does not subscribe to labels is in danger of being labeled (or therefore labels themselves). For instance, if I were to ask someone if they belonged to the Democratic party or the Republican party and they answered neither would the majority of Americans not call them a moderate? So we see that if one doesn’t subscribe to labels they inherently have subscribed to the label of “no labels” and in addition the opposition to whatever label they’re trying to avoid will naturally label them appropriately anyway.

Most Christians look to Edwards with great respect. He’s many pastors’ favorite theologian, including Dr. John Piper. I don’t bring this up to suggest we simply conform because a “real smart dude” embraces labels, but I am suggesting that if “real smart dude” does embraces labels and sees the opposition as a defect of language then we should at least consider that. Also, consider that every brilliant author on our bookshelves more than likely subscribe to an array of labels. If they don’t they’re surely in the minority and their book has had to subscribe to a few anyway.

Our world history and American history were really no different at churning out labels than our Church history was; however, our proximity to the border seems to take care of most discrepancies there. But why accept historical or cultural labels? We may call ourselves Americans because of citizenship, but within that why do we call ourselves Democrats or Republicans as opposed to anything else? Why are these labels unquestionably acceptable for even a Christian, but reformed, Calvinist or Arminian somehow are not? Is it because our reputation is at stake; after all, who wants to be known as unpatriotic?

With respect to the majority if one label is acceptable and another is not then we must conclude that the underlying idea of the acceptable label is more important or at least more protected than the underlying idea of the unacceptable label. In other words, if one is acceptably a Republican, but unacceptably a Calvinist (but they believe in both underlying ideas) then we must conclude that the Republican idea is more important to them than what they believe concerning the doctrine of irresistible grace. I’m sure someone will argue, but how would they be able to justify using the label of Republican, a label that hasn’t even been around as long as Calvinism? If the issue of rejecting labels is at hand then by default the issue of accepting labels is at hand. In this case, the label of Republican has been accepted by this person which begs us to ask by what standard it hasn’t been rejected. And then more importantly why the label of Arminian or Calvinist hasn’t meet that standard to the degree that Republican has.

It’s clear that the label of American is more defined within the label of Republican just as the label of Christian is more defined within the label of Calvinist or Arminian. Is it not more important to be clear about exactly who we are in Christ than it is to be clear about who we are in America or literally anything else for that matter? I don’t think so. I think we’d all agree that our Christianity is the most important thing in our lives. What then holds some Christians back from subscribing to the labels within as descriptors?

I believe the difference between an American label and a Christian label is moral superiority. If one is a different type of American from another it is perfectly acceptable (as America’s two-party system is acceptable), but if one is a different type of Christian from another it’s perfectly unacceptable (as Christians harboring division are unacceptable). Subscribing to a label within Christianity forces one to segregate themselves away from the majority that are simply believers in which case both sides see the opposition as smug or prideful, being morally superior. I find this to be understandable but only to a degree. There is a point at which we offend God in favor of not offending other Christians, but only if we believe there is one true religion and one true non-contradictory doctrine of that religion described in the Bible.

It makes more sense for those who believe the Bible is fallible and errant to reject all labels aside from Christianity than it does for a sola scriptura believing Christian to embrace them. If we’re confident about what we believe what difference does it make if we offend other Christians who hold opposing doctrinal viewpoints by utilizing a label to encapsulate a description when we already adhere to the underlying idea? But if we’re unsure of exactly what we believe or are postmodern in our thought it makes more sense to avoid all labels lest we’re put in the spotlight and have to answer for them.