Category: Theology

Classic Arm Chair Theology at its best (or should that read worst?)

Bible, the Sole Authority?

~ fundyreformed ~ 17 Comments

“The Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice.” I bet you have never heard that line before. Oh wait, if you are Baptist, you probably have.

Sadly, while many affirm this in principle, in practice they deny it. Tradition or culture often dictate a particular application of Bible principle. In the end, this application becomes Bible teaching and dogma. Alcohol, movies, pants on women, specific styles of music, specific translations of the Bible — the list of topics on which Scripture is “steered by tradition” could go on and on.

To compound this, doctrinal positions, where the Bible seems to allow for competing yet Biblically faithful interpretations, again morph into “its just plain Bible”. So if one doesn’t agree with a pre-trib rapture position, for example, he is rejecting the Bible; yet the facts of the matter stand differently. The one who denies a pre-trib rapture, only denies it on the basis of another Biblical position with various strong proof texts of its own. Of course only one end-times doctrine can be absolutely correct, but is it a sin to be wrong? And are we to be as dogmatic of our correctness on lesser points such as eschatology, as with major points like the Trinity and the Gospel?

All this comes from thinking about a fascinating look at church creeds by the always thought-provoking Carl Trueman. In an article called “A Good Creed Seldom Goes Unpunished” from the March 2007 issue of Reformation 21, Carl has the following insights into the “Bible only, we don’t need creeds” view.

On the issue of creeds, the evangelical world often seems absolutely divided into two broad camps: There are those who are so passionately committed to a particularly narrow view of scripture’s sufficiency that they not only deny the need for creeds and confessions but regard them as actually wrong, an illegitimate attempt to supplement scripture or to narrow the Christian faith in doctrinal or cultural ways beyond the limits set by scripture itself. Then there are those whose view of creeds and confessions is so high that any other theological statement, and sometimes even the Bible itself, seems to be of secondary importance. Neither group, I believe, really does the creeds justice.

I am very suspicious of both approaches. While I share the concern of the first group to safeguard the uniqueness of scripture and to avoid imposing my own cultural preferences and tastes on someone else under the guise of gospel truth, I have a sneaking suspicion that the cry of `No creed but the Bible!’ has often meant rather `I have my creed, but I’m not going to tell you what it is so that you can’t know what it is and thus cannot criticize it or me for holding it.’ Such is often the case with those evangelicals who reject creeds but have very definite views on the legitimacy of the consumption of alcohol and the nature of the end-times, for example. In practice, they effectively allow for no hypothetical distinction between what the Bible says and their own, or their church’s, interpretation of the same. Thus, they render themselves immune to any criticism. Further, as soon as they use words such as `Trinity’ or even consult a commentary, they reveal that what they say about their relationship to tradition and what they actually do in practice with tradition are in conflict. (HT: The Journeymen)

As I have stated above, I think Trueman hits the nail on the head with this issue. (Be sure to read the entire article.) We need to be careful to recognize our tendency to bring culture, and preconceptions to the Biblical text. Let us be silent where Scripture is silent, and cautious when the issues are truly complex. Let’s respect God’s Word and not presume to speak for It.

Powerful Preaching? — A Case Study

~ fundyreformed ~ 23 Comments

One of my favorite posts on this blog, was one I did in March 2006 on fundamentalist preaching: Stomping Toes and Stomping Souls: The Moralistic Bent to Fundamentalist Preaching. The title might overstate my case a little, but the problem is all too real.

Recently, someone posted a smart comment on that post, lamenting that I hadn’t listened to the fundamentalist sermons I heard in college. That is not the first negative comment I’ve received from that post.

It is quite polarizing, in part, I believe, due to the subject matter. Anytime someone attempts to criticize preaching or preachers, he is sure to reap righteous indignation. To an extent, this is admirable.

I may not have come across as humble enough in my first critique on this subject. I do hold strongly to my opinion on this subject, as I believe much damage is being done in the name of “powerful preaching”. In this post, I hope to provide a case study to show what exactly I mean by “moralism”, and what exactly I find problematic with fundamentalist preaching. I would encourage you to read that first post, though, as background for this one.

Thesis

Here is my primary point: preaching that majors on heaping guilt on the hearers in an attempt to motivate them to do better is not “powerful”. It is possibly moralistic, and it is likely carnal. This preaching does more harm than good. Unfortunately it is quite common in fundamentalism, although it can be found in many other circles as well.

Case Study

Here is the passage for our case study: Mark 15:32-42. We will focus on Jesus’ admonition in vs. 38: “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak.” You know the story, Jesus’ disciples had fallen asleep when they should have been praying. Jesus admonishes them to watch and pray. And yet when he returns from another prayer session, he finds the disciples asleep again.

Now let me develop 2 approaches to this passage, which might easily be found in a Sunday morning message. In comparing and contrasting these approaches, I hope my point about moralistic sermons will come home.

A Moralistic Approach

This message would major on the commands “watch and pray”. It would highlight the results of either obeying or disobeying the commands. It would imply that most or all of the listeners have failed miserably in this respect. Based on “the flesh is weak”, the message would set up the listeners to expect to have to struggle in this area. The message would end by calling the listeners to do better and pray more. People might be encouraged to come forward and make decisions to rededicate themselves to fervent prayer, or to confess their failures to pray and vow to change.

This kind of message might be labelled “toe-stomping” or “hard hitting”, as the preacher might very well drive his point home forcefully through screaming, theatrical antics, or tear-jerking illustrations. The listeners would leave the message acutely aware of their guilt and mindful of the preacher’s challenge that they watch and pray much better than they have before.

A Christ-Centered Approach

This message would again stress the commands “watch and pray”. Yet it would also give the fuller context of the passage. The disciples did not watch and pray, whereas Jesus did. Jesus would be shown to be absolutely faithful, whereas even heroes of the Christian faith, the disciples, are seen to be very weak and unfaithful. The message would stress that it is important to watch and pray, as a failure to do so leads to temptation, even as illustrated by the desertion of Christ by these very disciples. Yet the message would stress Christ’s kindhearted response to this lack of faithfulness on the disciples’ part. Rather than harshly rebuking them the second time He found them sleeping, he acknowledged their weakness. He had said the “flesh is weak”.

The message would go on to stress that our very weakness, what makes it so difficult to watch and pray, is that for which Christ died. Jesus knows we are weak, and so Jesus prays for us, even when we don’t. The ultimate victory over temptation is won because Jesus overcame the world, not because we have the innate ability to. We can win, when we depend on Christ and the victory He purchased. The message would end with a call to depend on Christ more in the area of prayer. It would encourage people to trust Jesus and His faithfulness, even as it would call on the hearers to excercise more faith in watching and praying more faithfully.

The message might not be very “hard hitting”, but it would be encouraging and uplifting. The preacher may well get excited as he proclaims Christ’s faithfulness and work on our behalf, but he would be unlikely to scream at or belittle the hearers for their lack of faithfulness in prayer. The listeners would leave the message in a thankful and worshipful state of mind, as they ponder how wonderful is Christ’s faithfulness and work on their behalf, weak and sinful though they be. They would determine to love Christ more and desire to be more faithful in their prayer lives.

I hope this case study proves helpful. I hope that preachers will aim to proclaim the glories and faithfulness of Christ more consistently. We need to realize that in every step of our Christian life we need to trust Jesus more fully. He can help us obey, and it is because of Him that we can. Believers need to be reminded of these truths. They need to be pointed to Christ and encouraged to trust in Him more. They don’t need to have guilt heaped upon them without an offer of hope. There is no hope if I have to depend on my own determination to do better. There is plenty of hope, inexhaustible hope, if I am encouraged to lean on the work Jesus has done for me.

Related Posts

Stomping Toes and Stomping Souls: The Moralistic Bent to Fundamentalist Preaching

Moralism and Christ-less Sermons

Powerful Thoughts on Preaching

“The Christ of the Covenants” by O. Palmer Robertson

~ Bob Hayton ~ 16 Comments

This is a review I’ve been meaning to write for some time. My brother gave me this book, back when I was a fairly new convert to covenant theology (or better a new ex-dispensationalist), a couple years ago. With my poor reading habits, I started (and sometimes finished), a good many other books before I actually finished reading this one. Don’t get me wrong, I love books and I love reading. I just am not as disciplined a reader as I should be.

Anyways, this book is not a covenantal theology manual, as some might suspect. The Christ of the Covenants, by O. Palmer Robertson, is a book about the many Scriptural covenants: the covenant with Noah, Abraham, and David, to name a few. Robertson departs from many covenant theologians in refusing to call the pre-Creation Divine determination to redeem fallen man an actual covenant, even as he argues for the basic correctness of the covenantal position on Israel and the church.

What this book does best is show how the covenants (and not dispensations) truly structure Scripture. Indeed without understanding the covenants, one will inevitably fail to understand much of Scripture.

Being raised a dispensationalist, I had a somewhat vague understanding that there are several covenants mentioned in Scripture. But I never understood how important and influential they really are. Interestingly, in an excursus focusing on dispensationalism, Robertson compares the Old and New Scofield Bibles and shows that contemporary dispensationalism now also emphasizes the importance of the Biblical covenants.

Starting with the basics, Robertson defines the term “covenant” against the backdrop of ancient middle-eastern covenants. He concludes that in Scripture a covenant is “a bond in blood sovereignly administered.” Robertson delves into the technical discussions surrounding this concept, but at the same time manages to keep it somewhat simple. A relationship is established unilaterally, and loyalty is demanded on pain of death.

Robertson moves on to discuss the extent, the unity and the diversity of the Biblical covenants. He makes a good case for understanding the Gen. 1-2 in terms of a covenant of creation, citing Jeremiah 33 and Hosea 6:7 as proof. He contends that after the fall, the Biblical story is a progression of covenants each more specific and more glorious, culminating in the new covenant which was begun and inaugurated with the death of Christ. Yet he maintains that there are important differences worth noting between the covenants, and particularly between the Law and the new covenant.

Then he begins a discussion of all the important Biblical covenants, starting with the covenant of creation. He admits that the focus of that covenant is on the prohibition concerning eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but claims the covenant establishes a gracious relationship whereby man is called to rule God’s creation and given instruction concerning marriage and Sabbath observance (he contends that there is a binding Sabbath principle to be observed on Sundays still today). He rightly emphasizes that ignoring the foundational teaching of how man should relate with the rest of creation has negatively impacted how Christians relate with and think about culture today.

Then he takes up the covenant of redemption which he sees as started in Gen. 3:15, and progressively developed through the covenant with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and then the new covenant. He develops each covenant insightfully, focusing on the Scriptural passages which establish the covenant idea, and applying important truths in a fresh way for all of us today. His discussion of the new covenant, and particularly Jer. 31:3-34, is particularly rich and insightful.

That is Robertson’s book. Except I should note he stresses how the idea and promise of Christ is developed through each covenant. And he also has a great excursus chapter on dispensationalism. In that chapter he tries to show how dispensationalism has grown and changed. He finds contradictions within the system, however, and argues the point that dispensationalism depends on a false dualistic view that the physical and the spiritual must necessarily be distinguished. His chapter on dispensationalism (a mere 26 pages in length) alone is worth the price of the book. It would be well for those studying out the dispensational/covenant theology debate to listen to Robertson’s insights. Perhaps I will try to flesh out the arguments in that chapter in a later post.

In conclusion, I highly recommend Robertson’s book. After 300 pages one gets a thorough education in the Biblical covenants. At times it may be difficult reading, but the rewards gained are worth the effort spent. Mostly, Robertson has a gift for cutting to the heart of the matter. And a detailed study on the nature and teaching of the Biblical covenants demands the attention of any Biblical student. This book will help you understand Scripture better, and will increase your wonder at the glorious workings in God’s plan of redemption.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com, or direct from P & R Publishing.

God & The Virginia Tech Massacre

~ fundyreformed ~ 13 Comments

Like most of you, I was saddened with the news of the Virginia Tech Massacre. 32 people tragically killed — an unthinkable and senseless act indeed.

I watched the afternoon service held at the University yesterday afternoon. There was not much hope offered. No one really made sense of the devastation. The Virginia Governor brought in some Scriptural allusions. He even brought up Christ’s suffering on the cross. President Bush mentioned faith, and cited a verse or two. The Jewish lady rabbi quoted Ecclesiastes 3. The Muslim cleric had a fairly long and thoughtful speech, that I thought was quite good.

Sadly, there wasn’t a distinctly Christian message of hope to be heard. There wasn’t a Christian message to answer a question that must be plaguing the minds of countless VT students this week: “Where was God then? Where is God now?”

So how do we as Christians respond to such a tragedy? Well, it goes without saying that we can pray. And with such a gripping story with such a terrifying reality, we should pray for an especially strong end-result. We should pray that God would use this event to turn many to Christ, to cause many to begin to seek God and ponder the questions of death and eternity, right and wrong, love and hate.

We should also be ready with answers. God was there at Virginia Tech on Monday. He is there this morning. God works all things according to his own will. But His ways are much higher than ours. We don’t know what good will come from this, but Scripture teaches God allows evil to bring about good. In fact, he is always working things together for good to those who love Him and are his chosen people (Rom. 8:28). At the end of this post, I’ll provide some links to online resources on the topic of God and suffering.

Third, we should reach out and love those affected by this tragedy. Christians are to comfort those who mourn. We have the message of the gospel with its unlimited and boundless hope. So we should be all the more eager to lift up those hurt with tragedies and pain around us.

Most of us are not immediately near the tragedy in Virginia, but we know countless lesser tragedies and rub shoulders with other hurting people in our own communities. And if we don’t know hurting people now, we will soon enough. As we make an effort to love the hurting, we will find opportunities to answer the tough questions, and share the blessed and hope-filled gospel of Jesus Christ.

So I close by encouraging us to reach out and comfort the hurting around us, to be ready with Christian answers to the tough questions, and to earnestly pray for those affected by the Virginia Tech massacre. Specifically pray for the ministry of Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church in Blacksburg, as well as other Christian churches in the area. Let me leave you with the words of the African Benediction (see above link for more on this), as well as the links I promised.

Minister: All our problems . . .
People: We send them to the cross of Christ!
Minister: All our difficulties . . .
People: We send them to the cross of Christ!
Minister: All the devil’s work . . .
People: We send them to the cross of Christ!
Minister: All our hopes . . .
People: We set on the risen Christ!
Minister: Christ, the Son of Righteousness, shine upon you and scatter the darkness from before your path: and the blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, be among you and remain with you, forever and ever. Amen.

———————————————————–

God's Fatherhood & Resurrection Day

~ fundyreformed

  

I recently received my free copy of the April/May issue of By Faith (the magazine of the PCA). I am thoroughly pleased with the magazine, but that’s beside our point here. In an article entitled “Our First Priority should be to Extend Our Life-Consuming Mission: God’s Kingdom to the Ends of the Earth” by Dr. Richard Pratt, I read the following story:

  

I had the privilege of being in Indonesia two days after the great tsunami struck Indonesia, Thailand, and Sri Lanka in December 2004. While I was there, I spoke with a number of Muslims about the terrible tragedy that had come upon that great island nation. I always asked them two basic questions. First, I asked, “Do you believe God had anything to do with this tsunami?” Their answer was predictable. “Yes, of course. Allah is in control of everything. Everything happens in-sha’a Allah [as Allah wills].” But then I followed with a second question: “Do you find any comfort from God when you pray?” Every person I asked replied in much the same way. They laughed and said, “I pray now even more than I used to, but I don’t find any comfort. All I pray is, ‘Please, don’t send a tsunami to destroy me, too.'” Although there are exceptions, mainline Islam teaches that God is so transcendent, so distant, that He does not care tenderly about us. In fact, most Muslims think it blasphemy to speak of God as “our Father.” How sad.

Jesus’ opening to the Lord’s Prayer reminds us of the good news that we bring to so many in the world today. God becomes the loving Father of all who come to Him by faith in Christ.

God’s Fatherhood

The above story causes me to stop and think of the wonder that Almighty God is my Father. What a joy to know that the Holy Spirit works in me to cause me to cry, “Abba! Father!” (Rom. 8:15). We should literally be amazed that Jesus instructed us to pray, “Our Father…”. “See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God.” (1 Jn. 3:1) May God receive more praise and honor as we learn to love and trust Him more, even as He truly is our loving Father.

The author of the article, however, pointed out something else significant about God being our Father. He says,

Although there are evangelicals who think of God as too transcendent, most of us today have been so influenced by the narcissistic, self-absorbed ethos of modern Western culture that we have the opposite problem. When we hear “Our Father,” we tend to think of God as if He were a sweet grandfather….

In other words, some of us have a hard time conceiving of God as our loving Father, instead we might think of Him as a taskmaster, or even just a remote deity. Others have a hard time thinking of God as more than a Father. We readily see him as our friend and helper, but can’t really picture Him as our Lord and Master. I would add that the culture of contemporary evangelicalism predisposes us toward this second error, while the culture of contemporary fundamentalism (especially hyper fundamentalism) predisposes us toward the first error.

Both of these errors are detrimental to our spiritual life. Understanding and appreciating God’s Fatherhood can free us to serve joyfully and love Him more fully. Remembering God’s Sovereignty should make us wonder and praise Him all the more that He still is our loving Father. Truly the Christian doctrine of the Fatherhood of God is wonderful and sweet. I cannot do it justice in these few sentences here.

The Resurrection and God’s Fatherhood

Most evangelicals don’t really think of God the Father much at all on Easter. The focus is Jesus and His triumph over death (and rightly so). Yet Resurrection Day has much to teach us of God our Father.

I do pity the Muslims who cannot conceive of God as a loving Father of His children. But the Muslim reaction to the Resurrection can serve to teach us Christians a thing or two. Their reaction is one of complete shock and utter horror.

“God would let His Son (or His Prophet) be humiliated and tortured, yea even killed? How unthinkable!”

The words of Jesus on the cross “Father, forgive them…” are even more unthinkable. In the Muslim mind, honor is preeminent (this is sorely lacking in Western society). And God must preserve His honor!

It would do us well to think long and hard over their reaction. Yes indeed, God was and is outraged that people would so harm His Beloved Son. The wrath of God will be poured out without measure on the ungodly, and rightly so.

Yet God is not only higher than humans, he is better than them. Sure, a natural and sinful earthly Father will seek retribution and revenge on any who would dare harm his precious child. It would be natural for us to expect God to react similarly. The glory of Easter, however, is that God is love.

In love, God poured out the horrible and destestable sins of all the elect upon His Son Jesus. And God asked and willed for His Son to endure all of God’s wrath deserved for those sins. God had a hand in the torture of His own Son.

Why? To what end? God did this to redeem a people unto Himself “” to become our loving Father! In the travesty surrounding the death of Jesus, God made room for us to be His children! What wonder. Truly God’s wisdom appears to be foolishness to natural man (1 Cor. 1). Why did God need to go to such lengths to accomplish the redemption of His people? How could God endure the wickedness of sinners as they crucified His Son? What about God’s honor?

God receives more honor, as One who patiently endures evil until the day when He will finally settle the score, than One who quickly loses patience with sinful man. And God receives more honor in his loving and gracious offer of the gospel to all men (even those who hate Him), than One who simply watches out for His friends. God received great honor in the loving obedience unto death, that Jesus accomplished, as He paid the blood price for God’s children, and His bride.

So the next time you are thankful that God is your loving and caring Father, remember all that God suffered for you, in the death of His Beloved Son, to make this relationship possible. Ultimately, God receives all the praise for becoming our Father. That the Creator should stoop to become a Father, is truly marvelous. And it does not speak at all of our innate worth. Rather it shows how wonderful and marvelous, yea gracious, our great God truly is. Praise Him, today, for His loving gift of the Resurrection and the relationship it secured.