Category: Theology

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

Christian Confession: A Look at 1 John 1:9

~ fundyreformed ~ 2 Comments

Have you ever wondered what it means for Christians to seek forgiveness? I mean, didn’t we already get forgiven when we got saved?

Well, Reformation Theology has the answer for us. They posted a great post which looks in depth at 1 John 1:9 and defends the traditional Christian view of this passage against new and contrary interpretations. I encourage you to look at the post, it will both  bless and inform you.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Christians, Contraceptives and Children

~ fundyreformed ~ 9 Comments

Be fruiful and multiply...I recently came across an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal on evangelicals and contraception (HT: Sharper Iron Filings). Let me provide some excerpt and then pose some questions.

A Harris Poll conducted online in September 2005 shows that evangelicals overwhelmingly support birth control (88%).

A recent New York Times article on the subject, it is true, quoted Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, saying that the separation between sex and procreation caused by contraceptives is “ominous.” But he also went on to say that “evangelical couples may, at times, choose to use contraceptives in order to plan their families and enjoy the pleasures of the marital bed.”…

Protestants’ acceptance of contraception has a relatively short history. The 1930 Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops was the first Christian church body to authorize the use of contraceptives within marriage, even as it condemned certain motives for using it, like “selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.” The introduction of the birth control pill in the 1950s and 1960s offered “free love” to society at large; married evangelicals embraced its convenience and effectiveness. …

A minority movement within evangelical circles… oppose(s) contraception not merely on pro-life grounds but also on the grounds that artificial contraception inhibits the possibility of children, in effect, offering a “thanks, but no thanks” (or at least “not right now”) response to God’s blessing to “be fruitful and multiply.”…For those who marry, the “my body, my choice” attitude contributes to a contraception culture that places fulfillment of personal desires ahead of God’s desires.

Some evangelicals charge that the Pill has contributed to the moral breakdown of society; perhaps, but evangelicals’ embrace of the contraception culture has not helped. It may have made Christianity sexier to potential adherents but diminished a public understanding of marriage in the process. For evangelicals, this may be a bitter pill to swallow.

Why do you use contraceptives?

Is convenience or lifestyle motivating your decisions? Do you view children as a hassle rather than a blessing? Are you trying to avoid the responsibility and difficulty of raising a family for God? Have you thought through your decision from a Biblical perspective, or are you just going with the flow?

Are you using birth control to best provide for the largest family possible, or are you merely trying to stick to a self-determined number of children. Are you intending to have a large family since God explicitly teaches that a large family is a blessing from God?

Do you know what Scripture teaches about children?

Have you studied all that Scripture teaches about children? Do you know that the Bible abundantly proclaims that a large family is a blessing from God? Do you wonder why women today choose to be barren whereas women in the Bible viewed barrenness as a curse and sought help from God when barren? Have you considered that God wants to redeem a people (not individuals) to Himself: that His covenant extends “to you and your children”?

Rebecca received this blessing from her family before leaving to become Isaac’s wife: “Be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate…” . Does this surprise or shock you? Why would such a blessing be so unpopular today? Do you look down on people with large families, as if they are just lazy or stupid or something?

What about the pill?

Are you aware that the pill is sometimes an abortifacient: that it often (once a year or more, even) does not prevent ovulation but rather prevents a fertilized egg from impanting into the uterus. Do you know that the scientific community has radically redefined the term conception?

Finally, will you purpose to consider this issue from a Biblical perspective?

Will you be willing to follow the leading of God and His Word despite how it may affect you personally? Will you be willing to respect children more and view large families in a positive light? Will you seek to appropriate God’s blessing of children in more intentional ways (perhaps even through adoption)?

For Further Study

Note: The following articles take different positons on this issue. Yet each takes a high view of Scripture. I think there is freedom to disagree on the issue, but not freedom to think secularly on the issue. Whatever we decide let us make the decision as a Christian and in accord with Scripture. To that end, the following articles may prove useful.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Free Grace meet Faith & Practice

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

Faith and PracticeThis is a quick post to recommend two great articles on Free Grace Theology over at Faith and Practice. Matt Waymeyer has taken that system of theology to task in what I believe are two very important articles.

Never heard of Free Grace Theology? Think easy believism. Think “no repentance needed for salvation”. Think 1-2-3 repeat after me. Well, maybe not that last one, but the other lines adequately describe this theological system. It is the view that a bare faith alone saves, and when I say “bare” I mean “bare”. I blogged a little about this earlier in my post entitled: “Once Saved, Always Saved?!?!?” There I highlighted how proponents of this view literally believe that someone can renounce the faith moments after getting saved, walk away from Christianity never to return, become a leading atheist, and still get to heaven. To learn more of this system check out Grace Evangelical Society, their statement of faith, and this “answer” to the question “What do you mean by Free Grace Theology?”

This veiw of salvation seems to have some Scriptural support, and its proponents are masters at reinterpreting texts. I am sure there are many good people (and genuinely saved, born again people) who are confused by this system and hold to it with fervor. They are wrong and the system, I believe is very dangerous.

Before I go on endlessly with my opinions, let me refer you to these recent and excellent posts by Matt Waymeyer. First, he looked at Acts 17:30-31 and masterfully defused the free grace attempts to make this passage mean something else than its apparently obvious meaning. That post alone refutes the basic premise of the whole doctrinal system. Then, he followed it up with a good treatment of 1 Cor. 15:1-5 which points out something fairly basic about that passage which undermines key elements of free grace theology.

I just had to get in one other link. This is to a more in-depth and detailed discussion of free grace theology from someone with much experience with this teaching (as the author was himself in a church which taught this system). Reformation Theology posted a link to this guy’s (Phillip Simpson) paper, and I refer you to that post.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Moralism and Christ-less Sermons

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

As long as the preaching is HOT, anything goes.... Right?

Fundamentalists love preaching. Most love it hot and heavy. We enjoy getting our toes stomped and our hearts tugged. We thrive on a sin-naming, righteousness-exalting, hell fire & brimstone, Bible-packed preaching!

So what does this post and it’s title have to do with preaching? Well, let me explain, if I may.

Remember our recent posts on wine? It was a topic here (see this post and that post) and also at Thirsty Theologian, Captain Headknowledge, and The World from Our Window. The last blog mentioned above is the one that spurred me on to do the posts on the subject at this time. Ken Fields was asking some questions and I tried to give some answers. Well, in subsequent posts Ken continued to discuss the issue. And then Billy Sunday was mentioned. Yes the beer-blasting, booze-battling, liquor-loathing, wine-hating, fiery, evangelist Billy Sunday. The world remembers him for his contribution to Prohibition and most fundamentalists remember him for that signature style–oh! and also for his gospel campaigns and numerical results. He was a preacher of yesteryear who was not afraid to call sin sin, and who also loved Jesus so much he did everything (including foam at the mouth and act like a nut) to get the message of salvation out.

And Billy Sunday’s mention resulted in this post by Ken Fields: Billy Sunday, Alcohol, and Moralism: A Fundamentalist’s Conundrum. He highlighted that Billy Sunday’s most famous sermon “Boston Booze” contained no mention of Christ, only one mention of sin or grace, and little mention of God. Of course it majored on the evils of booze. Ken found the sermon and the legacy of Sunday’s “moralistic” preaching troubling. And rightly so, although we should specify that Sunday was known for more than just moralism, and many were converted in Christ-exalting, Christ-focused sermons. But still, this kind of preaching which Sunday evidenced in at least one sermon, and which other fundamentalists’ have made all too common is very troubling.

I mentioned this very kind of preaching in a previous post, provocatively titled “Stomping Toes and Stomping Souls: The Moralistic Bent of Fundamentalist Preaching”. I pointed out that preaching against sin without a tie in to the gospel can be dangerous. Christ-less sermons should always be seen as dangerous. The problem is that apart from Christ there is no possibility of righteousness, no hope of acceptance with God, and so flesh-driven, self-reliant, moralism is an enemy of the Gospel. And sermons about moral virtues, character, and righteous living that do not reiterate that we are unable to attain the standards of God and thus need Christ, do more harm often than they do good. Many a person “pulls himself up with his bootstraps” and “grits his teeth” and determines to toe the line. In some circles the line is full of extra-Biblical standards. And this man does it! He does it all in his own strength, completely opposite of the teaching of:

Gal. 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Well, I gave Ken a big amen, and he was even linked to by Sharper Iron (in its filings). The ensuing thread at Sharper Iron attracted quite a few Sunday defenders. And most missed the whole point of Ken’s post. This prompted him to spit out another entitled aptly “More on Moralism in the Pulpit”. There he made it as clear as he could: “ALCOHOL IS NOT THE ISSUE, MORALISM IS!”

If you are interested in how the thread at Sharper Iron turned out, the discussion is continuing. Check it out, but especially notice my latest comment.

UPDATE: Ken Fields posted a follow up where he gives a long quote by Bryan Chapell from his book Christ Centered Preaching. I do not actually have the book, although I have flipped through it before. It is a great book which makes the point in these posts much better than I do. Anyway go over and read Ken’s post: Sub-Christian Messages in Preaching.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Ken has given us yet another post with an excellent quote from Jay Adams on this very issue. Be sure to check that post out!

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

5 Months in 1 Sermon: Piper on the Gospels & Justification

~ fundyreformed ~ 10 Comments

This past Sunday was a special day. For the second year in a row, we had a combined service in the parking lot of the new building for our north campus. There easily could have been around 4,000 people there in attendance and it was exciting to be together worshipping God with one voice. And John Piper was back! He again thanked us for his sabbatical, and then delivered a great message.

As is typical upon his return from a writing leave, Piper preached a message birthed from his thoughts and labor over the writing of his books during the past few months. As soon as the sermon is posted onine at Desiring God, I plan to link to it. [update, it is posted now, read it by clicking here. Also, Justin Taylor recently provided the link to the audio, in a recent post providing an excerpt from this same sermon.] But I couldn’t wait until then to comment on it. The sermon’s text was Luke 18:9-14, the parable of the Pharisee and tax collector. While his main point had to do with his book on Justification’s importance (an answer to N.T. Wright), he also touched on a topic relative to his other book on the demands of Jesus in the Gospels. I want to discuss both of these points below.

The Gospels

Piper stressed that in going through all of Jesus’ commands in the Gospels, he discovered one very important consideration. You must read the Gospels backward. By this he meant that you must always keep in mind that Christ was coming to die and shed His blood to provide for our justification and redemption. This thought really riveted me, as I will explain in a second, but first we must look to his proof.

Piper showed that each of the Biblical writers of the Gospels had clues in their book that this was the case. Matthew, Luke, and John all have such clues at the beginning of their works: Matt. 1:21, Luke 2:10-11, & John 1:29. And for Mark, the very structure of his book trumpets this fact. His book spends half of its chapters dealing with the very last week of Jesus’ life. I would marshall a few other considerations to defend Piper’s point. One, Mark 1:1 would be in the vein of the opening declarations in Matthew, Luke, and John mentioned above. But, secondly, consider that all of these Gospels were written several years (30 to 50 or more) after Jesus’ life. Certainly as the writers themselves had been experiencing the new covenant blessings bought by Christ’s death, they were writing in light of them. They were not out to give a historical biography primarily, rather they were trying to give a thematic biography centering on Jesus’ gospel/the gospel of Christianity–which centered on Christ’s atoning work on the Cross and His resurrection. That is why each of those books begins with the title, “The Gospel according to…”.

This truth, that the everything in the Gospels has the cross ultimately in view, has some astounding implications. Piper stressed one of them. Namely, that Jesus’ commands are not suggestions for living a blessed life. They are not a creed for having a successful Business. (Piper was pretty emphatic on this, saying it made him sick that people use Christ’s teaching as a basis for business success, when they really need to hear Christ’s message and be saved.) Neither are they requirements for living the kind of life that will let you in to heaven. Rather, the commands first highlight your guilt in the fact that you cannot keep them, and then they point you to dependence on the only one who can keep them–Jesus Christ. Further, they are given with the seeking and saving ministry of Christ fulfilled on the Cross in view.

Another implication that I immediately considered has to do with a proper hermeneutical approach. Dispensationalists often emphasize that Christ came to offer his kingdom first and then being rebuffed, went to the Cross. Now some make it seem like His purposes were thwarted, while others emphasize that He knew all along that he would be rejected, but in either case this view leads to such extremes as a hyper dispensationalism which disallows virtually any application of the Gospels to our Christian life today, and free grace theology which declares that Christ’s hard sayings in the gospels are not for us today–they have no bearing on what is necessary for salvation in this dispensation. Not all who hold those extreme views would say it exactly as I do above, but many think that way, I am sure. This is where reading the Gospels backward seems to demolish these views. Every chapter of the Gospels has the end of Christ’s life in view–in the author’s mind, and even in Christ’s mind for he is speaking and working to that end. This should at the least inform our hermeneutic. And it might help us avoid some of the extremes birthed from an incorrect view of the Gospels.

Justification

The core of the message centered on the doctrine of justification. From the first and last verses in the story, Piper concludes it is clear the passage is about justification. But he made an important assessment of the passage which has great bearing on N.T. Wright and his doctrinal teachings concerning justification.

Piper sees no reason to doubt the Pharisee’s self assessment. He had a righteousness which was moral, ceremonial, and God-given. Piper highlighted the words “God, I thank you that…”. While we cannot say for sure if the Pharisee was a synergist or monergist, Arminian or Calvinist, clearly he attributed his righteousness to God and not his own self merit. So Piper argues the Pharisee is NOT a legalist. He was not working for his salvation, he saw his works as being given graciously from God.

But he WAS trusting in his righteousness to secure his standing before God–this much Christ makes clear. N.T. Wright and a rapidly increasing number of theologians are saying that our Christ-wrought righteousness is the very basis of our acceptance with God/our justification. Yet this passage teaches that it is not a God-given righteousness in which we should trust, but rather we should be looking away from ourselves and trusting/pleading for God’s mercy as the publican does. This is not to say God-given righteousness is not important, but it is to say that looking at the righteousness as our surety is not only wrong but perilously so.

With sadness, Piper concluded the message emphasizing four words Christ spoke: “rather than the other”. Piper said he can see no reason for those four words in v. 14 other than Christ making it absolutely clear what we should expect of the Pharisee and others who “(trust) in themselves that they (are) righteous”, namely that they are not justified and have no place in heaven. Piper made it clear that he would rather not think such of those who disagree with the historic doctrine of justification–for he knows many people who do; but this passage forces him too. He also made it clear that he believes some who follow this new teaching do not really believe it, but sadly others like the Pharisee do. It was a sobering message, for sure, and a foretaste of his book which hopefully will be published soon.